Council Report: REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT this report be received for information;

AND THAT THAT Council consider providing early feedback to the Capital Regional District with respect to the February 2016 draft Regional Growth Strategy;

AND FURTHER THAT, this feedback focus on concerns with respect to provision of water services outside the Regional Urban Containment Service Provision Area (RUCSPA) boundary.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The Capital Regional District has provided an early draft of the Regional Growth Strategy to Council's across the region. The intent of this early referral is to identify any major issues that municipalities might have with the proposed document.

TIME CRITICAL:

Yes. Feedback is requested by May 2016.

BACKGROUND:

Staff brought forward a report on March 8, 2016 which included a redlined version of the draft Regional Growth Strategy. At that time, Council requested that CRD staff be invited to attend a Council meeting to present the CRD perspective on any changes that have been made between the currently adopted RGS and the draft document before you. Council also requested that staff identify and bring forward any significant issues for discussion.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

None at this time.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Staff have participated in the review of the RGS document for the past 6 years. Substantive issues were identified with the proposed Regional Sustainability Strategy, and as a result of CRD Board direction, this document was largely abandoned in favor of making modest amendments to the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy.

Generally, the draft RGS document provided on March 8 builds on most of the positive steps taken with the original growth strategy. Council had requested that staff review the draft document from the perspective of proposed changes that might impact the Town's interests. From this perspective, there is only one major proposed change that staff believe could have significant implications for the Town's interests over the long term, and that is the removal of water servicing as a growth management tool.

Water and sanitary servicing were an essential component of the policy surrounding the establishment of the Regional Urban Containment Service Provision Area (RUCSPA) boundary in the 2003 plan. Provision of these services outside the boundary was limited to areas where health would be impacted. Staff notes that the actual practice of limiting provision of services outside the RUCSPA was unevenly executed by the CRD. However, as a growth management tool, limiting piped water results in much larger lot sizes being required to facilitate subdivision as parcels are then relying on well water. There is a direct correlation between lot size (and hence the density and capacity of land to support new lots) and the provision of services. Where services are provided, potential density is significantly increased. As a result, staff are concerned that removing the provision of water service as a growth management tool will result in increases to density in rural and exurban areas.

Staff's concerns about this are specific to the language embedded in the draft plan which references OCP's from a number of Juan de Fuca Electoral area communities, and that growth will be limited to the amount in the OCP in effect at the time of adoption. Staff are concerned foremost about the legality of this policy language, and secondly that no numbers have been provided with respect to the growth that this policy change would facilitate.

Specifically, the policy language embedded within the draft restricts development to "subdivision and density limits identified in the applicable Official Community Plan at the date of the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy bylaw". Staff recommends that the CRD seek a legal opinion the implications of this language and that the opinion be shared with member municipalities. Staff also suggest that the CRD provide estimates of how many housing units could potentially be built under this proposed policy change in order to understand the extent of potential implications.

Staff notes that the draft RGS includes a new section devoted to policy to reduce GHG emissions. This is consistent with recent legislative requirements and that the Town has similar policy embedded in our OCP. With these new policy statements in mind, Council may wish to carefully consider any changes to that RGS that may facilitate additional development in non-urban areas.

In terms of potential impacts on View Royal of additional growth to the west of the Town, staff notes that the primary employment areas for the region lie to the east of the Town and that all traffic heading to these employment and service centers passes through the Town of View Royal. Staff further notes that allowing growth in these areas may lead to rural sprawl, auto-dependent communities and additional GHG emissions; all of which appear to contradict the intent of the RGS.

One additional consideration for Council is the location of the RUCSPA boundary, particularly as it goes through the Thetis Vale/Chilco planning area. The draft RGS is consistent with the Town's OCP. If however Council has any reservations about this boundary, it would be prudent to consider this boundary now, rather than through the legislated referral process.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT this report be received for information;

AND THAT THAT Council consider providing early feedback to the Capital Regional District with respect to the February 2016 draft Regional Growth Strategy;

AND FURTHER THAT. this feedback focus on concerns with respect to provision of water services outside the Regional Urban Containment Service Provision Area (RUCSPA) boundary.

SUBMITTED BY: L. Chase, Director of Development Services

REVIEWED BY: K. Anema, Chief Administrative Officer