2016 Regional Growth Strategy Referral Staff Report

Planning and Development Report

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: January 3, 2017 FROM: Lindsay Chase MEETING: January 10, 2017

2016 Regional Growth Strategy Referral

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT “Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1, 2016” not be accepted;

AND THAT Council objects to Map 3: Regional Growth Management Concept Plan and policy statements as they imply a hierarchy between the Regional Growth Strategy and Local Government planning.

AND THAT Council objects to provisions 2.2.2 and 2.2.4 for the following reasons:

• That provision of water service will increase sprawl in rural areas and is contrary to the objectives of the overall Regional Growth Strategy which supports complete and compact communities
• That additional development on Rural and Resource Lands is at the expense of development on lands within the Urban Containment Boundary
• That additional residential development on rural and resource lands will contribute to further transportation challenges in the region, and does not allow for efficient public transportation, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and does not provide for jobs/housing balance
• That rural development will further contribute to GHG emissions by creating a high-carbon built form

AND THAT Council objects to Chapter 6 (Food Systems) in its entirety for the following reasons:

• the policies, outcomes and potential services from the CRD are vague, there is no agricultural land in View Royal and the long term costs for services are unclear.

AND THAT Council is willing to see Chapter 6 (Food Systems) be included in the Regional Growth Strategy on the basis that the provision will not apply within the Town of View Royal.

AND THAT Council encourages recognition in the Regional Growth Strategy that the Capital Regional District occupies the lands and territories of a number of First Nations and that First Nations be engaged to determine if and how they might participate in any activities related to the Regional Growth Strategy.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide Council an opportunity to review the 2016 Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw and to have Council provide a resolution with respect to acceptance or non-acceptance of the 2016 Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw.

TIME CRITICAL:

YES. The referral period ends on February 1, 2017. If the Town of View Royal does not respond by that date we are deemed to have accepted the Regional Growth Strategy.

BACKGROUND DISCUSSION:

The review of the 2002 Regional Growth Strategy has been ongoing for several years. After an earlier draft was rejected by the Board, CRD staff have made significant revisions. Town staff have brought forward several reports with respect to the process and key policy areas that needed early and ongoing engagement or direction with/from Council. A draft of the 2016 Regional Growth Strategy is attached for Council review (Attachment 1).

Excerpts from the Local Government Act are included as an attachment (Attachment 2). The legislation sets out the options that Council has (to accept, or to not accept the proposed bylaw). If Council votes to not accept the proposed bylaws, this must indicate each provision to which it objects; include reasons for its objection; and whether it is willing that a provision to which it objects be included in the regional growth strategy on the basis that the provision will not apply to its jurisdiction.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

The 2016 Draft Regional Growth Strategy includes the amendment that Council considered and accepted with respect to the Langford/Metchosin/Beecher Bay treaty lands.

Much like a review of an Official Community Plan (OCP), a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) must include content specified in the Local Government Act. This includes content related to: housing; transportation; regional district services; parks and natural areas; economic development; and to the extent that these are regional matters, targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The 2016 Draft Regional Growth Strategy includes all of this required content and includes content outside of these requirements, specifically content related to Food Systems.

Staff review of the draft bylaw was completed from two different perspectives. The initial review was completed with an emphasis on content that would have direct impact on the Town. The second round of review was completed on the basis of policy changes that would impact lands outside the Town, and these impacts would have implications for the Town.

Policy with Direct Impact on the Town

One issue that continues to challenge staff and the public is with respect to mapping in the RGS –particularly the scale of the mapping that is provided by the CRD. Due to the scale of the maps, it is not entirely clear which land use designation applies to a given parcel. An excerpt of Map 3: Growth Management Concept Plan is provided as Attachment 3 at a scale that better illustrates that Policy Areas that have been applied to View Royal.

Staff notes that the policy statements about the different mapping designations seem to imply hierarchy, specifically with respect to areas designated as Growth Policy Area and how these relate to Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands. Staff are concerned that this means that an official community Plan amendment or a rezoning would not be possible on these lands without an RGS amendment as well.

For the areas highlighted on Attachment 3, these designations are not consistent with tenure and the fee simple ownership of these parcels. The lands incorrectly designated as Renewable Resource Lands are in fact part of the Island Highway and Trans Canada Highway and may have future uses that are inconsistent with this policy designation. The highway and interchange should be included in the Growth Policy Area designation. The former PCC lands should also be included in the Growth Policy Area designation. The Town’s zoning and Official Community Plan will continue to apply to these lands.

The only options open to Council at this time is to object to Map 3 or to accept Map 3 as presented. The areas in question on the maps are marked.

The remaining substantive change to Map 3 is the alignment of the Growth Boundary in that document with the urban containment boundary in the Town’s Official Community Plan. This policy change will confirm the direction of the OCP to limit additional development capacity in the Mill Hill area.

The other substantive changes in the RGS that have direct implications for View Royal are the inclusion of Policies related to Food Systems and Climate Action (Chapters 6 and 7).

With respect to the policies related to Food Systems, there no explanation of what long term costs may be generated by new services in this area, or what services may be needed. A long list of issues is presented in the preamble to this chapter.

The Town of View Royal has little in the way of agricultural lands, with the exception of a single parcel that is in the Agricultural Land Reserve adjacent to Eagle Creek Shopping Center. As a result, land use issues of farming and agricultural use are of limited relevance to the Town. While the principles are interesting, the lack of clarity with respect to outcomes and the potential cost impact of new CRD services related to Food Systems are of concern.

One of the areas of concern is the link between this section (Policy 6.2 specifically) and the section on infrastructure (Policy 2.2.4) which suggests that piped water may be provided for agricultural production and that residential properties that are in proximity to piped water for this purpose may be able to connect to the water service.

Some of these concerns could be mitigated if this chapter (Chapter 6) does not apply within the Town of View Royal. With the general nature of the policy, unclear service and cost implications, and the lack of applicability to lands within the Town of View Royal, staff recommend that Council object to this policy on the basis of lack of clarity of outcomes and cost implications.

A secondary objection is that this policy may prioritize agricultural development over other growth management considerations. This policy appears to support Policy 2.2.4 which would allow the provision of water service to agricultural lands and residential development in rural areas, creating rural residential subdivision potential where water service is provided for agricultural use. There is little that local government can do to require agricultural production on rural lands. As a compromise, Council may consider whether the RGS should include this policy at all. In the interests of the Town, staff recommend that Council requests that this section of the RGS (Chapter 6) not be applicable within the Town’s jurisdiction.

The other new policy content in the 2016 version of the RGS relates to Climate Action, which is now required content for a growth strategy. The policies included in this section are high level in nature and are consistent with the policy already included in the Town’s Official Community Plan. The Town’s OCP provides more detail with respect to reduction targets that the Town is attempting to achieve. The principles and policies included in the RGS as they relate to Climate Action are consistent with good planning practice.

Policy with Indirect Impact on the Town

The second part of the review of the Regional Growth Strategy focused on provisions that would impact lands outside of the Town, but could still have implications for the overall sustainability and livability of the region, and the Town of View Royal.

The policy changes that are of greatest concern relate to servicing provisions and Policy 2.2.2 a and b and 2.2.4 on Page 19 of Attachment 1. These policies effectively remove the provision of water service as a growth management tool, and will likely result in additional development capacity through decreased lot size requirements in areas currently outside of the Growth Boundary.

Staff did request information from the CRD about the increase in development potential; however this information was not available. Based on common practice in zoning, the required lot sizes are reduced where piped water is provided even though a property may remain on a septic system. The policy would allow serviced parcels in selected areas designated as Renewable Resource Lands, and Rural/Rural Residential designated areas to subdivide to 4 ha parcel sizes.

Map 3 illustrates the quantity of land outside the Growth Boundary that could potentially be opened to development. The development of rural lands, outside of the Urban Containment areas is likely to be at the expense of appropriate development located within the Growth Boundary and has long term implications for infrastructure, transportation and particularly public transit and economic development. The Regional Growth Strategy relies on the Official Community Plans in these areas to constrain growth. Staff note that Official Community Plans will not come back to the CRD Board and that once this provision is enshrined, it will be difficult if not impossible to limit water connections in this area in the future.

This potential increase in residential growth in an ex-urban area can be considered rural sprawl and is inconsistent with the overall direction of the RGS to contain growth and to build complete communities (see Complete Communities Criteria on page 21 of draft RGS). With Victoria continuing to be the major center for employment in the region this policy shift suggests that transportation impacts will be experienced in all areas, and particularly in View Royal as both the TransCanada Highway and Island Highway are the sole corridors that connect east to west. Increased numbers of trips (for work and to access services) does not contribute to the region meeting its Climate Action objectives and policies, and is inconsistent with Policy 7.1 (Page 32). If this policy is enshrined in the RGS, it is not yet clear how costs associated with providing the service will be assessed, particularly the costs that the rest of the region has already paid with respect to capital investment in the water reservoir and distribution system.

The final topic for consideration is the lack of any mention of First Nations, beyond statements in the Food Systems chapter. If 2017 is the ‘Year of Reconciliation’, acknowledgement of the traditional territories of First Nations should be included in the plan. If the Regional Growth Strategy is about the desired future for the region, it may be wise to identify Regional District intentions with respect to relationship building, engagement and future partnerships with First Nations in the implementation chapter of the RGS.

OPTIONS:

1. That the Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw be accepted as presented. Staff do not recommend this option for the reasons outlined in this report.

2. That Council object to the policies related to water service (2.2.2 and 2.2.4) on the basis that these policies are inconsistent with the remainder of the plan, including policies for compact communities, greenhouse gas emission, and transportation. Under this option, all the remaining policies are acceptable to Council.

3. That Council object to the policies related to Water Servicing on the basis that the water service policies are inconsistent with the remainder of the plan, and are contrary to the policies for compact communities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. And that Council objects to the Food Systems chapter on the basis that the Food Systems policies are unclear with respect to outcomes and cost implications and are not relevant to View Royal. Council is willing that the Food Systems chapter be included in the Regional Growth Strategy on the basis that the provisions will not apply to its jurisdiction. And that Council object to Map 3 on the basis of errors in mapping. Staff recommend this option.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT “Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1, 2016” not be accepted;

AND THAT Council objects to Map 3: Regional Growth Management Concept Plan and policy statements as they imply a hierarchy between the Regional Growth Strategy and Local Government planning and include mapping errors

AND THAT Council objects to provisions 2.2.2 and 2.2.4 for the following reasons:

• That provision of water service will increase sprawl in rural areas and is contrary to the objectives of the overall Regional Growth Strategy which supports complete and compact communities
• That additional development on Rural and Resource Lands is at the expense of development on lands within the Urban Containment Boundary
• That additional residential development on rural and resource lands will contribute to further transportation challenges in the region, and does not allow for efficient public transportation, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and does not provide for jobs/housing balance
• That rural development will further contribute to GHG emissions by creating a high-carbon built form

AND THAT Council objects to Chapter 6 (Food Systems) in its entirety for the following reasons:

• the policies, outcomes and potential services from the CRD are vague, there is no agricultural land in View Royal and the long term costs for services are unclear.

AND THAT Council is willing to see Chapter 6 (Food Systems) be included in the Regional Growth Strategy on the basis that the provision will not apply within the Town of View Royal.

AND THAT Council encourages recognition in the Regional Growth Strategy that the Capital Regional District occupies the lands and territories of a number of First Nations and that First Nations be engaged to determine if and how they might participate in any activities related to the Regional Growth Strategy.

SUBMITTED BY: L. Chase, Director of Development Services

REVIEWED BY: K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer

Attachments:

1. 2016 Draft Regional Growth Strategy
2. Local Government Act excerpt
3. Map 3: Growth Management Concept Plan excerpt with areas of concern identified