Staff Report - 2016 Regional Growth Strategy Referral

Council Report

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: January 11, 2017 FROM: Lindsay Chase FILE NO:

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 relating to the definitions of the land use designations as they imply a hierarchy between the Regional Growth Strategy and Local Government planning, and due to errors on the map as it pertains to View Royal as illustrated in the staff report dated January 3, 2017;

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

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To confirm the issues considered by Council in making their decision with respect to non-acceptance of the 2016 Regional Growth Strategy and to clarify the Growth Boundary history in the Chilco area.

BACKGROUND:

On January 9, 2017 staff brought forward a report that highlighted a number of issues with respect to the referred 2016 Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw. These issues included:

• Concerns about water servicing policy
• The Food Systems Chapter
• Mapping issues with Map 3 and incorrect designations of properties in View Royal and concerns about the related text explanations of the land designations
• Acknowledgement of First Nations within the plan.

All of these topics were discussed by Council and the recommendation in this report reflects the direction provided.

DISCUSSION:

In the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy, Map 3 illustrates the growth boundary in this area as follows: The red box illustrates the area in question, and at that time, the lands adjacent to Mill Hill Park appear to be within the RUCSPA boundary, meaning that they are eligible for water and sewer service until the RGS is amended:

On January 10, 2017 Committee of the Whole heard from one property owner on Cheam Road who had concerns about the growth boundary on Map 3. Staff have reviewed this matter and wish to provide clarification on the map below, the 2002 and 2010 OCP show the Town’s Urban Containment Boundary in the brown shaded area. For convenience, staff have added the 2003 RUCSPA boundary to highlight the gap between the two areas:

In effect the 2003 RGS and the Town’s Official Community Plan were not aligned, leaving an opportunity for a rezoning application to come forward from the property owner without also necessitating an amendment of the RGS. The proposed 2016 RGS reduces the Urban Containment Area to align the growth boundaries between the two plans (it will follow the brown shaded area). Any future land use change would likely necessitate an amendment to the RGS as well at the Town’s Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaws

If Council is satisfied with this approach to these lands, no further action is needed. If Council wishes to advise the CRD that additional changes to the Growth Boundary are warranted, then the recommendation needs to be modified to address this issue.

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 relating to the definitions of the land use designations as they imply a hierarchy between the Regional Growth Strategy and Local Government planning, and due to errors on the map as it pertains to View Royal as illustrated in the staff report dated January 3, 2017;

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

SUBMITTED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services

REVIEWED BY: K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer