Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-30 Special Council Agenda and ReportsTHE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Please be advised that a Special Council Meeting has been called pursuant to Section 126 of the Community Charter, as follows: DATE: March 30, 2009 HOUR: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Blaney Room, Municipal Hall AGENDA 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.DISCUSSION OF DRAFT METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY 3.ADJOURN Checked by Date: DATES • February 25 - referral from Metro Vancouver • March 16 - presentation to Council by Metro Vancouver • April 8 deadline for initial comrrrents -April 29 - public consultation by Metro Vancouver in Maple Ridge • May 6 - 27 - public breakfast presentation (3) -Apr 23 - May 27 - Future of the Region Dialogues (4) • May 22 - deadline for additional comments -May 28 - Full Day Summit /S1f2OO9 Types of Proposed Map Changes -Type 1 Mapping Errors Where lands within the Green Zone ( as expressed in approved Rcss( have on existing Official community Plan designation or land use that is inconsistent with the provided guidelines (e.g. residential or institutionai that does not support air appropriate use) or where the and has been identified in an approved P05 as non-conforming with the Green Zone. Margin for action -Type 2 Application of Guidelines Where the application of supplied guidelines results in lands included or excluded from the Conservation/Recreation and Agricultural areas, or where the separation of the Green Zone into Agricultural and Conservation/Recreation categories leads to changes within the Green Zone between the two categories. 3/31/2N9 2 -Type 3 Other Proposed Exclusions and Future Considerations Where there is a proposal to exclude lands from either the Conservation/Recreation or Agricultural areas for inclusion into either the urban or Rural areas for reasons not addressed in Type 1 or 2 changes. Type land 2 changes will be documented and included in the draft RGS if consistent with guidelines. All Type 3 changes and any other changes inconsistent with the guidelines will need to be included as requests in the formal Council review. 3/si/moo s I i '- •:-. - ---, -- - - S4LI luExlb\ rR Wei : 0 If 2 I8UU QUD1 Regional Growth Str I U 0 MAPLE_RIDGJ British Columbia Memorandum Interoffice TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JANE PICKERING SUBJECT: MARCH 30 WORKSHOP - REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY DATE: MARCH 26, 2009 CC: JIM RULE, BROCK MCDONALD, CHRISTINE CARTER Please find attached some material for the March 30, 2009 workshop meeting on the Regional Growth Strategy. I have attached the draft comments that were a result of the Council discussion on March 16, 2009; a letter that was sent to Metro Vancouver in response to a request for a mapping review; and copies of comments on the plan from other municipalities that we have received to date. Please note that attached to the January 22, 2009 letter there is a chart that reflects mapping items and a reference to various types of changes. An explanation of what those types are will be provided on Monday. If you have any questions about the material, please contact either myself or Christine Carter. Jane Pickering Director of Planning JP/ SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL ON THE REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY REVIEW MARCH 16, 2009 • Strategy 4.3 on climate change does not go far enough in explaining what we will be doing about climate change. The policy should be less focused on mitigation and more on stopping it; • Desire to make a linkage between sprawl and climate change - cost of sprawl is more than monetary- questions about the validity of the urban reserve as it is a built in sprawl mechanism; • Urban reserve should be outside the urban containment area; • Strategy 2.2 indicates that Translink and other agencies would have to review any changes to the industrial areas. Clarification is sought on requirements to consult with other levels fo government and agencies. Is this consultation or approval? • If Maple Ridge is the provider of green areas and rural lands in the region, what do we get back from the region and other municipalities who have built over their green or rural areas. How will we be compensated for being the "lungs" of the region/ How will equity be dealt with? • Need to balance our communities; • Strategy 1.4 needs to be clear that each municipality will set its own density level on rural lands; • The name of the document has been changed from the Livable Region Strategic Plan to the Regional Growth Strategy - find that confusing; • Seeking clarity about the status of agricultural lands in the strategy - does it have to undergo regional review if taken out of this designation; • No clear definition of industrial especially how it relates to Maple Ridge. No clarity on how Maple Ridge can generate jobs within its current land base. Is intensification of industrial areas supportable in the Plan? • Need to ensure that economics are addressed; • Maple Ridge needs to do more work around neighbourhood nodes; • Need to compare this strategy to the legislation; • Need to assess industrial areas as they relate to new infrastructure improvements i.e. bridges; • Do Metro Vancouver population numbers match ours and, if not, how will we deal with that. a (-t Deep OCb Greater Heights January 22, 2009 Christina DeMarco Regional Development Division Manager Policy and Planning Department Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Dear Chris: Subject: District of Maple Ridge Regional Growth Strategy, Draft Map Review Attached please find a list of proposed Green Zone changes to the draft Regional Growth Strategy Land Use Concept. Our chart coincides with a marked-up Land Use Concept Map that has also been attached. You will note, that change 10 remains undecided at this time, and a specific change will be requested at a later date. In addition to changes to the Green Zone, we have identified other changes that should be addressed. Most are likely self explanatory, yet the following bullets should briefly explain the nature of the changes: • Hammond - the properties south-east of Ditton Street, adjacent to the Mill are incorrectly shown as Industrial. They are designated Residential in the Official Community Plan. • Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway -most of the Industrial layer is incorrect and should be removed (with the exception of the Albion Industrial Park, and properties to the east). • There is concern with the densities that have been assigned to the Rural land use designation. The Regional Plan identifies the densities as being 1 unit per hectare. Maple Ridge's Rural designation has a density of 0.5 units per net ha. and Suburban Residential has a density of 2.5 units per net ha. • Rural Land Use should not be under the Green Zone umbrella and should stand alone, similar to the Urban land use designation. • Thornhill is identified as "Urban" given its Urban Reserve OCP designation. We would suggest that an accompanying clause be included in the policy document noting the status of Urban Reserve in the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Canada . TeI:04-463-5221 Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca www.mapleridge.ca 000o Recycled Paper In addition, we have questions relating to the implementation of the adopted Regional Growth Strategy, such as: • How will additions to the Green Zone, Commercial or Industrial designations be addressed? • What will the updating/housekeeping process be? • Not all of the Conservation areas shown on the OCP Land Use Schedule have been ground-truthed, and these areas get refined during the development process. Discussions with yourself have indicated that these areas/streams are intended as information only. This will need to be confirmed. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft Land Use Concept Plan map and provide staff comments. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Christine Carter at (604) 467-7469 or the undersigned at (604) 467-7471. Yours truly, Jane Pickering Director of Planning CC/dp - - M011 I R:yced P"p" District of Maple Ridge Submission Regional Growth Strategy - Draft Map Review Proposed Changes to the Green Zone January 23, 2009 Proposed Description of Parcel Current Regional Land Proposed Regional Land Use Rationale for the Proposed Type of Change #Use Designation (Nov 18,Designation Change Change 2008 Concept Plan) (1,2, or 3) North-west portion of Green Zone Agriculture Conservation/Recreation OCP Designation is PIA (Park in 2 Silver Valley the ALR) Owned by Metro Vancouver Parks 2 Lands are situated north of Green Zone Agriculture Rural Designated Rural in the OCP. Silver Valley Privately owned. 3.North of 128 Ave/West of Blank Green Zone Agricultural Portions of the sites are 1 232 Street designated Agricultural in the OCP and are in the ALR 4.Lands adjacent to Kanaka a) Conservation a) Green Zone Agricultural a) OCP designation 72% ALR &a) 2 Creek Regional Park.b) Conservation b) Rural private ownership North of Thornhill Urban b) OCP designation is Rural b) 1 Reserve. 5.Northern part of Thornhill.Rural and Conservation Boundaries need adjusting OCP designations Conservation,1 Carmichael Street Forest, Park, Suburban Residential 6.South 128 Avenue/West of Blank and Agricultural Blank to be designated Urban Blank parcel is designated Estate 1 227th Street Boundary needs adjusting because to Urban Area and Suburban Residential 7.Albion Area Plan Adjustments required to Adjustments Conservation and Urban 1 Conservation and Urban designations 8.Whonnock Lake Conservation and Rural Adjustments To reflect OCP designations boundaries need adjusting 9.deleted 10.Silver Valley Area Plan Adjustments required to the Adjustments To reflect OCP designations 1 Conservation and Urban designations 11.Estate Suburban Area Urban and Rural Requested change to follow.To be determined To be south of Silver Valley and The request will depend on determined adjacent Suburban Metro Vancouver's answer to Residential property earlier email District of Maple Ridge Submission Regional Growth Strategy - Draft Map Review Proposed Changes to the Green Zone January 23, 2009 12.Forested lands at the Urban Green Zone Park Park in OCP -1 northern boundary of Thornhill 13.Eastern boundary of Urban Conservation Boundary adjustment required to I Thornhill reflect OCP designation of Forest 14.West side of 224'h Street Green Zone Agricultural Green Zone Agricultural and Boundary adjustment required to 1 and Abernethy Way and Urban Urban reflect OCP designation 15.West side of 232 and south Green Zone Agriculture Rural Properties that are not in the ALR 3 of 128 Avenue should be designated Rural Resolution required 16.Eastern edge of Albion Rural and urban Rural and Urban Boundary adjustmen: equired to 1 Area, south of 108t11 reflect OCP_designaticns 17.240th/Lougheed Highway Green Zone Rural Urban Properties are within tae Urban I (Bruce's Market and Area Boundary and are zoned property to east) Service Commercial 18.Whonnock 112"' Avenue Green Zone Conservation Rural OCP Designation is Rural (Lot _15,_ Plan _1779) 19.North of Thornhill.Blank on map Rural OCP Designation is Rural South-west corner 1 12' and 260th 20.North end of 256"' Street Industrial Overlay Green Zone Conservation Golden Ears Park 21.Jackson Farm (24554 102nd Green Zone Rural or Urban (requires Removed from Al-Rand 3 Avenue)Conservation/Recreation discussion)Resolution from District Council Resolution requesting removal from the provided Green Zone earlier. 22.24426 102 Avenue (west Green Zone Urban Removed from ALR and 3 of Jackson Farm)Conservation/Recreation Resolution submitted from Resolution District Council requesting provided ___removal from the Green Zone earlier 23.Address required (eastern Green Zone Rural or Urban (requires further Removed from ALR and 3 portion of land adjacent to Conservation/Recreation discussion)Resolution submitted by District Resolution Jackson Farm)Council requesting removal from provided the Green Zone - -earlier 9 The Corporation of THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT To: Mayor Darrell ft Mussatto and Members of the Council From: Richard H. White, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: DRAFT METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY Date: March 17, 2009 File No.: 1180.20.01 The following is a suggested recommendation only. Please refer to Council Minutes for adopted resolution lEi7A.%tI11 PURSUANT to the report of the Director, Community Development dated, March 17, 2009, entitled Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy": THAT the City of North Vancouver Preliminary Response to the February 2009 draft "Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy" attached to the subject report be forwarded to the Metro Vancouver Regional Planning committee as the City of North Vancouver's initial comment on the proposed 2009 Regional Growth Strategy; and THAT this report be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission for discussion, and that this report, the Metro Vancouver draft and the City brief be posted on the City's website to encourage broader understanding in the community about this important planning process. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Regional Context Statement from the City's Official Community Plan, 2002. 2.Excerpts from the 2009 Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and covering letter. 3.Proposed "City of North Vancouver Preliminary Response to the February 2009 Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 1 Date: March 17, 2009 gui jiii This report responds to a request for preliminary input from Metro Vancouver concerning the recently released "Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy - 2040 - Shaping our Future". Overall, this document and the policy goals contained wThiii it are good updats to the 1996 Liveable Region Strategic Plan which it is intended to replace. Staff propose sending the attached one page brief as the City's initial response to this draft planning document, commenting on certain elements of the current draft from a City perspective. A more detailed review may be warranted as this planning process proceeds. BACKGROUND: Unlike most regional jurisdictions in North America, the Lower Mainland has had a long range plan in place for most of the post World War II era. Largely in response to the Fraser Valley floods of 1948, the Province of British Columbia declared that the Lower Mainland be a "Planning Area" under the "Town Planning Act". The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was also created - the City of North Vancouver was represented on this Board and it had this to say as it released the Official Regional Plan some years later: "While there are many development problems that are best solved locally by each municipality, there are others - involving the process of urban development, major highways and transportation linkages, regional recreation facilities, pollution, broad land development policies, future industrial and agricultural land needs, and major utilities, that demand a coordinated regional approach if they are to be resolved effectively" This regional planning effort has ebbed from time to time in the last 60 years, including a period of time from 1982 until 1996 when the Province eliminated the authority of regions to plan and regulate land use regionally. Arguably, transportation has very rarely been planned regionally in the last 60 years with the Province only ceding most of this authority to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority in the last 10 years and then eliminating this regionalization initiative again in the last few of years. A point is made in this regard in the proposed 'Preliminary Response". Another land use planning tool - the Agricultural Land Reserve - was superimposed on regional planning authorities in the late 1970's and it remains a strong provincially controlled land use regulation that effects most municipal and regional plans in the Province and most outlying parts of Metro Vancouver as well. Regional agencies have also been created over this time which have sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. Affordable housing again a rising priority of Metro Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 2 Date: March 17, 2009 Vancouver, has been neglected for some time. The Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (GVHC) was a very active developer of non-market family housing in the 1970's on behalf of municipalities. The City has three very popular projects owned and operated by the GVHC. In the period between 1980 and 2005, however, very little development was undertaken by GVHC in spite of constant regional need for affordable housing and continuing interest in providing it by the City and some other Metro- municipalities. This brief summary does not do justice to the long history of regional planning in Metro Vancouver; this review does show that there have been several responses to the initial mandate laid out by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, in spite of challenges to the notion of pan-municipal planning. In general the City's land use planning vision has always been consistent with the region's goals for urban areas like the City. Initially concerned with hazard land management, flood control and orderly and efficient development, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board had little trouble with the hillside urban development vision that the City established for itself upon incorporation and refined through successive zoning regulations and plans. Following the demise of ferry service to Vancouver in 1958, the North Shore was connected to the rest of the region with highways consistent with the 1950's vision for metropolitan development. In the early 1970's with transit planning and conservation initiatives on the ascendance, the City was the first part of the region to be given a mass transit connection to Vancouver with the SeaBus and with it a deliberate effort to create a mixed use regional town centre, known as Lonsdale Quay. The most recent regional plan was adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional Board in 1996 even before the Province reintroduced legislation allowing regional growth strategies. The City's Regional Context Statement was prepared thereafter and approved by the GVRD Board as consistent with the 1996 Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP). In 2002, the City updated its regional context statement and incorporated it in the City's 2002 OCP. This current version of our Regional Context Statement is included as Attachment No. 1 to this report. It is not clear how the City's planning will be impacted by the new draft plan now being proposed for the region and recently distributed to Council. (Excerpts are included in Attachment No. 2.) In general staff believe that most elements of the draft plan are reasonable given our understanding of the region in a provincial, national and global context and given, as well, the unique ecological and geographic challenges that exist for land use development in this regional landscape. This section attempts a brief high level review of the proposed plan from a City of North Vancouver perspective, and it is intended to support and explain Attachment No. 3 - A Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 3 Date: March 17, 2009 brief from the City to Metro Vancouver reviewing the draft plan, its context and process. Staff recommend that the City send this brief to Metro Vancouver as our initial input on the new draft plan. It should be noted that this release of the draft plan to municipal Councils is only the beginning of a larger public consultation process that Metro Vancouver is proposing to undertake. mxirtantly, the new draft includes an initial discussion about "reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions'. Many of the ideas in prcvcus reg!ona pr-is have promoted efficient development, but this is the first to articulate an energy policy for the region. This Draft Regional Growth Strategy has emerged as a surprisingly small part of a very large initiative called the Strategic Region Initiative, commenced in 2001, that attempts to integrate all regional plans, policies and regulations within a Regional Vision that places sustainability at the centre of its operating and planning philosophy. In the organizational chart, the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is shown as one of eight plans or regulations that place "housing", "parks and greenways" and "solid waste" as similar level plans. This recasting of the Regional Plan as a smaller part of an integrated set of plans is the first major change for Council to be aware of in the current proposal and something questioned in the attached brief (Attachment 3). Both the City and the Region have, heretofore, attempted to use the legislative provision for an official plan to create in a single document the vision for future growth or sustainability as the case may be. The brief makes this point and asks the Region to consider the wisdom of this new approach (Attachment 3). The draft plan rearticulates and expands the four goals of the current LRSP regional plan: Protect the Green Zone, Build Complete Communities, Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region, and increase Transportation Choice into five proposed RGS broad goals: Create a Compact Urban Area, Support a Sustainable Economy, Protect the Region's Natural Assets, Develop Complete and Resilient Communities and Support Sustainable Transportation Choices. For the most part, the new five goal approach is similar to the existing four goal plan; however, the new approach in the proposed plan is much more specific and strategic than the 1996 RGS about how the region and municipalities will work toward these goals. In addition the notion of a regional economic development goal, now proposed, never gelled in the last document, although it was suggested in the 1996 LRSP predecessor "Creating Our Future". It is arguable that the Region is not being prescriptive enough about the new distribution of growth and transportation improvements to give the Region a reasonable chance of developing into a carbon neutral and sustainable region overtime. As Council is aware, if the new RGS plan is ultimately adopted the City will be obliged to redo our OCP to fit within the RGS. Of the existing OCP and the existing RGS it was sometime said that our Regional Context Statement, the formal expression of the alignment of the two documents, could simply have been "It fits'. Of course, the Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 4 Date: March 17, 2009 attached RGS (Attachment # 1) goes into quite a bit more detail of how our OCP fits and seeks to reflect regional development goals. How Will Our OCP Fare Relative to the New Draft Plan? Goal I - Create a Compact Urban Area. Strategy 1.1 Contain urban development within the urban containment boundary. - CNV fits and could do more than requested based on current and likely planning directions. Strategy 1.2 Focus growth in urban centres and frequent transit development corridors. - Our Town Centre and Marine Drive corridor focused planned development fit this strategy. Strategy 1.3 Encourage land use and transportation developments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our new transportation plan and OCP is consistent with this and we anticipate Translink will support this as well. Other related City initiatives like the Lonsdale Energy Corporation and our GHG Local Action Plan remain regional leaders in innovation in this regard. The brief proposes a more aggressive regional approach here reflecting Provincial directions. Strategy 1.4 Protect rural lands. - Not applicable to the City. Goat 2 - Support a Sustainable Economy Like complete communities, a sustainable economy is different things to different people - Neptune's coal export business sustains a part of the economy that is likely environmentally unsustainable. Strategy 2.1 Promote a pattern of land development that supports diverse regional economy and employment close to where people live. - Our OCP provides for mixed use and a balance of jobs to residents, and we are achieving these strategies. Achieving employment growth to match our anticipated population (labour force) growth may be a challenge for the City. Strategy 2.2 Protect the region's supply of industrial land. - City Council asked the Province to establish an Industrial Land Reserve in Council's last term. This regional initiative will have that effect. It is unclear that the sustainability of the region will be enhanced by this initiative, and staff believe this strategy needs to be articulated. Metro's Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 5 Date: March 17, 2009 proposed approach to protecting industrial lands would restrict the City's previous practice of mixing limited commercial uses with industrial uses to maximize the utility of and employment opportunities on our industrial lands. Strategy 2.3 Protect the region's supply of agricultural land and encourage its use for food production. - This strategynd sCt of actions, as written, has little applicability for the City - actions encouraging urban agriculture, community gardens, food sharing and the like would broaden this approach from a sustainability perspective, and these are suggested in Strategy 4.2. Goal 3 - Protect the Region's Natural Areas How this Goal relates to the Region's Parks and Greenways ecological health and other plans is not yet explained; however the single broad strategy below appears supportable and consistent with the City's OCP. Strategy 3.1 Protect the region's conservation and recreation lands. Minor changes to Metro's green zones have been incorporated to better match our larger parks and ravines. Goal 4 - Develop Complete and Resilient Communities The City is developing its new planning work with a view both to sustainability - to minimize climate change and its expected impacts and to adaptability to recognize and prepare for the likely impacts of climate change. Strategy 4.1 Provide diverse and affordable housing choices. - The Provincial legislation contains reference to municipal and regional district policies to encourage affordable housing (Sections 849(2)(h) and 877(2), Local Government Act). The Province requires municipal policies and it allows, but does not require, regional housing policies. City staff have not compared and contrasted affordable housing policies throughout the Metro region; however, few municipalities have had polices as long as the City nor the scope or innovative approach taken by the City. In spite of our policy leadership, affordable housing is extremely hard to promote, approve and build in the City. While the proposed regional strategies and housing action plans create a common framework and approach across the region, staff question whether the sub-regional or individual municipal housing estimates are attainable. Strategy 4.2 Develop complete, inclusive communities with access to a range of services. - The City is a good example of a fairly complete community. The notion of inclusive communities is a great idea to Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 6 Date: March 17, 2009 promote on a regional basis - how anyone will define success is more problematic. The idea of urban agriculture is placed here rather than in the Goal 2 section. Strategy 4.3 Minimize risks from natural hazards and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The City should be supportive of this requirement as it is the historic basis for regional planning in the Lower Mainland. The City's 100 year Sustainability Vision gives us considerable insight in the topic of responding to the challenges of climate change. Our recent work addressing slope stability is one example of anticipating and addressing hazardous conditions. Sea level rise is an issue that warrants a regional response. Goal 5 - Support Sustainable Transportation Choices Strategy 51 Connect land use and transportation to support transit, walking and cycling. Strategy 5.2 Connect land use and transportation to support an efficient roads and goods movement network. The City has a high percentage of Town Centre residents who walk, ride bicycles, take transit to work or work from home. This is consistent with Metro's objectives. Yet, nearly 60% of the City's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation sources. Continuing to improve on transportation alternatives and bringing land uses together to minimize commuting will be necessary for the City to advance further, as suggested by this Metro policy. Similarly, concerted provincial and regional action will be necessary to make transportation efficient while reducing ghg emissions and increasing the quality of life and the air we breath. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications for the City of this regional proposal are undetermined, although staff believe the housing section of this draft are unsustainable from a municipal financial perspective as noted in the brief. The limitation on the use of some industrial lands for commercial uses may limit their value and employment potential. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Community planning is increasingly being recognized as an integrated process. The draft Metro Plan has implications for Engineering Parks & Environment, particularly Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 7 Date: March 17, 2009 transportation, as well as for Corporate Services, specifically Economic Development, and for Finance. This report was prepared by Community Development and reviewed and supported with amendments by the Civic projects Team and Directors Team on March 17, 2009. CORPORATE PLAN AND/OR POLICY IMPLiCATIONS: Addressed elsewhere in this report. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: R.H. White, Director Community Development REVIEWED BY: City Manager Attachment RHW:tg S:\REPORTS\Whte\2OO9\Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy.doc Report: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 8 Date: March 17, 2009 Attachment No. 1 :gona Lontext taten Background iThe Livaoe Reqon Strateçi Plan 0LR0 . Vancouver Reqoa: Distrcr (GVRD) Board, as deemed! :n be.a rcaiona cvowtb srraeuy by The MiHster of Municipal AffOrs on Fcrar'1 10, 1996, fo'lov,/Ing a enThy period of puhb nt c and inter-governrnea cons ai H on, The ar descObes a visor for a n, and rransourta:ior mc cjemert fr The reqon in a cHime Thtt t0 e reaniremerts c the ci Govermmcn Acm Four tundanen:a strcteqmrs to aiTheve a nom iv ) C 1Ofli C m m -, These strategies are: 1.Protect the Green Zone 2.Build Complete Communities 3.Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region 4.Increase Transportation Choice The Local Government Act requires that each municipality prepare, as part of its Official Community Plan (OCP), a Regional Context Statement explaining the relationship between the local plan and the LRSP. This OCP, adopted by North Vancouver City Council in 2002, contains goals and objectives that directly support the four fundamental strategies of the LRSP. These are specifically referenced in this Regional Context Statement. 1. PROTECT THE GREEN ZONE This OCP supports the Green Zone policies of the LRSP by: • identifying on Schedule "A" those areas dedicated as parkland and recreational space; • identifying on Schedule "D" those areas identified as green zone; • identifying on Schedule "E" those areas identified as environmentally sensitive areas; • identifying on Schedule "F' those areas that constitute the City's trail system; • identifying on Schedule "0" those areas identified as parks and greenways; • reinforcing the general provisions of the Environmental Protection Program and the Parks and Greenways Plan (Chapters 8 and 9); • contributing to the establishment of a regional Park and Outdoor Recreation System (Schedules "A", "D", "F" and "0"); • protecting these areas from urban development including transportation corridors through policy measures which promote the identification and protection of natural areas and parkland (Chapters 6 and 8, Section 9.10, Schedules 'E", 'F and "G"); • committing to co-operate with other munici- palities and consulting with the public to achieve regional ecological and natural preservation goals (Sections 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 14.4); • minimizing pressures on the Green Zone by committing to prepare sustainability guidelines for new developments (Section 14.2.6(iii); • minimizing pressures on the Green Zone by establishing energy efficiency as an envi- ronmental goal (Section 8.4.7). Appendix No. 1/ Regional Context Statement 1 71 Recent initiatives which support the Green Zone strategy include: • establishing a citizen-based Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; • revising a map which indicates the areas included within the Green Zone in the City, and thereby adding 118 ha. to the Green Zone (Attached as Schedule "D" to the OCP); • appointing an Environmental Protection Advisory Committee to guide the implementation of an Environmental Protection Program for the management of remnant natural areas, valley and stream corridors; • revising a map which indicates the areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the City (Attached as Schedule "E" to the OCP); and • endorsing the Regional Greenways Vision and the North Shore Sector Recreational Greenway Plan. 2. Build Complete Communities This OCP supports the Build Complete Communities policies of the LRSP by: • creating opportunities for residents to live and work in the same community through the encouragement of mixed use developments, the preservation of lands designated for industrial use, and overall efforts to achieve a greater balance between the resident labour force and employment (Chapters 4 and 5, Schedule A"); • encouraging the construction of a wide range of housing types, tenures, and affordability by providing a range of residential land use densities, and policies to encourage the creation of more affordable housing This includes providing for the legalization of secondary suites, providing for smaller units, and encouraging a variety of ground-oriented medium density housing concepts (Sections 5.7.1, 5.7.4, 5.7.7, Schedule "A"); • creating social, cultural, recreational, and commercial opportunities for local residents (Chapters 5, 7 and 10); • encouraging the retention, conservation and re- use of heritage buildings through planning pol icies and proorams, including incentives such as increased density, variances, subdivis!on an stratification opportunities (Sections 4.5, 4.10.1, 5.7.10, 5.12.2). • supporting the Lonsdale Regional Town Centre as a mixed-use commercial district. Office, retail, institutional, and residential mixed uses in this area are encouraged. (4.9.3, 4.10.7, 4.10.13, 5.5, 5.7.10, 5.8.2, 5.8.4, 5.8.6, 510.1); • encouraging private sector investment through the availability of opportunities for growth in the City's industrial and commercial areas (5.8, 5.9); • developing and maintaining access connections for both local residents and others in the region to the Lonsdale Town Centre and other neigh- bourhood commercial centres through a variety of transportation modes and routes (Chapter 6); • protecting and recognizing areas devoted to industrial use. The City has historically devoted much of its waterfront to industrial use. The opportunity for further industrial development continues to be focused primarily along the waterfront and in buffer areas north of the waterfront (Section 5.9). providing for additional floor area density in new developments under certain conditions as an incentive to achieve public benefits such as affordable and/or rental housing, heritage conservation, adaptable design, community amenity spaces and environmental consid- erations (Section 5.12). 72 1 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN I The City of North Vancouver IL - ,fr 7/' •.'., ,e4_t•t ,• -- .- -- 7.I . Recent initiatives which support the Building Complete Communities strategy include: • expanding the City's Heritage Character Areas to encourage the preservation of a larger number of heritage resources; • adopting a Social Plan which identifies social planning goals and objectives for the City, and areas of strategic priority. The Social Plan is integrated into this OCR (mainly Chapters 4, 7 and 10); • adopting and implementing Adaptable Design Guidelines to ensure that a minimum number of dwelling units in multiple unit buildings can be easily renovated to allow for aging in place; • completing the Lonsdale Corridor Master Plan to guide the future development of the Lonsdale Regional Town Centre; • increasing the permissible density in the resi- dential Level Three Low Density Attached Form in order to encourage the development of larger, family-oriented dwelling units; • developing highly evolved telecommunications services, which attract new businesses, facilitate the establishment of home-based businesses, and reduce the need for commuting; • facilitating the development of a new community art gallery, community policing station, and multi-purpose community centre in Lower Lonsdale. These initiatives enhance Lower Lonsda!e as a high quality, mixed activity urban centre, with easy access to public transit; • facilitating the development of a number of City-owned properties in Lower Lonsdale previously occupied by surface level parking lots into an area of mixed residential and commercial properties; • facilitating the redevelopment of the formerly vacant Versatile Shipyard site into a mixed resi- dential, commercial and cultural precinct, with public access to the waterfront, while preserving its ship repair and drydocking facility. The eastern portion of the site has been preserved as an employment-generating ship repair and drydocking facility; • facilitating the redevelopment of the formerly vacant Fullerton Fill site into a employment- generating industrial and commercial area with parkland and public access to the waterfront; • facilitating more retail, office and possibly resi- dential development along the Marine Drive corridor; and • adopting a Public Art Program. Appendix No. 1 / Regional Context Statement 3. Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region The OCP supports the Compact Metropolitan Region policies of the LRSP by: • committing to orderly and economically efficient cieveioprrient (SCction 5.6): • working towards phasing urban services based on community objectives (Section 5.6); • committing towards working with other communities to achieve the Regions goals to accommodate expected long term growth (Section 2.2). Since the City of North Vancouver is not located in the Growth Concentration Area identified in the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), the following growth scenarios are expected to be achieved by increasing density through mixed use development projects and ground-oriented medium density housing: I) Population: It has been determined that the land uses and densities articulated in this OCR could potentially yield a population of 62,000. Factors that could contribute to a population of that size include the legalization of secondary suites in single family homes, the redevelopment of the Versatile Shipyard lands, the development of City-held properties in Lower Lonsdale, and an overall increase in mixed commercial/residential development along commercial corridors. However, given that the City's population growth rate is generally 1-2% per annum, it is not anticipated that the City will reach this population prior to 2031 at the earliest. The estimated population for 2021 is 55,400, with the majority of this growth occurring in Central and Lower Lonsdale (Sections 4.2, 5.2); This figure is derived from the 1996 Census and includes a distribution of individuals who responded that they had no fixed workplace. This distribution was estimated by the Policy and Planning Department of the GVRD in 1998. ii)Utility Capacity: It is anticipated that the City's water and sewer systems can adequately service the City for an estimated population in the mid-50,000 range. The few zones of marginal adequacy that do exist are being addressed in the City's long-range capitai piri. Ctan res th2t will densify over the life of this plan will impose higher localized burdens on the systems. These localized situations will be remedied through an integrated asset management approach that will include a combination of programmed life-cycle replacements, imple- mentation of demand side management (e.g. conservation measures, inflow and infiltration reduction programs and Best Management Practices (BMP's), or localized, developer- paid upgrades. The City is committed to undertaking integrated storm water management plans (ISMP's) on a watershed scale through the Regions' Liquid Waste Management Plan, which has been endorsed by the City as a planning tool. The ISMP's will consider the impact of increased run-off resulting from densification and climate change and will identify mitigation strategies that will include both public capital works and on-site BMP's (Chapter 11); iii)Employment: In 1996 there were 24,0952 jobs in the City of North Vancouver, and a resident labour force of 25,160. This equates to 0.95 jobs in the City for every member of the resident labour force. In its efforts toward becoming a more sustainable community, it is a goal of the City to not only achieve a greater balance in this regard, but to also institute policies that encourage the resident labour force to work within the community. These policies include preserving lands designated for industrial use, encouraging a high proportion of commercial uses in mixed-use developments, increasing the permissible density in the Central Lonsdale Town Centre, ensuring the adequate provision of transit to commercial and industrially-designated areas, and providing for a range of housing types and affordability in proximity to the City's workplaces. New employment opportunities 1 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN I The City of North Vancouver are anticipated in the future as the development of the waterfront industrial lands in the Harbourside Business Park proceeds. It is the intent of the City of North Vancouver to encourage and maintain a balance between the levels of employment, shelter and population. It is anticipated that by 2021 there will be 31,130 jobs in the City (Sections 5.8, 5.9, Chapter 12); and iv) Households: There are approximately 21,000 dwelling units in the City of North Vancouver, 8,300 of which are ground-oriented units. By 2021 it is anticipated that there will be 25,900 dwelling units, of which approximately 10,500 will be ground-oriented (Section 5.7). Recent initiatives which support the Compact Metropolitan Region strategy include: • enhancing residential and employment oppor- tunities within the Lonsdale Regional Town Centre to facilitate the efficient provision of transit services; and • enhancing the opportunities for the creation of ground oriented medium density housing by increasing the permissible density in the City's Level Three low Density Attached Form. 4. Increase Transportation Choice This OCP supports the Transportation Choice policies of the LRSP by: • encouraging the efficient movement of people to the Lonsdale Regional Town Centre and other commercial centres by means of a variety of local transportation alternatives (Section 6.11.3); • developing and maintaining a transportation system which promotes public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle users as the favoured transportation alternatives; and the commitment to reducing the primacy of the private car, particularly single occupant vehicles (Section 6.11 .1); • providing appropriate levels of services for inter- regional transportation and truck movements through the Lower Mainland through a network of City roads which minimize intrusions into neighbourhoods (Section 6.12.9, 6.12.15); • entering into partnerships with GVRD member municipalities and the provincial government through research and joint studies such as the joint City/District North Vancouver Bicycle Plan to investigate more sustainable transportation development alternatives (Sections 6.12.5, 6.12.6, 6.12.7, 6.12.14); committing to work with transportation authorities from other jurisdictions to co-ordinate an efficient regional public transportation network (Sections 6.11.8, 6.12.6, 6.12.7, 6.12.12, 6.12.13, 6.12.14); committing to work with Trans Link on an on-going basis to ensure that regional trans- portation objectives, and the transportation objectives of the City, are met (Sections 6.12.5, 6.12.10, 6.12.12, 6.12.15); • encouraging the development of a network of sidewalks and paths through parks to link neigh- bourhoods with commercial, institutional, and administrative areas and to actively promote more pedestrian activity (Sections 6.12.2, 9.10); • committing to implement the Joint Bicycle Master Plan with the District of North Vancouver to encourage and promote more bicycle use (Section 6.12.1); • encouraging the application of transportation demand management techniques such as promoting the use of public transit, car pooling, parking alternatives, provision of bicycle racks and by not providing any additional road capacity for single occupant vehicles (Sections 6.12.11, 6.12.14, 6.12.16); • identifying on Schedule "F" —Trail System, current and proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails; • identifying on Schedule "C" the City's bicycle and truck routes; and • including a commitment to develop a compre- hensive and coordinated Transportation Plan that would include more sustainable trans- portation demand alternatives (Section 6.11.6). Appendix No. 1 / Regional Content Statement 1 the CONCLUSION Recent initiatives which support Transportation Choice strategy include: • investigating the implementation of Transportation Demand Measure programs includinq increased transit use, cycling and ride- sharing and van poolin g for riiu n il cipi employees; • establishing a citizen-based Transportation Advisory Committee to advise Council on the City's transportation initiatives and policies; This Regional Context Statement describes how the current City of North Vancouver Official Community Plan conforms with the objectives of the Region's Creating Our Future vision document, and the Livable Region Strategic Plan. The City of North Vancouver is committed to miiiementing these policies through partnership with the GVRD, other municipalities, organizations, and levels of government. • establishing and maintaining a Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee in conjunction with the District of North Vancouver; • completing the development of a trail system map as part of the Parks and Greenways Plan that identifies trails for pedestrian and casual cycling use; • providing bike lanes on major arterials to encourage commuter cyclists, and to increase their safety; • completing the Lonsdale Avenue Transit Priority study, which provides for improved transit service; and • committing to protect a wider right-of-way on Marine Drive and Esplanade in order to provide safer cycling routes, an enhanced pedestrian environment and possible future public transit improvements. February 25, 2009 Ms Sandra Dowe'i City Clerk City of North Vancouver 141 West 14th Avenue North Vancouver, BC V7M 11-19 Dear Ms Dowey: ,Z \\ 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, 3C, Canada V5H 4G8 04-4326200 www.metrovancouverorg Attachment No. 2 G: ?r Vancc Gre0 .-..-, VANCOUVER Office of the Comir. s!cner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel:604-432-6210 7ax., 604-451-6614 Re: Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy At its February 13, 2009 meeting, Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Ccr rnittee referred the enclosed document Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our Future, the lates draft of Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy, to member municipalities for initial o rnment on key issues prior to public consultations. The Committee directed that this draft should te the basis of public consultation starting on April 15th. They also indicated that municipal comments received prior to the start of the puolic consultation should be incorpc rated into the consultation c ocess to help frame the public debate. We expect the Metro Vancouver Board to confirm this directi :fl when they receive the report February 27, 2009 and we are sending the document to you at this ti to provide more time for a response to be prepared. Consequently we would request that, if there are significant policies in the draft plan for which your Council wishes to express its support for, or opposition to, that these comments be conveyed to Metro Vancouver by April 8th. The Regional Planning Committee also requested tuiat, if possible, municipal comments be provided in a form that would be readily conver ted into materiE. I that could be used in the public forums, rather than traditional staff reports. If these two requests can be met, we will do our utmost to see that your views are represented in the public consultation proc ass. As a guide, I would suggest that comments to be included in the public cons jltations should not exceed 2 pages. Metro Vancouver's Corporate Relations Department will b responsible for digesting municipal, comments into a form suitable for the consultation process. lnvo ng them in the process of shaping your comments into suitable communication pieces for the public onsuItation process might be helpful and reassuring to everyone. If you are interested in pursuin that possibility, please contact Heather Schoemaker to make the appropriate arrangements. If you have more detailed comments on such matters as the details of mapc g, boundaries, fine tuning, etc. then these would not likely be relevant to the broader public coru}tation process and therefore need not be submitted by the April 8th date. In fact we could accept this type of commentary up until May 22nd, although earlier responses will assist us in ding the best job we can in considering ant accommodating your views. THE USTAiNA5LE RECION INVflAT;VE TURNNG iDEAS ENTO ACT ION Municipal Clerks Reg-*4onal Growth Strategy - Metro Vancouver 2040 - draft February 2009 February 25, 200 Pace 2 of 52 Should you have any queszions, require additional copies of the draft Regic a! Growth Strategy, or wish to involve Metro staff as offered above, please contact Heather Scho& aker, Manager, Corporate Re'ations Department at 604-432-6364 or by email at HeatherSchoemaker©metrovanouv.orq. Yours truly, Commissioner/Chef Administrative Officer JC/HS/tb cc: Mayor and Council, Metro Vancouver municipalities Attachment: Regional Growth Strategy Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our futL e - Draft February 2009 eFM 004897314) - V V V V V V V VV V •_• V - - V •V V'V : V' V.: •--. H •V V VV V :- - • - -V V V • • • V V JENT TIRegi o naliit'i1fl(i V - -V V V V V vL I V * - V A E40 * V V• VS\ h,'h rnnca I:. 55 ................................. Advocxv 55 a t \i/hter L3he A ThE.! Sustainable Region Witlati IV E? 00 Sustainacifty encompasses a long term commitment to ecoremV prosperity, community well-being and environmental integrity. It is at the core of Metro Vancouver's vision for the future and provides the founda:jon for the recion's management plans. Under the Sustainable Regional lntiative (SRI) the celiverv of Metro Vancouver's programs and services folows three fundamental principles: have -agard for both local and global consequences; o recocnize and eflect the interconnectedness and interdecendence of systems; and o be collaborative. Since 2002, Metro\/r couver has formally put the concept of sustairial ility at the centre of its operating and plant irig philosophy and committed itself to e a leader in making the region one which is explic' committed to a sustainab.e future. In keeping '.' tb this commitment, the Metro Vancouver Board ac pted a Sustainability Framework which out a framework for decision making and for mo ng ideas into action. Figure 1 shows the broade SRI Framework including the inter-relationships interconnections between Metro Vancouver's rragement plans and the reciori's broader cot ire itment to sustainahility. FIGU 1 Sustainable Region Initiative Framework: Regional Management Plans and Mandates Attachment No. 3 CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY, 2009 DRAFT METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY The City of North Vancouver supports Metro Vancouver's initiative to produce a new Regional Growth Strategy and welcomes the opportunity for preliminary input on the February 2009 draft entitled, " Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping Our Future". The following comments and concerns are submitted in a form that the City hopes will suit your Corporate Relations Department's goal to "digest municipal comments into a form suitable for the consultation process". The City of North Vancouver notes that the Regional Growth Strategy is contained within a "Suite of Plans". As a legislatively critical document that the City and all member municipalities must fit within through our regional context statements, the City suggests that either the City's relationship to the entire "Suite of Plans" be articulated, or preferably, in the current process, the regional - municipal relationship expected of a Regional Growth Strategy be given paramountcy in the eventual bylaw document. The City of North Vancouver would prefer for more of its industrial lands near the Town Centre I Marine Drive corridor to have an "industrial commercial" designation to allow us more flexibility for employment generation. These areas are reasonably well served by transit, services and amenities. They are also unlikely to attract traditional industrial uses and heavy industry would not be appropriate given their urban context. In relation to the provision for diverse and affordable housing choices, the City of North Vancouver would prefer a 'complete community' approach for determining housing objectives and targets to ensure that every community has a balanced and diverse range of housing, which would address housing choice inequities within sub-regions. Partnership with senior government programs will be the only means of meeting the low end of market and social housing demand estimates. The City of North Vancouver applauds the integration of energy planning and greenhouse gas reduction in the draft regional plan and suggest that regional goals and strategies begin to articulate a regional vision for a carbon neutral future. The City questions whether some of the transportation and growth changes anticipated with the draft will be as supportable if their long-term implications from an energy use and climate change perspective are considered. Cliv of New Westminster REPORT DEVELOPMENT SER VICES DEPAR TMENT To: Mayor W. Wright and Members of Date: 2009 March 23 Council in Committee of the Whole From: Lisa Spitale, File: 01.0185.20 Director of Development Services Subject: Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy: Comments for Consultation Process and Timeline for Review RECOMMENDATION THAT stqff be directed to: a.Forward this report and the summary of comments to Metro Vancouver's Board with a request that the comments be included as part of the package for public consultation on the draft Regional Growth Strategy; b.Invite a staff member from Metro Vancouver to make a presentation on the draft Regional Growth Strategy at the April 20, 2009 Council Meeting, c.Host a public meeting in late April 2009 to give residents and the business community in New Westminster an opportunity to learn more about the draft Regional Growth Strategy; and d.Request that Metro Vancouver hold at least one public consultation event in the City of New Westminster. PURPOSE This report responds to a request to member municipalities from Metro Vancouver to provide comments on key issues arising from the Draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS,) that should be included in the upcoming public consultation. This report also outlines Metro Vancouver's public consultation schedule, as well as a suggestion for a community review of the draft RGS at a public meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Member municipalities in Metro Vancouver have been asked to provide comments on key issues arising from the Draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) that should be included in the upcoming public consultation, scheduled to occur from April 15, 2009 to the end of May 2009. This report outlines a number of key issues that should be included in the public consultation. The key issues include: Doc# 101594 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -2- o Requirement for further municipal work to be completed on the population and dwelling unit projections and a clarification of the status of the tables in the draft Ti f (l • Concern that the Frequent Transit Development Corridor does not reflect the City's long-standing growth framework; • Support in principle for strategies that limit significant retail and office development that are located out of Urban Centres; • Support in principle for an industrial land use designation and industrial/commercial land use designation the draft RGS; • Support in principle for policies that protect agricultural lands; • Support in principle the recreation/conservation land use designation but have concern about the loss of the publicly accepted, robust "Green Zone" concept; • Concern about the ability to implement the affordable housing strategies; • Concern regarding the road elements included in Map 7 and the need for stronger collaboration with TransLink on the development of longer term regional transportation planning. The potential impact of the location of the North Fraser Perimeter Road on the Downtown area is a specific issue that needs clarification in the plan. The report outlines the Metro Vancouver public review program and requests a presentation from Metro Vancouver staff at the April 20, 2009 Council meeting, and suggests that New Westminster staff host a public meeting on the draft RGS at the end of April. Finally, Metro Vancouver is requested to host a consultation event in New Westminster. To date, Metro Vancouver has scheduled the following meetings for the Burnaby- Westminster subregion: The sub-regional public meeting for New Westminster is scheduled for Thursday May 7, from 7 to 9 pm at Metro Vancouver Head Office at 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby. The Re gional Dialogue is scheduled on April 30, 2009 at the Hilton Metrotown Hotel from 4:30 to 7 pm. BACKGROUND The draft RGS was forwarded to the City of New Westminster on February 25, 2009 with the request to provide comments on key issues by April 8, 2009. The Regional Planning Committee of Metro Vancouver recommended that the start date for public consultation he April 15 2009, with municipal comments being received prior to that date. At its meeting of March 2, 2009, Council considered a report in response to this request and adopted the following resolution: THATstaffprepare a report for Council's consideration at its March 23 Committee of the Whole to: Doc 100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -3- (a) Respond to the Regional Planning Committee requestör comments on the main issues that need to be considered in the review of the draft regional growth strategy, and ('b) Outlines a work pro gramjbr broader community review of the draft regional growth strategy, The draft RGS (Attachment 1) is both shorter and less comprehensive than the preliminary draft considered by New Westminster Council in January 2009. Many of the actions contained in the previous draft that were not directly related to land use were removed. The draft RGS has replaced the "Urban Area" land use designation with an "Urban Containment Boundary" and removes the "Green Zone" category which is replaced with specific policies for "recreation and conservation" lands and "agricultural" lands. Specific changes that impact the City of New Westminster are included in the preliminary comments below. EXISTING POLICY/PRACTICE The RGS is an important tool for managing future growth in the region, while still ensuring its livability. It is estimated that the region will have 1.2 million more people by 2040. The draft RGS describes the challenges facing the region over the next 30 years and clearly articulates the need for effective and coordinated strategies to respond to the emerging issues of climate change, sustainability. reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, protection of environmentally important land, as well as, land for food security, protecting the supply of industrial land, improving the diversity of the housing stock and coordinating transportation and land use decisions. The City of New Westminster has indicated support for a renewed vision for the region that will define a framework for future residential, commercial and industrial growth compatible with the protection of the region's natural assets and greenspace. It is acknowledged that the need for a stronger regional growth strategy that would meet regional growth challenges must be balanced with the need for municipal control on land use decisions to ensure a livable community. After the adoption of a new regional growth strategy, the City of New Westminster would have two years to adopt a new Regional Context Statement in its Official Community Plan (OCP) that indicates how the OCP is in aligmuent with the regional growth strategy. Doc#1 00695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -4- ANALYSIS Key Issues for -Inclusion in Public Consultation Materials The Regional Planning Committee has requested municipalities to provide preliminary comments on major issues that they believe should be highlighted at the start of the formal review process. Metro Vancouver plans to include key issues identified by municipalities in consultation materials that will be made available to the public during the consultation process. As requested by Metro Vancouver staff, the issues described in this report will be summarized in a two-page submission to Metro Vancouver. In addition, detailed comments from municipalities will be accepted up to May 22, 2009. The following discussion outlines the key issues that should be reflected in the consultation materials for Council's consideration. The choice of strategies below reflects those that have an impact on the City of New Westminster. It is important to note that the comments below do not represent the City's formal response to the draft RGS. This response can only be prepared after Metro Vancouver's consultation process. 1. Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Projects The draft Regional Growth Strategy Goal I"Create a Compact Urban Area" contains the following under Strategy 1.13: Municipalities will Develop Regional Context Statements which iden tj5' population, dwelling unit and employment projections to support the achievement ofprojections outlined in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 (Appendix A) The projections for population, employment and dwelling unit projection estimates are included at a sub-regional level which means that New Westminster is included with Burnaby. Appendix B (which is not referred to in the draft RGS) contains the following projections for New Westminster: Projected Growth Rates New Westminster -2006 (census)2021 2031 Total Population 61,800 82,000 96,000 105,000 Total Dwellings 29,000 38,000 45,000 48,000 Total Employment 28,000 38,000 44,000 48,000 For comparison, the current OCT indicates a projected population of 84, 000 by 2021 and employment of 40, 000 by 2021. Doc#l00695 Ciz'v of New Westminster March 23, 2009 Projected Average Annual Growth Rates New Westminster 2006 (census) 2021 (growth rate per year) 2031 (growth rate per year from 2021) 2041 (growth rate per year from 2031) Total Population 61,800 2.18%1.7%.94% Total Dwellings 29,000 2.1%1.8%.67% Total Employment 28,000 2.38%1.6%.91% Detailed technical work on both the Downtown Community Plan and the Queensborough Community Plan is indicating that the ability to accept growth in these areas will slow at around 2031. The primary reason is that easily developed areas and under-developed areas are expected to be developed or redeveloped at about 2031. As such, it is expected that the sustained rate of growth in these areas is expected to be reduced beyond 2031, which appears to be reflected in the draft RGS projections. From a regional perspective, the draft RGS is silent regarding the issue of the maximum level of population growth that the region can sustain and remain livable. It is suggested that the draft RGS should explore the issue of the ultimate level of growth that can be accommodated in Metro Vancouver, while retaining the core values of livability and sustainability. On many occasions, Council members and New Westminster residents have expressed concern about the ability for New Westminster to accept a sustained level of population growth into the future. New Westminster is an urbanized area, and the ability to continue to accept a steady level of growth and maintain livability requires careful evaluation. In order to provide a detailed response to the draft RGS projections, Planning Division staff will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the expected growth in all neighbourhoods in the City, and will consider projected growth beyond the 2031 time frame, which is being used in the considerations for the Downtown and Queensborough Plan. Staff suggests that this work be presented at a public workshop at the end of April 2009. The comments received at the workshop will be considered in the preparation of the City's formal response to the draft RGS. The draft RGS is unclear regarding the intended use of the population, dwelling unit and growth projections that are contained in the document's Appendix A and B. Although the text of the draft RGS requires municipalities to prepare Regional Context Statements that identify projections that support the numbers in Appendix A, a notation on the bottom of Appendix A states that the projections are to assist in long range planning and are for guidance only. As noted above, the municipal level table (Appendix B) is not referred to in the draft RGS. Doc# 100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -6- Further, the Amendment section of the draft RGS states that changes to the text or tables in the plan would be considered a minor amendment to the RGS and would require a two-thirds weighted voted of the Metro Vancouver Board. Clarification of the status of the projections is required in order to understand that tile effect that the projections will have in the preparation of the City's Regional Context Statement. 2. Focus Growth in Frequent Transit Development Corridors The draft Regional Growth Strategy Goal I Create a Compact Urban Area" contains the following under Strategy 1.2.4: Municipalities will promote the development of Frequent Transit Development Corridors by developing Regional Context Statements which: (a) fdentij5' within the Urban Containment Boundary, the Frequent Transit Development corridors or portions thereof where growth will be focussed with these areas to be generally consistent with the Frequent Transit Network Concept as set out on the Urban Centres map ('Map 2). (h) Identify policies which: • Focus higher density residential development in Frequent Transit Development Corridors, consistent with the guidelines in Figure 2; • Reduce residential and commercial parking requirements within Frequent Transit Development Corridors where appropriate. Map 2 shows the network of Frequent Transit Development Corridors. In New Westminster, the following elements are shown: • SkyTrain line • Bus lines on 6th Street, 8th Street and 12th Street • The 6" Avenue/81 Avenue bus line (general location). The Frequent Transit Network Concept has been taken from "Transport 2040", which is TransLink's long range plan. The guidelines referred to above notes that the development areas within the corridor depend on local circumstances, but should generally range from 400 to 800 metres on both sides of the corridor for areas identified for development, with higher density uses located within 400 metres of the corridor. For New Westminster, roughly 80% of the City would fall within 400 metres of a Frequent Transit Development Corridor. Many segments of the Frequent Transit Network identified in Map 2 are not intended to be areas to allow denser development; they are meant to connect areas of activity and transit demand. As described, the Frequent Transit Development Corridor concept does not reflect the nodal nature of Doc#1 00695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -7- nodal nature of the development framework in New Westminster; for example, the 6th Avenue and 6th Street node is the defining characteristic of the Uptown development area. Although it is recognized that the text of the draft RGS notes that the exact nature of the corridors will be determined over time, staff are concerned that the Frequent Transit Development Corridor concept is not in alignment with the growth management strategy of the City and may lead to misunderstanding in the community. 3. Supporting Urban Centre Development The draft Regional Growth Strategy Goal 2 "Support a Sustainable Economy" contains the following under Strategy 2.1.5: Municipalities will Develop Regional Context Statements which: (a)Identify policies which support the concentration of retail, office, cultural, institutional and entertainment activities in Urban Centres.... (b)Identify policies which prevent major commercial (retail, office and entertainment) and institutional development outside of Urban Centres. The City of New Westminster has an Official Community Plan and is developing a new Downtown Community Plan which is in alignment with the Downtown's designation of a Regional Town Centre (Urban Centre in the draft RGS). The City's planning efforts are strongly in support of the objective of supporting the concentration retail, office, cultural and entertainment activities in the Downtown. 'In the last few years, the City's effort to support a vibrant Regional Town Centre has been hampered by the creation of significant "out-of-centre" retail and office opportunities in close proximity to Downtown New Westminster. These developments, include large business parks containing office development, large "stand alone" shopping centres and "big box" retail areas. Such developments were allowed within the framework of the Livable Region Strategic Plan, although the efficacy of the Regional Town Centre model was compromised. For example, over 605,000 square feet of new retail space has been developed in the Big Bend area of Burnaby (Marine Way and Byrne Road) in the last five years as compared to a total retail floor space in Downtown New Westminster of about 666,000 square feet. This strategy, which strives to restrict significant development that is contrary to the framework of supporting growth in Urban Centres and other areas that are well served by good transit and other services, is supported. There is a concern that the effectiveness of the regional growth strategy is called into question if one of its underlying tenets of accommodating growth in a network of urban centres that are supported by significant infrastructure investments is undermined. It is acknowledged Doc#100695 City ofNew Westminster March 23, 2009 -8- that other municipalities will strongly disagree with this strategy as it is viewed as overly prescriptive and preventing local flexibility on land use decisions. 4. Protecting the Region's Supply of Industrial Land and Agricultural Land The draft Regional Growth Strategy Goal 2 "Support a Sustainable Economy" contains the following under Strategy 2.2.3: Municipalities will develop Regional Context Statements which: (a)Identify the Industrial areas and its boundary on a map generally consistent with the areas shown on . . .Map 4, (b)Identify the Industrial/Commercial areas and its boundary on a map generally consistent with the areas shown on . . . Map 4, (c)Identz)5' policies which (sic) encourage the use of industrial lands for industrial uses, prevent non-industrial uses in Industrial areas and encourage better utilization of existing industrial areas for industrial activities. The strategy described above is in alignment with the City's Industrial Land Strategy which seeks to support existing industrial operations and seek more intensive use of the industrial land base. Planning Division staff has advised Metro Vancouver Regional Development Division staff as to current City land use designations for Industrial land, industrial/commercial land, and these are generally reflected on Map 4. A more detailed analysis will occur over the next months, which will include the results of the industrial land review being undertaken as part of the Queensborough Neighbourhood Plan review. Once again it is acknowledged that other municipalities will strongly disagree with this strategy as it is viewed as overly prescriptive and preventing local flexibility on land use decisions. The draft Regional Growth Strategy Goal 2 "Support a Sustainable Economy" contains a number of policies under Strategy 2.3 "Protect the region's supply of agricultural land and encourage it use for food production" that require municipalities to specify the Agricultural area in a map and outline a number of actions to support agricultural operations in their OCPs. The Agricultural Land Commission is requested to ensure that all lands designated Agricultural in Map 4 be included in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). While New Westminster does not have agricultural land, the issue of food security and the regional economic benefit provided by the agricultural sector reinforces the regional significant of agriculture. Strong protection of agricultural lands is a significant objective of the regional growth strategy. Strategies contained in the RGS Doc#100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -9- must be sufficiently robust to secure the agricultural land base and in cases where land is excluded from the ALR its new use be consistent with regional growth .objectives. 5. Protecting the Region's Natural Assets The draft Regional Growth Strategy 3.1 "Protect the region's conservation and recreation lands" contains the following under Strategy 3.1.3: Municipalities will develop Regional Context Statements which: (a)Specify the Conservation/Recreation area and its boundary on a map, consistent with the Conservation/Recreation Area map (Map 5); (b)Identify appropriate uses for the Conservation/Recreation areas such as. • The supply of high quality, drinking water, • Ecological conservation; • Outdoor recreation, • Compatible research and development, • Commercial uses compatible with conservation and recreation; • Sustainable forestry. Under the LRSP, there was little guidance to municipalities to help with identifying candidate sites for inclusion of the "Green Zone". The result is that municipalities varied in their interpretation of green zone lands; some municipalities only identified large sites with significant ecological value while other municipalities identified every piece of park land. New Westminster has over 100 parcels within the current "Green Zone". The proposed strategy provides greater clarity to the type of lands which should be included in the Conservation/Recreation area and requires municipalities to identify appropriate uses for Conservation/Recreation areas. Over the next few months, Planning Division and Parks and Recreation staff will review the existing "Green Zone" sites and recommend deletions' and additions so that the sites reflect the new Conservation! Recreation land use designation. The suggested additions and deletions will be forwarded to Council for consideration before being submitted to Metro Vancouver. The notion of a regional "Green Zone" (which also included agricultural lands) was a very robust concept and was considered to be an internationally recognized strength of the LRSP. Planning Division staff regret the loss of this strong regional growth management framework and suggest that it be re-instated in the draft RGS. Doc#1 00695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -10- 6. Provide Diverse and Affordable Housing Choices The draft Regional Growth Strategy 4.1 "Provide Diverse and Affordable Housing Choices" contains thc following under Strategy 4.1.3: Municipalities will development Regional Context Statements and complementary Housing Action Plans which: (c) specify strategies to: o meet the estimated future demand for rental and ownership units as set out in Table 1.3; o increase the supply of units affordable to households with low to moderate incomes as set out in Table 1. 4; o increase the supply and diversity of the existing housing stock through infill developments and smaller lot sizes as well as more compact housing forms; o secure additional "affordable" rental units for households with low to low to moderate incomes through tools such as density bonus provisions (etc.) This is the first RGS to specifically include housing diversity policies. This strategy recognizes that affordable housing is an essential component of complete communities; however, there is a concern that the obligations may establish expectations in the community that cannot be achieved with current planning tools and the absence of senior government assistance. The City of New Westminster's draft Affordable Housing Strategy contains policies that respond to the strategies listed above, but it is recognized that the actual delivery of the affordable housing units is beyond the scope of local government. Specifically, there is concern about developing strategies to meet the demand for rental housing in accordance with the estimates of demand outlined in Table 1.3, when the ability to regulate tenure in housing is limited. Further, it is suggested that Strategy 4.1.2 which states that Metro Vancouver explore opportunities to increase the portfolio of units managed by the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation should be stronger in that the Housing Corporation has considerable more resources than municipalities to deliver affordable housing. Increasing the supply and diversity of the housing stock through infihl and intensification is listed as an action that municipalities must address in their Regional Context Statements. The draft Affordable Housing Strategy also refers to this as an action that staff will include as part of a neighbourhood based infihl housing study that is currently part of the Planning Division's work program for later this year. Doc# 100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -11- 7. Provide Sustainable Transportation Choices The draft Regional Growth Strategy 5.2 "Connect land use and transportation to support an efficient regional roads and goods movement network" contains the following under Strategy 5.2.2: Municipalities will development Regional Context Statements which. (a) identify on a map municipal segments of the Regional Roads Concept, as shown on Map 7,• Map 7 shows the "Regional Roads Concept" that includes Provincial Highways and the Region's Major Roads Network (MRN). There are several differences between Map 7 and the Major Roads, Highways and Gateways map contained within TransLink's Transport 2040. The primary concern is that Map 7 is intended to represent the future (2040) regional road network, which at this time has not yet been developed by TransLink and the member municipalities. There are a number of road sections, including the Pattullo Bridge that may form part of the Region's 2040 road network. These projects are not illustrated on Map 7. Furthermore the corridor for the North Fraser Perimeter Road noted as "Planned Highway / Expansions" is currently under study by TransLink and may not be delineated as noted on Map 7. The corridor and function of the North Fraser Perimeter Road is a road element that requires clarification on Map 7as it has an impact on the Downtown New Westminster (an Urban Centre). There is confusion between the expression of the future road network, as shown in Map 7 and in the work completed to date by TransLink. It is suggested that Map 7 be replaced with the same map that is in TransLink's Transport 2040 with similar notation's indicating that the map reflects the regional road network as it exists today in 2009 and that a review of the MRN is currently underway by TransLink. For clarification, it is further suggested that policies 5.2.2 (a) and 5.2.3 and 5.2.3 (a) be reworded to eliminate reference to Map 7 but indicate that collaboration is required between municipalities and TransLink. Metro Vancouver's Public Review Process On March 6, 2009 the Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee considered a staff report that outlined a detailed communications strategy for the RGS Public Consultation Program. The suggested timeline for the upcoming consultation process and the adoption process for the strategy is as follows: Doc#100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -12- Date Event February 2009 Preparation of "Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future: and referral to municipalities for comments on key issues April 8, 2009 Deadline for Municipal comments on key issues April-June 2009 Public Consultation on "Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future" June-Oct 2009 Final RGS prepared and RGS Bylaw referred to Board for first and second reading May 22, 2008 Final detailed comments from municipalities. (May Ii, 2009 New Westminster Council meeting) June 2009 Public Hearing July-October 2009 Refer RGS to affected local governments for consideration of acceptance (120 day period as per the Local Government Act) November 2009 Board considers RGS Bylaw for final adoption Complementary products and materials will be developed for the public consultation process. The materials will include: 1.A summary brochure that explains the key policy directions and a coloured composite map. 2.Companion Guide for RGS that will provide background information and technical research. 3.PowerPoint Presentations for Councils and groups. 4.An updated webpage on the Metro Vancouver website. 5.Video material for use at Public Meetings. In addition, the following public consultation events are being planned: 1.Public Meetings in the eight subregions, including a meeting in Burnaby-New Westminster. The intended audience would be the general public, and the format would involve an open house, presentation and small group working sessions. 2.Dialogues and Breakfasts. Dialogues (lunch sessions) are scheduled in four locations (North Shore, South of the Fraser, the Northeast Sector and downtown Vancouver).. Breakfasts are schedule in Downtown Vancouver, North of the Fraser and South of the Fraser. 3.Presentations to Targeted Groups such as regionally-focussed business, non- profit or community groups. 4.Presentations to Municipal Councils 5.Regional Growth Strategy Summit structured as a Council of Councils with an expanded audience of municipal elected representatives, staff and representatives of business groups, community groups, staff from senior governments, and the general public The purpose of the summit is to discuss the comments received Doc# 100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -13- during the RGS consultation process. The event, schedule for the end of May or beginning of June, will be one day long and include a panel of speakers and small group discussions. Metro Vancouver's Consultation Process and Opportunities for New Westminster Residents and Members of the Business Community Metro Vancouver is presenting an extremely ambitious timeline for public consultation, with activities beginning in mid April and winding up in late May 2009 in anticipation of a late June 2009 Public Hearing. Municipal comments are expected to be received by Metro Vancouver on May 22, which means that a report to New Westminster Council will need to be considered on May 11, 2009 at the latest. It is expected that residents and members of the business community would have the opportunity to learn more about the strategy and comment at sub-regional public meetings, dialogues, breakfasts, the Summit and through on-line comment forms. The regional public meeting for New Westminster is scheduled for Thursday May 7, from 7 to 9 pm at Metro Vancouver Head Office at 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby. The Regional Dialogue is scheduled on April 30, 2009 at the Hilton Metrotown Hotel from 4:30 to 7 pm. No public events are currently scheduled for New Westminster. Planning Division staff had suggested to Council that it would be desirable to have a separate municipally-driven public meeting in order for New Westminster residents and the business community to learn about the draft Regional Growth Strategy and provide comments, particularly on the growth projections for the city as a whole and the designated Urban Centre (Downtown). Staff proposes to host a public meeting in the third week of April that will feature a staff presentation that summarizes current work that relates to. projected growth in the Downtown (Queensborough and Downtown Community Plans) and potential considerations for the rest of the City. The meeting will give residents the opportunity to learn how the draft RGS projections reflect planning principles contained in City of New Westminster's adopted plans, those currently under development and those contemplated for review in the future. The suggested date for the public meeting is Thursday, April 23, 2009. In addition, New Westminster staff will ensure that the Metro Vancouver events are well- advertised to local residents, resident associations, business groups and City committee members. Information regarding events will be placed on the City's website, the City Page advertisement and messages will be sent to all residents' associations. City staff will attend the Metro Vancouver events that are applicable to New Westminster interests and will record comments that will be included in a subsequent report to Council. Planning Division staff will contact Metro Vancouver Regional Development Division staff to request that at the minimum, one event be held in New Westminster. Further, Metro Doc#100695 City ofNew Westminster March 23, 2009 -14- Vancouver staff will be requested to attend at the Regular Council meeting of April 20, 2009 to present on the regional growth strategy. SUSTAINABJLITY IMPLICATIONS The new regional growth strategy is a land use plan that recognizes that community well- being, economic prosperity and environmental health enhance the liveability and sustainability of the region. The City's Official Community Plan must be in alignment with a newly adopted regional growth strategy within two years. OPTIONS Two options are presented for Council's consideration: 1. That staff be directed to: a.Forward this report and the summary of comments to Metro Vancouver's Board with a request that the comments be included as part of the package for public consultation on the draft Regional Growth Strategy; b.Invite a staff member from Metro Vancouver to make a presentation on the draft Regional Growth Strategy at the April 20, 2009 Council Meeting; c.Host a public meeting in late April 2009 for residents and the business community in New Westminster; and d.Request that Metro Vancouver hold at least one public consultation event in the City of New Westminster. 2. Another direction suggested by Council. Staff recommend Option 1. INTERDEPARTMENTAL LIAISON The review of the regional growth strategy background materials has occurred in conjunction with staff from the Engineering Department. CONCLUSION Member municipalities in Metro Vancouver have been asked to provide comments on key issues arising from the Draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) that should be included in the upcoming public consultation, scheduled to occur from April 15, 2009 to the end of May 2009. This report outlines a number of key issues that should be included in the public consultation and also requests a presentation from Metro Vancouver staff at Doc#100695 City of New Westminster March 23, 2009 -15- a future Council meeting. The report also suggests that New Westminster host a public meeting on the draft RGS for residents and the business community and that Metro Vancouver be requested to host a consultation event in New Westminster. Bever rieve Manager of Planning Lisa Sp ale, Director of Development Services Appro resent4tion to Council TU U\^A Paul Darninato,, City Administrator Doc# 100695 C I T Y 0 DATE: March 16, 2009 To: Mayor Greg Moore and Councillors FROM: Smart Growth Committee Report to Council MAR 23 2009 SUBJECT: DRAFT METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY (Smart Growth Committee - March 12, 2009) RECOMMENDATION That the attached letter outlining the City of Port Coquitlam's comments on the draft Regional Growth Strategy be forwarded to Metro Vancouver. PURPOSE: To respond to a request from Metro Vancouver for corporate and high-level comments on the draft Regional Growth Strategy entitled, "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping our Future". 1.SUMMARY At its meeting held March 12, 2009, the Smart Growth Committee considered the attached staff report and draft letter. The Committee supports Council forwarding' the attached letter, revised to incorporate our comments, to Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver requested municipal comments on key issues by April 8th for inclusion in the public consultation process. The vision, goals and strategies proposed in the document are in keeping with the achievement of a sustainable region and compatible with many of the policies of our Official Community Plan. However, a number of key concerns were identified by staff in their preliminary review. The Committee discussed , the issues noted in the staff analysis and has added its 'comments on the proposed actions required by municipalities. The Committee concurs that the proposed strategy poses significant implementation challenges to the community and recommends this be clearly stated in the correspondence. 2.OPTIONS The attached letter has been drafted for the Mayor's signature which summarizes the concerns outlined in greater detail by this report. Council may: 1) Direct staff to send the letter to Metro Vancouver; (recommended) IiItiUsj:itI1 ^ MW 20 1, March 16, 2009 Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 2)Request further review by staff or Committee to amend the draft letter prior to sending it to Metro Vancouver; 3)Decline to forward a response to Metro Vancouver at this time. Municipal concerns on the draft RGS would not be included as part of the public consultation package, however the City would still be able to comment on the 'draft as part of the public consultation process. tLaura Lee Richard, MCIP, Director of Development Services with the concurrence of the Chair. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated March 11, 2009 re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy ITEM PACE [1i1 CrTYOF P _T ­,^^,.R COQUITLAM Report to Committee DATE: March 11, 2009 To: Smart Growth Committee FROM: Laura Lee Richard, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: DRAFT METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION That the attached letter outlining the City of Port Coquitlam' s comments on the draft Regional Growth Strategy be forwarded to Metro Vancouver. PURPOSE: To respond to a request from Metro Vancouver for corporate and high-level comments on the draft Regional Growth Strategy entitled, "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping our Future". 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Request: On February 13, 2009 the Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Committee referred its latest draft of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) to member municipal Councils for their initial comments; the Metro Vancouver Board confirmed this direction at its meeting held February 27, 2009. Municipalities have been requested provide initial comments on key issues prior to public consultation and submit their comments to Metro Vancouver by April 8th (refer to Attachment 1: Letter from Metro Vancouver). Detailed comments such as mapping inconsistencies are requested to be provided under separate cover by May 22, 2009. 1.2 The Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP): Greater Vancouver's current regional growth strategy is the LRSP adopted by member municipalities in 1996. It contains four goals: o Protect the Green Zone o Build Complete Communities o Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region o Increase Transportation Choice. Hi March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 2 Port Coquitlam's Official Community Plan (OCP) contains a detailed Regional Context Statement which outlines how the City's policies and land use designations support these goals. This statement was approved by Metro Vancouver in 2005. 1.3 Sustainable Region Initiative: In 2002, Metro Vancouver adopted the Sustainable Region Initiative as its framework for decision-making putting in place three key principle: protect and enhance the natural environment; provide for ongoing prosperity; and build community capacity and social cohesion. The RGS has been drafted within the mandate of this Initiative. 1.4 RGS Review Process: The process began in 2006 with a series of workshops attended by municipal staff, regional staff, and other stakeholders. Port Coquitlam staff provided comments on several earlier versions of the RGS, including a detailed review of the proposed maps. This first draft of the RGS to be publicly released has been substantially modified from earlier versions reviewed by staff through the Metro Vancouver Technical Advisory Committee and designated sub-committees. 2. ANALYSIS A comprehensive review of the draft RGS was not possible in the tight timeline provided by the Metro Vancouver Board, nor was it requested. To provide initial feedback on significant concerns by the April 8th deadline, staff limited the scope of our assessment to the fundamental principles contained in the plan, required municipal outcomes detailed within the plan, and resulting impacts to the community. 2.1 Context: A brief introductory section of the RGS summarizes the context within the broader Sustainable Region Initiative, explains the relationship of the RGS to other Metro Vancouver plans and highlights key challenges the Region is facing such as accommodating growth, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting agricultural lands and ensuring wise use of natural resources. Although the introduction sets the stage for the RGS, its brevity means the true context is lost on the reader. 2.2 Land Uses and Urban Containment: The introduction of an Urban Containment Boundary is a key land use element which structures the RGS and set a limit within which all new growth should occur. Agricultural and recreation/conservation lands in Port Coquitlam are excluded from the Urban Containment Boundary. Lands within the Urban Containment Boundary are classified as follows: • Urban Centers - growth concentration areas for high density residential and commercial/office uses. Port Coquitlam' s Downtown retains its LRSP designation as a Municipal Town Center within this classification; Coquitlam Center is given a Regional City Center designation. • Frequent Transit Corridors - this is a new concept of secondary, high-density residential growth areas to be adjacent to rapid transit lines, bus or rail. In Port _JTEMi17i March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 3. Coquitlam, the entire length of the Lougheed Highway is identified as a Frequent Transit Corridor. • Industrial - includes all lands designated as Industrial in municipal OCPs and specifies use parameters within these areas. All of Port Coquitlam's existing industrial areas are included in this classification (Davis, Mary Hill, Meridian and Dominion Triangle areas). • Industrial/Commercial - includes lands which are designated for industrial development in OCPs but which have been developed for commercial uses of big box retail and office parks. Port Coquitlam does not have any land in this classification. • General Urban Areas - low to medium density, ground-oriented residential lands make up the bulk of the Urban Containment Area and a significant portion of Port Coquitlam' s land area. Lands outside the Urban Containment Boundary fall within the following classifications: • Agricultural - all lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) are identified as Agricultural. In Port Coquitlam, these lands are in the north-east (ALR lands between Fremont Street and the Pitt River) and Colony Farm. • Recreation and Conservation - includes parks, trails and conservation areas. In Port Coquitlam these are public lands currently defined in both the LRSP and our OCP's Regional Context Statement as being within the regional Green Zone. • Rural - includes privately owned land outside the Urban Containment Boundary where existing low density development is to be maintained. Port Coquitlam does not have any lands within this category. 2.3 Goals, Strategies and Actions: The RGS identifies five goals for the Region. Strategies are proposed for each goal, with actions identified separately for Metro Vancouver, Municipalities and other Government Agencies (Province, Translink etc). Mapping, charts and tables are used to illustrate the required actions and tie into the land use classifications noted above. GOAL 1: Create a Compact Urban Area. This goal is consistent with Port Coquitlam's OCP. However, there are significant issues in the strategies and associated Municipal Actions as follows. Strategy 1.1: Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary. With population expected to continue to grow significantly over the next 30 years, staff believe the Region must implement strategies and actions which reduce sprawl and promote compact, complete,' sustainable communities. It is generally acknowledged that the LRSP was unsuccessful in retaining a concentration of new growth within the LRSP's Growth Concentration Area and a more detailed strategy of land use classifications within an Urban • Il?J11iTuf1 March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 4 Containment Boundary is now proposed in its place to serve as a better tool for implementation. Port Coquitlam would be required to identify population, dwelling unit and employment projections which support identified Tr-City sub-regional projections. A supplementary table to the RGS indicates an expectation of the following commitments from Port Coquitlam to be met between 2006 and 2041 to help achieve the sub-regional target: • A population increase of over 70%, from 55,200 to 95,000. The OCP currently indicates a population capacity of 80,000 based on current policies and land use designations. • Almost doubling our dwelling unit stock from 20,000 to 39,000. • An over 75% increase in employment from 22,000 to 39,000. The RGS concentrates future residential growth in the Downtown and new Lougheed Highway Frequent Transit Corridor, with employment growth concentrated in the Downtown and industrial areas. Staff have significant concerns with our capacity to accommodate these projections as they would require considerable amendments to the current OCP land use designations and policies, would greatly alter the established built form of landscape of our community, and are unrealistic targets given our economic and physical constraints. Strategy 1.2 Focus. Growth in Urban Centers and Frequent Transit Development Corridors. Port Coquitlam would be required to: • specify the boundaries of the Downtown and Frequent Transit Development Corridor along Lougheed Highway • draft policies which support these areas for high density residential/commercial/office • discourage high density development outside these area, and • support lower density, ground oriented residential uses in General Urban Areas. There are notable, and troubling, inconsistencies related to this direction. The draft RGS would seem to assume only one appropriate scheme of densification for all member municipalities regardless of context or patterns of development entrenched within the existing landscape. In doing so, there is a lack of recognition for existing mixed use "nodal" development which is prevalent in many smaller communities and neighbourhoods and consistent with sustainable and smart growth ideals. These nodes, such as our Northside, are characterized by local commercial and community amenities surrounded by a gradient of IITEM PAGE Aft dft March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page residential densities. The OCP recognizes the Northside as a secondary growth area and promotes its densification. In the RGS, such nodes are included within the low density and suburban "General Urban Areas" and their continued growth is discouraged. The RGS promotes Frequent Transit Development Corridors as a more appropriate location for mid to high density residential growth instead of a nodal pattern. The RGS assumes rapid transit service (bus or rail is not specified) along the entire span of Lougheed Highway. This service level and alignment, however, has not yet been agreed upon by any level of government (including Port Coquitlam) although staff strongly support additional transit provisions within the community. In addition, staff advocate future rapid transit be via rail with an alignment to include the Downtown to accommodate the targeted commercial and residential growth. A Frequent Transit Development Corridor along Lougheed Highway would entail policies and land use designations which call for a band of high and medium density residential development along Lougheed Highway in association with a future rapid transit system. However, under the OCP and RGS, the south side of Lougheed Highway would continue to be classified industrial and utilized for the CP rail yards making the corridor land use policies only applicable on the north side. In staff's opinion, the context of the north side is highly unsuitable for high density residential development as it is adjacent to a limited access highway, the area is zoned and designated for highway commercial uses and currently provides highly valuable employment opportunities. The RGS also requires municipqlities to include policies which reduce residential and commercial parking in Urban Centers and Frequent Transit Development Corridor. This has traditionally been a contentious issue in downtown Port Coquitlam and would require a commitment for rapid transit. Strategy 1.3 Encourage land use and transportation development that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Port Coquitlam policies are generally in line with this strategy Strategy 1.4 Protect the Region's rural lands from urban development. Port Coquitlam does not have any lands classified as Rural. On a general note, however, the proposed policies appear to be weak and not likely to prevent sprawl in rural areas. WIfle1 . mffl^ March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 6 GOAL 2: Support a Sustainable Economy. Identifying a sustainable economy as an integral goal for the Region to pursue is new directive in the draft RGS; the 1996 LRSP was silent on this issue. The strategies and 'actions associated with this goal are largely focussed on retention of land for employment through industrial uses, and agricultural productivity. Strategy 2.1. Promote patterns of land development that support a diverse regional economy and employment close to where people live. Port Coquitlam would be required to identify policies which concentrate commercial (retail, office, entertainment) and institutional uses in the Downtown and prevent major commercial and institutional development outside this area. This broad stroke policy could be overly restrictive to Port Coquitlam, given the limited commercial growth potential in the Downtown and the existing designations for strategically placed commercial/mixed use nodes (such as Dominion Triangle and Northside). The draft RGS should be revised to allow municipalities to recognize contextually appropriate situations. Strategy 2.2 Protect the Region's supply of industrial land. Port Coquitlam would be required to identify the boundaries of our four industrial areas and identify policies which keep these lands for industrial uses. While several of the required actions are in conformance with the policies and land use designations in the OCP, staff are concerned other actions are too narrow and restrictive. The RGS does not differentiate between different classifications of industrial lands, and sets strict parameters for acceptable types of industrial development. Again, this reduces the autonomy of municipalities to make contextually appropriate land use decisions which recognize changing landscapes, evolving technology and complementary mix of uses. Staff also question the general classification of all OCP designated lands within the Industrial classification, instead of a more analytical approach which would determine the suitability of areas for long term industrial uses. If strict parameters of industrial use are to be prescribed by the RGS, staff do not recommend the inclusion of the Davis Industrial Park area in the Industrial Classification giver its small parcel sizes and residential context. Strategy 2.3 Protect the 'Region's supply of agricultural land and encourage its use for food production. Port Coquitlam would be required to classify our ALR lands as "Agricultural" and identify policies which encourage agricultural uses on these properties and discourage disruption or farm fragmentation. These actions are generally consistent with our policies and designations in the OCP, however, staff note Colony Farms would be included in the Agricultural classification and wish the RGS to better contextualize for these types of situations. In addition, staff note conflicts with the OCP's existing policy which identifies the need to consider, as part of the decision making process for the ITEM PAGE March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 7 Fremont Connector alignment, appropriate long term uses for remnant ALR lands to the east of the alignment. GOAL 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets. In a significant departure from preliminary draft documents and the LRSP, the highly recognized term "Green Zone" is completely absent from the draft RGS. This has the unfortunate effect of weakening the directive to protect the Region's green areas. The overall impression of this section is a feeble strategy and weakly worded actions unlikely to achieve the most important goal of the RGS. Strategy 3.1. Protect the Region's conservation and recreation lands. The actions required of Port Coquitlam appear to be in general conformance with existing policies and designations in the OCP but without the same strength as a defined Green Zone. GOAL 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities. The intention of this goal is to identify strategies and actions which will contribute to liveable, walkable, safe, sustainable and resilient communities which provide adequate housing, services, amenities and diversity of choice to the Region's residents. Strategy 4.1 Provide diverse and affordable housing choices. Port Coquitlam would be required to develop a Housing Action Plan to detail, among other components, how we would achieve our share of 10 year sub-regional rental and ownership housing targets which is 6,000 new units of which 3,900 would, be owned and 2,100 rental. The City would also need to detail our commitment to sub-regional 10 year social housing targets, estimated at 1,500 new units. These municipal actions detailed under this strategy are not possible to achieve without committed assistance from other levels of government. Strategy 4.2 Develop complete, inclusive communities with access to a range of services and amenities. Strategy 4.3 Minimize risks from natural hazards and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The actions required of Port Coquitlarn for these two strategies appear to be in general conformance with existing policies and designations in the OCP. GOAL 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices. This goal is consistent with Port Coquitlam's OCP which recognizes the need to integrate land use and transportation decisions to achieve a sustainable community. Strategy 5.1 Connect land use and transportation to support transit, walking and cycling. Port Coquitlam would be required to specify how we will accommodate the proposed Frequent Transit Network Concept along Lougheed Highway and support this network with land use decisions. Staff do not support this action for the reasons described in the discussion of Strategy 1.2. LffWPAGE HJ March 11, 2009 Report re Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 8 Strategy 5,2 Connect land use and transportation to support and efficient regional roads and goods movement network. The actions required of Port Coquitlam appear to be in general conformance with existing policies and designations in the OCP. 2.4 Implementation and Performance Measures: The implementation section outlines the legislative context for the plan, illustrates the relationship between the RGS and Official Community Plans, Transport 2040 (Translink Plan), and provides the process and criteria for amending the RGS. Port Coquitlam would need to detail how OCP policies and land use designations are consistent with the RGS strategies and we would implement the required Municipal actions through a revised Regional Context Statement. The Regional Context Statement must then be approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. Port Coquitlam will also be required to refer all future OCP amendments which may affect the approved Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver for the purposes of determining if an amendment to the Regional Context Statement and/or an amendment to the RGS are required. The process to amend the Regional Context Statements and the RGS includes a weighed majority vote by the Metro Vancouver Board. 3.DISCUSSION The RGS is a crucial, tool for managing growth in the region the proposed document clearly articulates the need for member municipalities and other levels of government to be consistent and collaborative in their commitment to achieve a sustainable region. The vision, goals and strategies the in RGS are consistent with the direction of our OCP and should be supported. However the RGS, as drafted, has an inherent flaw of being too prescriptive in its actions and land use elements, and in doing so, does not provide for contextualization or acknowledge alternative actions which support the RGS goals and strategies. Full responsibility for implementing the plan rests almost entirely on the shoulders of the municipalities; Metro Vancouver acts largely in a regulatory role to ensure municipalities comply; but other levels of governments are simply requested to assist "where possible". The required actions impact on our community through changes to the existing development pattern, reducing our ability to make contextually appropriate land use decision and fulfilling hefty commitments such a Housing Action Plan, which will be difficult to address without assistance and shared commitment by other levels of government. 4.OPTIONS The attached letter has been drafted for the Mayor's signature which summarizes the concerns outlined in greater detail by this report. The Smart Growth Committee may: 1) Forward this report and attached draft letter to Council and recommend Council approve the letter be sent by the Mayor to Metro Vancouver; (recommended) iiTciitht11 Li Ai March 11, 2009 Report re Draft. Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Page 9 2). Request staff revise or amend the draft letter prior to forwarding it to Council for consideration. In order to meet the established time frame, the Committee would need to provide its direction to staff at this time, call a special meeting for the Committee's further review, or refer the report to the Finance and Intergovernmental Committee for its consideration; 3) Decline to forward a response to Metro Vancouver at this time. Municipal concerns on the draft RGS would not be included as part of the public consultation package, however the City would still be able to comment on the draft as part of the public consultation process. 5. SUMMARY Metro Vancouver has referred its draft Regional Growth Strategy to the City for our review and comment by a deadline of April 8th, 2009.. The vision, goals and strategies proposed in the document are in keeping with the achievement of a sustainable region and compatible with many of the policies of our Official Community Plan. However, five key concerns were identified by a preliminary staff review, including • The capacity of the City to meet population, housing and employment targets of the RGS given they exceed the targets set out in the Official Community Plan and are unlikely to be achievable given physical limitations to many of the designated growth areas, the lack of rapid transit to support these targets, and the need for financial support from senior levels of government to achieve housing targets. • The loss of the Green Zone designation • Land use concerns related to the introduction of a Frequent Transit Development Corridor concept along Lougheed Highway • The limitations imposed on municipal decisions by the Industrial and Agricultural designations • The need to ensure land use decisions are tied with transportation decisions. It is recommended Metro Vancouver be advised of these concerns as described in this report and outlined in the attached draft letter. CT1 çX Laura Lee Richar ,M Director of Development Services Attachment: Draft Mayor's letter to Metro Vancouver fE. J9IJ• 4330 Kincjsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5111 4G8604-432-6200 www.metrovancoLiver.or Greater Vancouver Regional District Greater Vancouver Water District / Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation METRO City of M VAHCOUVER Received F 2 6 2009 Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel: 604-432-6210 Fax: 604-451-6614 February 25, 2009 File:... Ms Susan Rauh City Clerk City of Port Coquitlam 2580 Shaughnessy St Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2A8 Dear Ms Rauh: Re: Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy File: CP-1 1-01-ROS-Ol \rc\ e0 At its February 13, 2009 meeting, Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Committee referred the enclosed document "Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping.our Future", the latest draft of Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy, to member municipalities for initial comment on key issues prior to public consultations. The Committee directed that this draft should be the basis of public consultation starting on April 15th. They also indicated that municipal comments received prior to the start of the public consultation should be incorporated into the consultation process to help frame the public debate. We expect the Metro Vancouver Board to confirm this direction when they receive the report February 27, 2009 and we are sending the document to you at this time to provide more time for a response to be prepared. Consequently we would request that, if there are significant policies in the draft plan for which your Council wishes to express its support for, or opposition to, that these comments be conveyed to Metro Vancouver by April 8th. The Regional Planning Committee also requested that, if possible, municipal comments be provided in a form that would be readily converted into material that could be used in the public forums, rather than traditional staff reports. If these two requests can be met, we will do our utmost to see that your views are represented in the public consultation process. As a guide, I would suggest that comments to be included in the public consultations should not exceed 2 pages. Metro Vancouver's Corporate Relations Department will be responsible for digesting municipal comments into a form suitable for the consultation process. Involving them in the process of shaping your comments into suitable communication pieces for the public consultation process might be helpful and reassuring to everyone. If you are interested in pursuing that possibility, please contact Heather Schoemaker to make the appropriate arrangements. If you have more detailed comments on such matters as the details of mapping, boundaries, fine tuning, etc. then these would not likely be relevantto the broader public consultation process and therefore need not be submitted by the April 8th date. In fact we could accept this type of commentary up until May 22nd, although earlier responses will assist us in doing the best job we can in considering and accommodating your views. ITEM PAGE] 9 9J N S IF A, P N A 9 L ('E P EC or N! 0 N 0 TiATVS 7iJHNC OOS 9 N TG ACT ive Officer Municipal Clerks Regional Growth Strategy - Metro Vancouver 2040 - draft Febrruary 2009 February 25; 2009 Page 2 of 52 Should you have any questions, require additional copies of the draft Regional Growth Strategy, or wish to involve Metro staff as offered above, please contact Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department at 604-432-6364 or by email at Heather.Schoemaker@metrovancouver.org. JC/HS/tb cc: Mayor and Council, Metro Vancouver municipalities Attachment: Regional Growth Strategy - Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our future - Draft February 2009 (eRlM 004897314) prGE 004900430 LJ1 Johnny Canine Commissioner I Chief Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Avenue, Burnaby, BC V5H4G8 Dear Mr. Canine, Re: Draft Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy The Council of the City of Port Coquitlam wishes to thank the Metro Vancouver Board and staff for the opportunity to comment on the draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) entitled "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping our Future, February 2009 draft". Due to the tight timelines afforded municipalities for this review, we have limited the scope of our assessment to its fundamental principles, required municipal outcomes and resulting impacts to our community. Port Coquitlam is supportive of the proposed vision, goals and strategies and applauds Metro Vancouver for a document which articulates the need for member municipalities and other levels of government to be consistent and collaborative in their commitment to achieve a sustainable region. The City of Port Coquitlam' s Council is proud of our progressive Official Community Plan policies, plans and regulations and we note many are already in line with "Municipal Actions" detailed in the draft RGS. We are, however, troubled by some of the required actions which could result in negative, costly changes to our community and steer us in a direction which would seemingly contradict the intent of the Strategy's directives. As proposed, the RGS has the inherent flaw of being prescriptive in its actions and land use elements and, in doing so, it does not provide for alternative actions which could also support the goals and strategies. This narrow focus will constrict municipal autonomy and may result in an inability of municipalities to make land use decisions which are both locally and regionally appropriate. We are specifically concerned with the proposed "Frequent Transit Development Corridors". This concept appears to force a set linear development pattern comprised of a band of high- density residential growth along Lougheed Highway. There are numerous issues with a concept of linear, growth on one side of a limited access highway including the loss of valuable employment lands, a lack of community services to serve a residential population, limited pedestrian connections, and a hostile residential environment with few amenities. The concept assumes an alignment for rapid transit that does not reflect established policies or currently proposed transportation services. Furthermore, it would seemingly discourage continued growth of our existing mixed-use nodes which are strategically located to be well served by transit, pedestrian connections, community services and amenities. The population, employment and housing figures which the RGS projects Port Coquitlam to realize by 2040 exceed our OCP projections and we consider, they are unlikely to be achievable. Council supports residential densification and additional employment in our Downtown and policies in support of developing the City as a complete community. However, particularly in our Downtown, we are greatly constricted by existing land use patterns, watercourses, lands within the flood plain, a high water table, and the CPR rail yards and the socio/economic reality of achieving significantly higher densities and employment levels than projected, as well as the necessity of providing for rapid transit in support of the projections, must be considered within the context of our physical attributes. We strongly support the RGS goal to achieve a sustainable economy, and recognize this includes retention of land for industrial uses but are concerned with its proposed implementation measures. The RGS designation, Industrial, and strict parameters for acceptable types of industrial development within this designation, requires more consideration. We believe the autonomy of municipalities to make contextually appropriate land use decisions which recognize change in traditional economic generators, evolving technology and the merits of areas incorporating a varied and complementary mix of uses must be retained. We also question subjective designations by Metro Vancouver staff based on existing land uses instead of employing a more collaborative approach involving the municipalities in determining suitability of their lands for long-term industrial uses. We object to the loss of the "Green Zone". The Green Zone is a recognized concept widely supported by private and public agencies alike and its elimination weakens the goal of protecting our highly valued recreation and conservation assets. The addition of an Agricultural designation is in keeping with our OCP policies to maintain ALR lands, but it must also allow for municipal determination of boundary modifications where determined appropriate by the City. Finally, we are concerned that full responsibility for RGS implementation rests almost entirely with the municipalities with Metro Vancouver acting largely in a regulatory role to ensure we comply. Translink and senior levels of governments are simply requested to assist or support. The required actions ,will impact our community; both physically in changes to planned development patterns as well as in our capacity to fulfill requirements without financial support from senior levels of government. The City of Port Coquitlam looks forward to participating in the public consultation and the revision of the RGS to respond to our concerns. Yours truly, Mayor Greg Moore Cc: Council Tony Chong, P. Eng., Chief Administrative Officer Laura Lee Richard, MCIP, Director of Development Services 0. City of Burnaby Meeting 2009 March 24 COMMITTEE REPORT TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS DATE: 2009 March 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING FILE: 71000-01 Ref. Metro Vaneouver Dra/1 RGS SUBJECT: DRAFT- METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY REQUEST FOR MUNCIPAL COMMENT PURPOSE: To respond to the request from the Metro Vancouver Board for City comment on the draft "Metro Vancouver 2040:Shaping Our Future" -- Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) dated 2009 February. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee recommend to Council: THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that the draft RGS, in its present form, is not supportable as a basis for subsequent acceptance and approval. 2.THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that the RGS should be based on the adoption of key regional designations, directions, guidelines and actions for recommended implementation by municipalities, rather than the presently proposed regional regi1atory approach to which municipalities would be required to strictly comply. 3.THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that while it is supportive of many of the municipal implementation action items contained in the drqfl RGS, it is concerned with the required commitment for local governments to implement all 75 listed actions, several of which would require significant financial and operating resources to pursue and implement, and would commit the City to a scope of work and positions that have not been considered in relationship to City resources, mandates, interests, priorities; and instead, Council proposes that these items be included as "recommended implementation actions and opportunities" instead of mandated commitments. 4.THAT Council seek assurances that the current description of appropriate uses for designated conservation-recreation lands within the draft RGS would not preclude the necessary future accommodation of public developments to also meet the indoor To. Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 2 recreational, cultural and other public service needs of the community on appropriate City owned lands currently shown within the adopted Green Zone. 5.THAT Council advise that if the current description of appropriate uses for designated conservation-recreation lands within the draft RGS is not amended, this will necessitate a need for the City to remove significant public park areas from the proposed conservation-recreation green zone designation. 6.THAT Council request that the draft RGS be amended to ensure that municipalities are provided with the necessary discretion to define the form, density, character and function of individual city centres in relation to their defined roles and local context as specified within their OCPs and RCSs. 7.THAT Council request that the draft RGS be amended to provide for a variation and potential mix of uses and densities within Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as deemed appropriate through municipal planning processes. 8.THAT Council inform the Metro Vancouver Board that it is not accepting of the proposed approach for the protection of industrial lands, characterised by the associated land use restrictions as presented.in the draft RGS, given its impact on long standing land use commitments; the necessary removal of permitted uses from prevailing industrial districts; the creation of legal non-conforming uses; the limitation of current and future development options; the impact on the City's potential employment base; the loss of economic viability of our industrial lands; and the creation of a more complex and extensive land use change approval process. 9.THAT Council suggest that the Board consider an alternative to the approach proposed in the draft RGS by allowing instead a broader land use objective involving 'employment uses of an industrial nature' for the lands identified for industrial protection to help maintain local decision making autonomy and allow for the continuation of intra-regional differences in industrial land utilization. 10.THAT Council advise that a finalized RGS should acknowledge, recognize and respect the City's designated Business Centre areas that accommodate a range of industrial, research and development, and business and professional office uses under the City's adopted OCP by way of designation, zoning and/or approved community plans, and that it is necessary to maintain the ability of the City to plan for the appropriate transition of lands in the City which in specific circumstances may involve creation of additional business centre lands. 11.THAT Council convey its concern with TransLink becoming a general third approval body in the draft RGS for land use decisions, as this would further erode local decision making and further complicate approval processes resulting in increased uncertainty for the development community: that such reviews be limited to To. community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 3 consulting with Translink on those proposed major developments that require an amendment to an adopted OCP and RCS. 12.THAT Council request that, prior to advancement of a finalized RGS, Metro Vancouver undertake a consultative and collaborative process to allow member municipalities to review the methodology used to develop population, unit and employment projections, comment on the appropriateness of underlying assumptions, and develop municipal responses as to the acceptability, achievability and implications of proposed current projections. 13.THAT Council send a copy of this report to: a)the Metro Vancouver Board; b)Metro Vancouver member municipalities; C) the TransLink Board; and d) the Urban Development Institute, NAJOP, and Burnaby Board of Trade. REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION At its meeting of 2009 February 27, the Metro Vancouver Board adopted a recommendation from its Regional Development Committee to invite review and comment by member municipalities on Metro Vancouver's draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), entitled "Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future". A copy of this report has been provided to Members of the Committee and Members of Council under separate cover. This review and comment was solicited prior to Metro Vancouver starting a general public consultation process. The broader public consultation process is expected to commence as of 2009 April 15, immediately following the submission deadline of 2009 April 8 for City comments. The Region has also requested that municipalities submit a short summary of comments on the draft RGS suitable for use in their public consultation process. Attachment I of this report provides the requested summary material. Within the time available, staff have reviewed the principal components of the drafi Regional Growth Strategy in relation to the City's adopted area plans, Official Community Plan (OCP), Regional Context Statement (RCS), and policies and procedures. Based on the staff review, this report presents proposed recommendations along with accompanying noted areas of concern with regard to key aspects of the drqft RGS for Council adoption and submission to the Regional Board as part of the Board's current consultation process. As To: Comm unity Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ............................... ................................ Page 4 such, this review has not given consideration to the detailed aspects of the maps, strategies and individual actions contained in the draft RGS. Unfortunately, it does not appear that there will be an opportunity for a reconsideration of, and necessary amendments to, the drqft RGS proposals following receipt of municipal responses prior to the public consultation process. Instead, it is staff's understanding that a summary of submissions received from municipal Councils will be made available for review as part of the materials presented in the consultation process. The City of Burnaby has traditionally been a strong supporter and advocate for strategic planning at the regional level. As a central, inner municipality within the region, the City has recognized the benefits that can come from a strong regional planning concept. To this end, Burnaby's existing Official Community Plan (OCP) emphasizes the regional context directly and provides a policy response that balances local and regional interests. Notwithstanding this established commitment to regional planning, it is the view of staff that the draft RGS, is not in a form that is supportable by the City as a basis for subsequent acceptance and approval. While there is support in principle for many of the policy based goals, objectives and directions for the draft RGS, staff is not recommending that Council endorse the draft RGS as it does not: appropriately reflect and accommodate local government plans, policies and directions; appropriately maintain local land use and priority setting decision making authority; nor maintain an appropriate level of accountability between Council and its citizens. As will be noted, there are a number of outstanding areas within the draft that are of significant concern and warrant the development of new directions to achieve a level of acceptance. During the technical meetings associated with the preparation of the draft RGS, staff have repeatedly and strongly voiced its concerns over a range of issues. Notwithstanding, many of these same concerns remain with the current draft RGS presently before Council. This report provides the City's initial official response to the proposals contained in the draft RGS and is presented for consideration of the Committee and Council for submission to the Metro Vancouver Board. 2.0 BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver's current RGS, the Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), was adopted by the then GVRD Board of Directors in 1996. As noted, the Region has initiated a process to establish a new RGS looking forward to 2040. In 2007 November, public input was obtained by Metro Vancouver on a renewed RGS. This process sought public and municipal input for development of a new RGS based on an options document entitled "Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver ' that presented varying degrees of regulatory control by the Region ranging from setting goals and directions for the region to establishing mandatory regulatory requirements for implementation at the municipal level. To: community Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ............................................................... Page 5 On 2008 March 03, Council adopted a report from the Community Development Committee to provide City input on the 'options' document. The City submission provided detailed comments on material prepared by the Region, with a particular focus on the regulatory options presented for implementation of an RGS which typically involved choices of setting: o a goals and objectives based RGS to guide municipal actions; o key regional designations, directions and guidelines for recommended implementation by municipalities; or o regional designations and regulations to which municipalities must comply. The goals and objectives approach would leave actions for implementation at the complete discretion of municipalities, and would represent a more voluntary implementation role for municipalities in comparison to that utilized in the current LRSP. The second approach is generally consistent with that adopted for the current LRSP while, the third establishes a significantly higher regulatory and approval role for the region. The City's 2008 March 03 submission to the Board expressed the position that the establishment of 'regional designations and regulations to which municipalities must comply' would not be acceptable or appropriate for implementation of a renewed RGS, and proposed that regional municipalities be given an opportunity to work with Metro Vancouver on refining detailed aspects of the draft RGS to achieve a 'mutually agreeable approach' on a RGS prior to release for broad public review. The City's response was generally aligned with the established approach in the adopted LRSP. The Region's decision on the selection of the desired approach to implementation represents a critical point of departure in the preparation of final draft RGS policy directions - a choice between a continuation of the current partnership approach between Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities versus a more highly regulated approach requiring regional intervention in the municipal planning and land use decision making processes. 3.0 THE PROPOSED REGULATORY APPROACH Since the City's 2008 March 03 submission, Regional planning staff, through Metro Vancouver's Regional Development Committee, have continued to advance and refine content for a renewed RGS, with preparation of a number of internal draft RGS documents, including "An incomplete Draft - Metro Vancouver's Growth Strategy: Actions for a Sustainable Region 2008 April 25"; and a "Preliminary Draft - Our Livable Region 2040: Metro Vancouver's Growth Strategy, 2008 September"; prior to the public release of the current document "Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, 2009 February draft. In preparation of the current draft RGS document, Regional staff have continued to seek input from municipal staff representatives on the Region's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This process with municipal staff has allowed the Region to further refine the content of the draft RGS, but from our view, has not achieved the desired 'mutual/v agreeable approach' nor a 'general municipal consensus' on the appropriate regulatory To: Comniunitv Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March19 ...............................................................Page 6 framework presented in the draft RGS, as envisioned in the City's 2008 March submission and pursued by staff at the TAC table. Instead, the draft RGS continues to embody an approach utilizing new and significant regional regulations to which municipalities would be required to comply. The existing regional plan, the LRSP, is based on a policy, goals and principle approach with set directions for the Region and allows for implementation decisions to be made by local government as reflected within their respective RCS's. This approach has been successful from both a local and regional viewpoint in areas where local commitment and follow through on incorporation and implementation of the policies and principles of the RGS have been made. Bumaby's 1998 Official Community Plan is an excellent example of how a community has used regional goals and directions as a shaping influence within the local community planning context. 3.1 Land Use Designations and Categories As compared to the 1996 LRSP, the drqft RGS presents a significantly increased directive and regulatory role for the Region. The draft RGS proposes the establishment of a number of new land use designations and categories, that once established within an adopted RGS, will require municipalities to prepare OCP's and RCS's that are compliant. This compliance extends to permitted uses for land use designations and categories, as well as varying degrees of precision as to the actual boundaries for each designation and category. This is significant because, once the RGS is adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board, deviation from those land uses with a regional designation or category will require an amendment to RCS and/or to the RGS and consequently further Metro Vancouver Board approval. It is noted that, under prevailing legislation, a change to a RCS requires municipalities to complete a full amendment process with consultation and a public hearing. On this basis, the process requires a considerable and necessary commitment of time and resources at the local level, prior to seeking Regional approval for a proposed change. In addition, as currently presented, the approach in the draft RGS requires municipal acceptance for RCS's to not only show the 'relationship' between an OCP and the RGS, but to identify how the City 's OCP 'is' consistent with each strategy in the RGS document and demonstrate how all Municipal RGS Actions will be implemented. Generally, the requirement that municipalities indicate how each of the required actions will be implemented reinforces the new regulatory approach entrenched within the draft RGS. The designation of lands within the region to the various zoning or land use categories defined in the draft RGS is proposed to be established by Metro Vancouver in relation to RCS's and OCP's according to three compliance standards that include: o Fully Consistent: definition of areas and boundaries by the Region to which areas and boundaries established in municipal RCS's and OCP's must be fully consistent. Under these criteria, the Region would establish the boundary for each land use designation, with the requirement that municipal RCS's and To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 7 OCP's be made to match the Regional designation. These land designations include: o Urban Containment Boundary o Rural Area o Agricultural Area o Conservation-Recreation Area o Generally Consistent with Locations: definition of general locations is established by the Region, with opportunities for municipalities to define the boundaries of 'general locations' in their RCS's and OCP's for acceptance by the Region. This category includes: o Urban Centres o Frequent Transit Development Corridors Generally Consistent with Boundaries: the Region defines the locations and boundaries of the land use designation with municipalities establishing similar locations and boundaries in their RCS's and OCP's. This criteria appears to establish some opportunity to address minor boundary issues, but would not generally permit full local autonomy in defining locations and land areas for the following categories: • Industrial Area • Industrial-Commercial Area 3.2 A Direct Regulatory Role On the above basis, the draft RGS establishes a direct land use regulatory role for Metro Vancouver that would extend its current Green Zone land use designation powers to the new land use "designations" and "categories". Once established in an adopted RGS and the subsequently accepted municipal RCS's and adopted OCP's, proposed amendments to a regional land use designation initiated by a municipality would require an amendment to the RGS through a Metro Vancouver Board approval process. Amendment to a regional land use designation would require a regional public consultation process (including a public hearing) and a two-thirds majority vote of Metro Vancouver's Board of Directors. An amendment to a regional land use category would require a Regional Context Statement (RCS) amendment approved by a majority vote by the Metro Vancouver Board (no public hearing). At the municipal level, as noted, a change to a RCS under this regulatory framework would require completion of a full OCP amendment process, thus obligating a municipality to consider pursuing public consultation with neighbouring municipalities, provincial and federal governments, first nations and school boards in addition to conducting a. Public To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 8 Hearing, prior to seeking Metro Vancouver Board approval following 3 rd Reading of a rezoning amendment bylaw by a local Council. The proposed regulatory approach for land use categories and designations, as represented in the draft RGS, will have significant impact on the ability of local government to effectively manage and regulate land use as has been the past practice. Specifically, the regulatory approach in the draft RGS would result in a much more extensive amendment process for desired local land use changes, at both a local and regional level. The net result is a regulatory framework for a regional plan that would appear to supersede municipal zoning and local land use decision making powers by establishing the Region as the final approving authority for changes not only to the lands in the new green zone designations, but to Urban, Industrial, and other land use designations and categories defined in the RGS, likely at a parcel level. A key point is that once these designations are established within the RGS, the City will no longer be able to make changes to a designation, or a boundary adjustment, without obtaining regional approval. To this point, should this approach continue to be pursued in a finalized RGS, the City would require adequate opportunity to review and amend maps associated with the proposed land use designations and categories prepared by the region for the finalized RGS given the legal implications of the RGS on permitted land uses. It is noted that mapping for certain land use designations such as Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors are proposed to be prepared by municipalities for subsequent approval by the region. In summary, staff has a fundamental concern with the regulatory approach and consistency requirements of the draft RGS. As presented, these proposals represent a significant transfer of City authority - land use regulation, policy approval and priority setting - to the Regional level. 3.3 Diminished Local Accountability At the core of the local planning function is the accountability Council has with its citizens. Council establishes long range goals and objectives for the community as a whole through the process associated with the adoption of its Official Community Plan. Within that context, local area plans are prepared with the full opportunity for community input as a shaping element. This is often an iterative process based on a dialogue with the community that establishes a plan consensus that strives to best meet City wide and more locally based needs, while making substantive and important contributions to the overall benefit of the region. The City has countless examples of such processes. If considering the process associated with the creation of a new plan for the Holdom Station Area, the City, in consultation with area property owners and the surrounding community, reached a solution for the future plan Of development involving residential, supporting commercial, business centre and compatible light industrial uses, based on sound planning principles to utilize adjacent transit infrastructure, provide for employment and integrate supporting commercial services. If, for To: Community Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 9 example, the Legacy Towers site at the southwest corner of Lougheed Highway and Holdom Avenue, had been designated for a specific use under the proposals presented' in the draft' RGS, say industrial, then the whole planning process between Council and the local community would have been subject to the scrutiny and final decision of the Metro Board, as it would have required a land use category change to the RGS. It is conceivable that the highly successful Legacy development would not be approved under the current draft of the RGS given the site's former industrial use. This not only directly erodes Council accountability with its citizens; it would suggest that the Metro Board is in a better position to make such a decision. While one can appreciate the need for regional consideration on major developments outside of established urban development areas, the highly regulatory structure of the draft RGS means that the generalized definitional and locational aspects underlying the plan will lead to a diminished degree of flexibility in local area planning, an acceptance of a Regional approval role, and resignation to the fact that future requests for RGS amendments will need to be more commonplace. A second illustrative example of where municipal decision making would be directly affected relates to a City property within the Central Administrative area that is currently designated for Business Centre use. Council has, however, also given consideration to seniors housing on those lands. This potential alternate use may be supported from a local community planning perspective. However, under the proposed draft RGS framework which indicates the site for the industrial commercial land use category, a Council decision involving a change in the designation would require Regional approval. In the view of staff, resolution of this local land use decision would not have significance at the regional level, but certainly would at the local level, particularly if the local community felt it was not in control of the outcome of the ultimate decision. The City is in. the best position through its planning process to determine the most appropriate use in relation to the local context, neighbourhood and city needs. Another significant concern relates to the level of detail and permitted use descriptions in the draft RGS. The specifics associated with use definitions for the industrial, industrial- commercial, urban centres, frequent transit development corridors and conservation- recreation land use categories and designations present concerns from a local land use perspective. If adopted as presented, the City would also be faced with a high degree of non-conformity in relation to established zoning throughout the City, which has been in existence for over 40 years. In many ways, the 1996 LRSP represented a partnership between the member municipalities that advanced regional directions through their respective planning and land use decisions. It respected the intentions and abilities of local Councils to consider the regional consequences of their decisions, while at the same time allowing the necessary flexibility and judgment in the local decision making. In contrast, the draft RGS utilizes a more directive and regulatory approach that undermines the local autonomy, accountability and flexibility in its land use planning processes. To: Comm unity Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Drqfl RGS 2009 March 19 ...................................................... ....... Page 10 Recommendations: THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that the drafi RGS, in its present form, is not supportable as a basis for subsequent acceptance and approval. THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that the RGS should be based on the adoption of key regional designations, directions and guidelines for recommended implementation by municipalities, rather than the presently proposed regional regulatory approach to which municipalities would be required to more strictly comply. 3.4 Mandatory Municipal Implementation Actions As previously noted, the current LRSP is essentially a goals-based regional plan that, while strong in its vision, has been primarily guided in its implementation by local municipal commitments as expressed in OCP's and RCS's. As clearly indicated above, the proposed draft RGS does not assume this same basic approach. Rather, it proposes a regional land use framework and requires specific. commitment to strategies and actions by municipalities through a proposed expanded application of the prevailing legislation. Specifically, the draft RGS commits local governments to some 75 such actions that must be incorporated into OCP's and appropriately demonstrated in Regional Context Statements. While noting the previously stated concerns with the proposed regulatory framework, staff are supportive of the primary goals and strategies represented in the draft RGS, as from both a regional and local perspective, they generally represent desirable policy directions for urban development, environmental protection, economic growth, complete communities and other aspects of sustainability. With regard to the approach to implementation, and the scope and extent of defined municipal policies, programs and actions, staff have significant concern with the current expression of these items as 'requirements' and 'commitments' for municipal implementation as: some are considered to be somewhat contrary to City policy positions; they would commit the City to a scope of work and positions that have not been considered in relationship to City resources, mandates, interests, and priorities; they would require significant financial and operating resources to pursue and implement; and would in many cases supplant municipal policies, plans, interests and priorities. Many of the proposed actions are relatively minor and are typically otherwise included in OCP's. Others, however, obligate municipalities to new areas of policy, some of which are not a core function of local government; while still others necessitate consistency with regional projections for such matters as:. affordable housing, rental housing, population, dwellings and employment. In other words, the goals and principles of the LRSP have become municipal obligations and appear to be moving towards becoming hard targets and requirements under the proposed draft RGS. The following is a partial listing of the various municipal commitments, required by the draft RGS through OCP's and related RCS's, for each municipality to take actions to specify: To: Comm unity Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 11 • how specified regional growth targets will be met; • policies which support the development of office space in Urban Centres, possibly including zoning reserves, density bonusing and other financial incentives; • policies that create city-owned district heating systems and renewable energy generation; o polices that reduce residential and commercial parking in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors; o designation of an industrial land reserve consistent with regional maps; o policies which prevent non-industrial uses in industrial areas; o Housing Action Plans which specify strategies and policies to: o meet the estimated future demand for rental and ownership units as set out in the draft RGS; o increase the supply of units affordable to households with low to moderate incomes as set out in the drqft RGS; o assess local market conditions including affordability of existing ownership and rental housing options o increase the supply of diversity of the existing housing stock through infill developments and smaller lot sizes as well as more compact housing forms; o secure additional "affordable" rental units for households with low or, low to moderate incomes through tools such as adopting density bonus provisions, the use of inclusionary housing policies or other mechanisms; o limit the loss of existing rental housing stock as well as policies to mitigate the impact on tenants who may be displaced; and o identify opportunities to work with other levels of government to secure additional social housing units to meet the needs of low income families, seniors and those with special housing needs, as well as to address the needs of those who are homeless and/or at risk of homelessness; o policies which design or retrofit streets to be safe, accessible and compatible for enhanced transit services, cycling and walking; o policies which pursue parking pricing and supply management, car-sharing and other initiatives that support transportation demand management; o priority for transit in any expansion of road capacity; and o policies which support urban food production. The above sampling of requirements for municipalities is varied and far reaching. In many instances, the objectives of the requirements for municipalities are supportable. At the same time, as previously indicated, there are requirements that are somewhat contrary to City policy positions; require significant financial and operating resources to pursue and implement; would commit' the City to a scope of work and positions that have not been considered in relationship to City resources, mandates, interests, priorities; or would To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re.' Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 12 duplicate efforts of other municipalities in the region. Nevertheless, the draft RGS currently proposes that the City's Official Community Plan specifically demonstrate how all of the prescribed "Municipal Actions" will be implemented. Recommendation: THAT Council advise that while it is supportive of many of the municipal implementation action items contained in the draft RGS, it is concerned with the required commitment for local governments to implement all 75 listed actions, several of which would require significant financial and operating resources to pursue and implement; and would commit the City to a scope of work and positions that have not been considered in relationship to City resources, mandates, interests, priorities; and instead, Council proposes that these items be included as "recommended implementation actions and opportunities" instead of mandated commitments. 4.0 KEY LAND USE ELEMENTS OF THE DRAFT RGS 4.1 Land Use Framework The draft RGS defines and represents a regional land use framework consisting of 'designations' and 'categories' based largely on prevailing land use designation and development patterns in the Region. This land use framework, together with required commitments of member municipalities, creates the proposed Regional land use zoning and approval regulatory approach. As currently presented, the proposed regional land use framework is not fully consistent with or supportive of fundamental aspects of the existing, well-established land uses and approved zoning, community plan designations or OCP directions for Burnaby. In relation to Burnaby's long standing and well defined urban structure, its OCP and various community plans, as well as its Zoning Bylaw, staff have identified some specific material concerns relating to the proposed draft RGS land use designations and categories. The following summarizes the land use framework in the draft RGS, along with related comments and concerns. 4.1.1 An Urban containment Boundary (UCB): is used to define the extent of urban growth, protect ecological, recreation, agricultural and rural lands, reduce travel distances, and promote cost-efficient transit and infrastructure provision. The UCB includes all lands designated for urban development under the draft RGS, and by definition appears to exclude designated Rural, Agricultural and Conservation- Recreation areas. It corresponds to the draft RGS approach to urban containment and growth concentration, and replaces the currently established Growth Concentration Area (GCA). All of Burnaby appears to be situated within the Urban Containment Boundary. To: Community Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March /9 ............................................. ................ Page 13 The 1996 LRSP adopted a strategy of concentrating increased residential growth within the inner core municipalities identified as the "Growth Concentration Area" with accompanying targets reflective of that proposed directed growth. The draft RGS appears to make no such distinction within its strategic makeup and instead allows growth to be accommodated on all those developable lands within the UCB to be guided by application of its various goals and objectives. 4.1.2 General Urban Area: is defined as the developed portion of the region, within the Urban Containment Boundary, and not including other land use categories such as Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development corridors, Industrial, Industrial-commercial areas, industrial facilities, and major employment generators. The purpose of the General Urban Area appears to be to capture the balance of development lands on the Regional 'zoning map' within the IJCB that are not assigned to other land use categories (Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Corridors, Industrial, Industrial-C'ommercial, and Special Activity areas), as part of the approach to establish regional land use designations and zoning. It excludes the Rural, Agricultural and Conservation-Recreation land use designation areas that collectively establish the majority of lands within the current Green Zone that may be located inside the UCB. The General Urban Area also captures the balance of park lands, water bodies, conservation areas, cemeteries, and other lands -- that are not specifically designated as rural, agricultural or conservation-recreation -- but may not be intended for future urban development. There is a minor concern related to the Regional definition of local municipal park lands, water bodies, conservation areas and other lands, as not being in the Regional 'Green Zone' but being within of the General Urban Area - that it could result in a misinterpretation that these lands could be available for development. 4.1.3 New Green Zone Designation for: Rural Areas: to capture existing rural land use areas that include low density residential development, agricultural and small-scale commercial uses in the region that are defined as being outside the Urban Containment Boundary. Agricultural Areas: to define designated agricultural lands that are within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Conservation-recreation Areas: to protect ecological and outdoor recreation areas such as drinking watersheds, conservation areas, habitat, forests, wetlands, major parks and recreation areas. An important point of departure from the current LRSP, the draft RGS proposes to split the current 'Green Zone' designation into three separate parts - conservation- Recreation, which focuses on outdoor recreation and ecological conservation, Rural, To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 14 which proposes to preserve rural landscapes and character from urban development and Agricultural, which is intended to protect agricultural lands for use for food production. The Rural and Agricultural designations do not generally have any impact on Burnaby. Within the drqfl RGS, Burnaby does not appear to have any designated rural areas as all Burnaby lands are within the UCB. With respect to agricultural lands, the draft RGS accurately reflects the City's current and long standing approach to preserve designated agricultural lands for agricultural purposes. With regard to the Conservation-Recreation designation, however, it has a purist focus on natural conservation and 'outdoor' recreation lands. More specifically, the designation does not provide for the need to use certain City park lands to meet a broader range of community purposes for 'indoor' recreation, development of cultural, community, and other public institutional uses. If not amended, this approach could require the City to re-assess its current commitment and designation of lands within the current Green Zone to more accurately reflect City lands that are specifically intended for conservation and outdoor recreation, as opposed to those (or a portion of those) required for 'indoor' recreation, cultural, and community uses. This would necessarily result in a need for the City to remove significant public park areas (such as Central Park and Deer Lake Park) from the proposed Green Zone Conservation- Recreation designation. Recommendations: THAT Council seek assurances that the current description of appropriate uses for designated conservation-recreation lands within the draft RGS would not preclude the necessary future accommodation of public developments to also meet the indoor recreational, cultural and, other public service needs of the community on appropriate City owned lands currently shown within the adopted Green Zone. THAT Council advise that if the current description of appropriate uses for designated conservation-recreation lands within the draft RGS is not amended, this will necessitate a need for the City to remove significant public park areas from the proposed conservation-recreation green zone designation. 4.1.4 Urban Centres: are defined to establish a hierarchy of urban centres to establish jbcal locations to accommodate much of the Region's growth Jr higher density and intensity office, retail, community, cultural, institutional and residential uses to support transit, complete community, and trip reduction objectives. The Metropolitan Core (Vancouver's downtown area) and Surrey Metro Centre are designated 'core areas' intended to accommodate the region's most dense forms of residential and commercial development and be the region's primary focus for jobs. Supporting the two metropolitan cores areas, a series of Regional City Centres, of To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Drafi RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 15 which Metrotown Town Centre is one. Regional City Centres are intended to be centres of activity for the sub-regions, with opportunities for regional or sub-regional office locations, large-scale, high density commercial uses and medium and high density residential development forms. Municipal City Centres, which Lougheed, Brentwood and Edmonds Town Centres are designated, are proposed locations for services and activities oriented to the local needs of the municipality, are focal points for accommodating medium and some higher density housing forms, and are intended to accommodate business and commercial activities which are local-serving. Generally speaking, the notion of directing growth to urban centres is supportable. However, some significant definitional concerns are noted in relation to Municipal City Centres which would restrict the development and function of these centres to be 'oriented to local needs', to contain 'medium and some higher density housing forms', and to accommodate 'ii serving commercial activities'. Even the existing LRSP document acknowledges the expanded role of Municipal Town Centres in its description that they are to "contain a mixture of region-serving and local services Within Burnaby, the four town centres of Metrotown, Brentwood, Lougheed and Edmonds are fundamental components of the City's long established urban structure. This reality will not change. As such, while Metrotown is recognized as having ,a Regional City Centre designation, it does not restrict to the ability for the City to also accommodate significant office growth in Brentwood, Lougheed or Edmonds Town Centres. It is questioned whether the several high-density residential and office developments either under construction or in the approvals process that have already occurred within the Brentwood Town Centre which are consistent with City plans and objectives would potentially have been precluded by the Urban Centres designation/category in the draft RGS had it been in place at the time as currently proposed. If so, then the intended character of our designated Municipal City Centres (specifically Edmonds, Lougheed and Brentwood Town Centres) within the RGS needs to be re-evaluated to include higher-density residential and commercial uses based on their long standing purpose and intended role. It is a primary concern to City staff that there be no misrepresentation in the draft RGS Urban Centre designations and categories that would preclude a significant component of the currently existing, approved and planned higher density development forms and types within the Edmonds, Lougheed and Brentwood Town Centres. Each are equally positioned to develop with substantial medium to high density forms, and to accommodate local, sub-regional and regional serving retail, commercial, and office development in close proximity to major road and transit facilities, and institutional and recreation amenities that are associated with our well established town centres. As such, the current limited definition of Municipal City Centres in the draft RGS is contrary to Burnaby's established urban structure, based on the concept of four town centres sharing in their intention to accommodate urban growth in high and medium- density, and commercial and residential development forms recognizing their foci of services, facilities and transit facilities. To: Comm uniiv Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 16 Clearly, the defined roles for Edmonds, Lougheed and Brentwood Town Centres, strictly based on the multi-town centre approach adopted by this community some 40 years ago, exceed those for example of smaller town centres in the Region such as Fleetwood in Surrey or Lynn Valley in North Vancouver. The RGS strategy needs to incorporate these differences in the intended roles and scale of Municipal City Centres throughout the region through changes to the land use descriptions currently incorporated in the draft RGS. Contained in the draft RGS as an appendix are the Regional Growth Strategy tables showing dwelling unit and employment targets for urban centres and corridors. Staff have not been directly involved in the development of the targets, and therefore are not aware of the underlying methodology and assumptions. However, with reference to the employment projections, it shows 208,000 new jobs being created within Regional and Municipal City Centres, excluding those in Vancouver Metro Centre and the Surrey Metro Centre. Even with these exclusions, the 208,000 jobs represents 35% of all new employment growth between 2006 and 2041 within the entire region. This is a very significant shift in employment location to municipal centres, and does not, on a preliminary basis, seem to be consistent with our expectations for distribution of employment growth as defined in the City's current OCP. In relation to the draft RGS directions, this would indicate that the region has assumed less or reduced employment in areas outside of Centres, while at the same time, the draft RGS also discounts Municipal City Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors as appropriate locations for new employment. On this basis, most of this significant shift in employment would be expected to only be accommodated in the Regional City Centres, of which Metro Town would be expected to respond to the challenge of accommodating this significant shift in employment location for Burnaby. Recommendation: THAT Council request that the draft RGS be amended to ensure that municipalities are provided with the necessary discretion to define the form, density, character and function of individual town centres in relation to their defined roles and specific local context as specified within their OCPs and RCSs. 4.1.5 Frequent Transit Development Corridors: to focus higher density residential development along transit corridors in relation to transit stations to achieve compact growth and support transit investments. The draji RGS proposes development areas along the Regional Transit Network Concept for higher density residential uses, particularly in association with station areas. The concept also provides for some opportunity for local serving commercial uses. The proposals do not support the development of employment based activities such as office, business centre or other uses in these corridors on the premise that they To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 17 should be more appropriately located within urban centre areas. In its current form, the draft RGS requires that municipalities prepare maps showing the Frequent Transit Development Corridors for submission to, and approval by the region. Burnaby has long supported its historical transit development corridors of Kingsway, Edmonds Street and Hastings Street by encouraging a mix of uses that would reduce dependence on the automobile and make transit more viable. More specifically, the City has support of this concept through the introduction of higher density apartment development opportunities within designated nodes along the Expo and Millennium Lines. The City has also taken a leadership role in promoting medium and high density residential and employment-based development at appropriate locations along transit corridors within the City in our Town Centre, Urban Village, mixed-use shopping street and Business Centre locations. Town Centres, Urban Villages and established mixed-use shopping streets have been designated and developed to accommodate residential, retail, commercial and other community services and amenities. The City's Business Centres have been designated primarily to accommodate employment objectives for a range of uses that include light industrial, specialized production, research and development, corporate headquarters and other business and professional office uses. Staff are concerned that the Frequent Transit Development Corridor model, if applied literally in relation to the Frequent Bus Concept map contained in the draft RGS, would undermine key aspects of the City's land use framework by establishing land use directions for urban intensification of lands currently designated for other uses and purposes. For example, it could establish a policy direction for more intensive residential development of current City park, industrial, Business Centre, and single and two family residential areas. It could also negatively impact the viability of the City's Urban Centres model by distributing rather than focusing higher density development opportunities across the City's land base. The draft RGS policy for transit development corridors also does not recognize that employment areas, such as established Business Centres, are also appropriate for transit focused development. The City is strongly supportive of and has taken concrete actions to promote medium and high density residential development at appropriate locations along the Frequent Transit Development Corridors. However, the City is not intending to permit residential uses within our designated Business Centre areas along these transit- corridors. Moreover, while the City has long supported its historical development corridors of Kingsway. Edmonds Street and Hastings Street, by encouraging a mix of uses that would reduce dependence on the automobile and make transit more viable, the general expansion of this model as proposed in the draft RGS requires careful consideration. Specifically, it needs to reflect supportable segments and locations for corridor development and to recognize more than the solely residential and ancillary commercial uses that have been proposed. To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Dm11 RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 18 The above is proposed rather than the singular approach presented in the draft RGS to support 'primarily medium and higher density residential use' along transit corridors to ensure that it does not set land use planning directions that would impact or intrude on the City's established park lands and single and two-family residential areas; reduce the viability of focused Town Centres and Urban Village development in station areas; and result in the proposed introduction of residential development that displaces necessary and established industrial and employment uses along transit corridors that the City intends to maintain for these purposes. As such, the Frequent Transit Development Corridor Model, as presented, could not be accepted in Burnaby to adequately define and establish supportable areas for appropriate corridor development. Recommendation: THAT Council request that the drqft RGS be amended to provide for a variation and potential mix of uses and densities within Frequent Transit Development Corridors, as deemed appropriate through municipal planning processes. 43.6 Industrial Lands: to protect existing industrial lands from development for other uses to meet the economic goals of the draft RGS. Lands within the industrial designation are defined for manufacturing, processing, repair, warehousing, distribution, transportation, utilities, laboratory, and minor ancillary uses only. Within the draft RGS, these lands have been identified on a map for application of the proposed Regional industrial land use category. The lands identified as "industrial" generally appear to include the City's heavy industrial and general industrial lands that are currently designated and zoned for industrial use, and exclude the City's Business Centre lands and current industrial lands (with some limited exceptions) that have been specifically designated for alternate use in line with the City's adopted OCP and community plans. The draft RGS would establish protection for industrial land through an approach that essentially incorporates an industrial land reserve. It would extend the same level of protection to industrial lands as is currently afforded the Green Zone. The objective of the draft RGS for this industrial designation and definition of industrial use is to protect identified industrial lands only for the traditional production activities listed above. In application, this regional land use approach for protection of industrial lands would establish Regional Zoning for the City's industrial land base that would supersede municipal industrial zoning definitions and use categories. Under the draft RGS, to meet the commitment to the industrial land reserve, municipalities would be To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19.............................................................Page 19 obligated to amend their industrial zoning districts to be consistent with the definition of uses contained in the regional industrial land use category. This would necessitate the removal of some existing permitted uses from the prevailing zoning districts. The removal of permitted uses from the City's Zoning Bylaw for these lands, such as business and professional offices, specified commercial uses, and other uses that do not match the regional definition, would result in significant legal nonconformity, and significantly impact the current and future use options for industrial land owners in the City. Staff have consistently challenged Metro Vancouver's narrow definition of industrial activities being limited to "manufacturing, processing, repair, warehousing, distribution, transportation, utilities, biomedical facilities and other laboratories used for scientific and medical research ", and to only consider office uses as ancillary. Over the history of the City's development, our industrial land districts have evolved to meet the needs of the community and industry. This recognizes that over the years there have been market forces at play that have seen a gradual migration outward of less intensive, large land-based industrial users to more intensive and varied users. The current zoning districts provide opportunities for the full range of industrial activities from heavy industrial to light industrial to office and high technology uses. The distribution of these uses in the City have been determined by historical development patterns, surrounding uses, access considerations, soil conditions and other factors. This has been an iterative process that has resulted in an industrial development framework that contributes to the City's diversity of employment and broad tax base, and makes significant contributions to the local and regional economy. As conditions change, the City has made the necessary adjustments to these industrial zoning districts and associated designated lands to ensure that they remain contemporary and meet community needs. It is essential that the City protect its existing autonomy in managing its industrial zoning framework and categories. Any suggestion that the City should change its policies to narrow opportunities for a diversity of industrial uses, at the expense of employment diversity and efficient and intensive use of its remaining industrial land, is not supportable. The City for its part has identified the benefits of encouraging even small increases in the floor area ratios of general industrial development for the purposes of increasing the efficiency of the use of the City's heavy, general and light industrial lands in its current OCP. Business owners and developers have all made significant infrastructure investments consistent with the City's Official Community Plan and have been the recipients of Comprehensive Development (CD) Zoning to safeguard their investments over the longer term. The City for its part expects to honour those commitments. An alternative to the approach proposed in the drqft RGS is to apply the objective for 'employment uses of an industrial nature', rather than creation of an industrial land use category, to the lands identified for industrial protection. This would maintain To: Community Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re. Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 20 local decision making autonomy, and would allow for the continuation of intra- regional differences in industrial land utilization. In summary, from staffs view, the draft RGS approach results in the removal of long standing permitted uses from our Industrial Districts; it creates significant legal non- conforming uses; it limits current and future development options; it reduces the City's potential employment base; and, it impacts the economic viability of our industrial lands. Recommendations. THAT Council inform the Metro Vancouver Board that it is not accepting of the proposed approach for the protection of industrial lands, characterised by the associated land use restrictions as presented in the draft RGS, given its impact on long standing land use commitments; the necessary removal of permitted uses from prevailing industrial districts; the creation of legal non- conforming uses; the limitation of current and future development options; the impact on the City's potential employment base; the loss of economic viability of our industrial lands; and the creation of a more complex and extensive land use change approval process. THAT Council suggest that the Board consider an alternative to the approach proposed in the draft RGS by allowing instead a broader land use objective involving 'employment uses of an industrial nature' for the lands identified for industrial protection to help maintain local decision making autonomy and allow for the continuation of intra-regional differences in industrial land utilization. 4.1. 7 Industrial-commercial Lands: to recognize industrial areas in the region that have already 'transformed' to accommodate a broader range of employment activities such as office, business, retail, and other quasi industrial-commercial uses. The needs of industry have changed dramatically over the last several decades to reflect an evolving regional and provincial economy that is as much shaped by global markets as it is local. As such, new technology, particularly relating to information, new media and communications, is blurring the traditional lines between industrial, office and production business classifications. Burnaby has recognized the need to accommodate and encourage new businesses indicative of an emerging "quasi-industrial" sector in its OCP and local area plans by establishing Business Centre designations for key employment areas in designated centres such as Discovery Place, Glenlyon, Lake City and other high quality, high amenity and high employment centres. These areas also provide the basis for a more intensive and efficient use of the City's remaining industrial and business use lands. The role for these Business Centre lands is significant as demonstrated within the To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 21 City's OCP which projected employment growth in these areas from about 19,900 in 1996 to approximately 48,400 by 202 1. The draft RGS proposes to accommodate Burnaby's Business Centre areas as lands that have already transitioned, either by development, zoning or designation, from the more limited RGS "industrial" definition by categorizing them to a 'Industrial- Commercial' land use category. The proposed approach, generally addresses a long- standing and often repeated staff concern that the draft RGS should appropriately reflect and protect the established directions, designations and zoning of the City's Business Centre lands. The intent to respect current designations of Business Centre lands is reflected in the statement in the draft RGS that: "The Strategy indentfles Industrial-commercial areas to acknowledge that some industrial areas have already transformed to these uses and are not likely to re-develop as industrial areas. ". The "Industrial-Commercial" land use designation would capture Bumaby's existing Business Centre areas that have 'transitioned' through Council approved designations, zoning and/or development to accommodate a range of employment activities that range from traditional industrial uses to research and development and corporate headquarter and office uses. Confirmation of this view was also presented in the maps provided to the City by the Region with respect to the land use designations and categories incorporated into the draft RGS. The intent of the draft appears to be to preclude the future creation of new Business Centres and employment intensive development outside of designated Urban Centres on industrial or other General Urban Area lands. The Region's approach would, however, exclude lands from this land use category that have Council directions for future transition to other uses, but have yet to achieve approval in a designation, zoning bylaw and/or development forms. Subject to final designations and identification of lands for land use categories in a finalized RGS, this may apply to such lands as the TransLink property on the north-east corner of Boundary Road and Lougheed Highway, the Provincial institutional lands at Canada Way and Willingdon, and any future area for which Council may consider establishing a residential, mixed use and/or Business Centre designation. Staff believe that it is necessary to maintain the ability of the City to plan for the appropriate transition of lands in the City which in specific circumstances may involve creation of additional business centre lands. Unlike some other jurisdictions in the region, the City's approach to Business Centre employment lands does not, and would not, accommodate the retail use referenced in the draft RGS. These lands will continue to play a significant role in the City's strategy to intensify land use and employment densities within these Business Centre areas. To: conimunllv Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 22 Recommendations: THAT Council advise that a finalized RGS should acknowledge, recognize and respect the City's designated Business Centre areas that accommodate a range of industrial, research and development, and business and professional office uses under the City's adopted OCP by way of designation, zoning and/or approved community plans, and that it is necessary to maintain the ability of the City to plan for the appropriate transition of lands in the City which in specific circumstances may involve creation of additional business centre lands. 4.2 TransLink Approval Requirements Further to the list of municipal obligations is the requirement for municipalities to have Translink review and approve OCPs and major development proposals. In two places the proposed RGS states: 1. 2.6 Refer to Trans/ink for review, as set out in provincial legislation, the proposed adoption or amendment of an Official Community Plan, or major development proposals for the purpose of determining whether such measures warrant a revision to the Regional Context Statement. 2.1.6 Trans/ink review proposed major developments to ensure compliance with 2.1.5 (a) in accordance with the provisions of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. At the time of writing, staff have been unable to ascertain what qualifies as a "major development proposal", but what is clear is the intent to have Translink's authority under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (SCBCTA) Act asserted and thus another layer of approvals added. This is a serious concern. Apart from a further erosion of local decision-making autonomy, is the added layer of development approvals that would negatively affect development in the region by removing clarity and certainty in the approvals process which increases risk to developers. There is no concern related to TransLink being consulted where a major development is proposed to occur beyond the outlined terms and scope of an approved OCP or RCS, or for a major development that requires an amendment to an adopted OCP and RCS. However, if a "major development proposal" is defined primarily by its size (major), one would question what purpose would be served by TransLink having to review a corporate headquarters building in one of our designated centres for such a use, when it clearly would be expected on the basis of the adopted OCP, RCS and the RGS. Recommendation: THAT Council convey its concern with TransLink becoming a general third approval body in the draft RGS for land use decisions, as this would further erode local To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 Marc/i 19 .............................................................Page 23 decision making and further complicate approval processes resulting in increased uncertainty for the development community: that such reviews be limited to consulting with Translink on those major developments that require an amendment to an adopted OCP and RCS. 4.3 Projections - Population, Units, Employment, Housing The draft RGS established projections for growth to 2041 by municipality. For Burnaby, the stated projections are: • Population: increasing from 212,100 in 2006 to 348,000 by 2041, an increase of 64% or about 1.8% per year. o Unit Count: increasing from 82,000 in 2006 to 150,000 by 2041, an increase of 83%, or about 2.4% per year. • Employment: increasing from 137,000 in 2006 to 204,000 by 2041, an increase of 49%, or about 1.4% per year. The draft RGS would require municipalities to demonstrate how they would accommodate the population, dwelling unit and employment growth projected in the draft RGS. It is expected that the citizens from the local community would also have the same expectations. The 1996 LRSP was explicit in its vision to pursue a compact metropolitan region model that would see most of the projected residential growth in the region concentrated in its core municipalities, identified in the Strategic Plan as the "Growth Concentration Area". The LRSP goal was to have about 70% of the region's population located in the Growth Concentration Area by 2021, up from 65% in 1991. For its part, Burnaby, in the LRSP was projected to have a relative decrease in its regional share of population and households from 1991 to 2021, declining from 9.9% to 8.9% for population and from 10.3% to 9.7% for households. The draft RGS is less explicit about its strategic growth management directions other than the reference to the urban containment boundary and urban areas designations. A review of the municipal projections in the draft RGS does suggest some relative new growth allocation in comparison with the LRSP document. In the draft RGS, Burnaby is projected to have a relative increase in both population and dwelling units (from 9.6% in 2006 to 10.2% in 2041 for population and from 10.2% in 2006 to 10.6% in 2041 for dwellings). On the other hand, it is projected that total employment in Burnaby will show a relative decline from 11.7% in 2006 to 11.6% in 2041. In comparison with the growth management directions within the LRSP, the draft RGS proposes a relative increase for Burnaby for population and dwelling unit growth and a relative marginal decrease in employment growth. There is no information in the draft RGS that would indicate the intended proposed internal distribution of population, dwelling units and employment within individual municipalities as related to the various land use designations and categories. However, Table 1.5 showing population, To: Connnuni/v Development G'mn, ittee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March 19 .............................................................Page 24 dwelling unit and employment projections by municipalities would suggest some expectations at the municipal level as a whole. Whether these expectations are realistic, or not, at the municipal level would need to be determined, through a more detailed review of RGS proposals following the current general public consultation process being advanced by the Region. Given that the drqfl RGS was just recently sent to local government for comment, following the Board meeting of 2009 February 27, staff have not been able to analyze the implications for the City in terms of current development capacity and/or required City responses to address the stated expectations for Burnaby. In addition, through the Regional process undertaken to date, local governments have not been engaged in a 'formal process to review the figures presented in the draft RGS through their Councils, to comment on the methodology and assumptions used to develop the projections directly, or to determine whether and how the projections and targets could or would be supported by established OCPs and other community plans. As such, only a very preliminary review of the projections has been completed to date. It is important that the City have a good understanding of the methodology associated with the projections, and more importantly how Burnaby actually could, or would, respond to its growth target allocations. The key questions for the City are the extent to which existing policies would address the projected population growth and secondly, to what extent any new policies would have to be introduced for review and discussion as a means to accommodate projected growth. The same applies for employment growth and the need for the City to maintain a healthy tax base and favourable labour force to employment ratio. Acceptance of the allocated growth projections for the City will require a "ground up" analysis of the various development opportunities (either existing or new) to ensure that the population and employment targets are indeed achievable. Experience from the last LRSP review demonstrated the importance of the City having a general understanding how the City would be reaching its expected growth allocations prior to the public review process. Typically, residents sought to have assurances that the anticipated growth would not be the expense of massive changes to lower density residential areas or conversions of conservation lands. Recommendation: THAT Council request that, prior to advancement of the RGS, Metro Vancouver to undertake a consultative and collaborative process to allow member municipalities to review the methodology used to develop population, unit and employment projections, comment on the appropriateness of underlying assumptions, and develop municipal responses as to the acceptability, achievability and implications of proposed current projections prior to finalizing the draft. 4.4 Parcel Based Approach As noted throughout this report, the proposed regulatory approach developed for inclusion in the draft RGS establishes land use designations and categories that ultimately will need to be To: Community Development Committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vancouver Draft RGS 2009 March19 .............................................................Page 25 reflected at a parcel by parcel level within a finalized RGS and in local OCP's and RCS's. There remains outstanding concerns as to the accuracy and completeness of the lands shown on the maps in the draft RGS under the various land use designations and categories, if the regulatory approach were adopted by the Region, given the significant process and legal implications of the proposed regional land use designations. Staff are not actively pursuing the completion of the mapping exercise based on the current draft RGS given the City's fundamental concerns with the regulatory approach. If the approach were to be adopted despite the City's strong objections, it would be imperative that the City's land based be properly categorized by the City in relation to Council's prevailing OCP and other land use directions. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This report has provided an overview and assessment of the Metro Vancouver 2040:Shaping Our Future document released for municipal comment. This draft RGS document provides the first opportunity for municipal comment on major elements of a renewed RGS for Metro Vancouver. This report offers a range of staff comments and Council Position Statements for submission to the Metro Vancouver Board for consideration in this component of the public consultation process. At this stage of the draft RGS development, Burnaby staff is of the view that the draft RGS, in its present form, is not supportable for endorsement or acceptance by the City as a basis for subsequent approval. While there is support in principle for many of the policy based goals, objectives and directions for the draft RGS, staff are recommending against Council endorsement as it does not appropriately reflect and accommodate local government plans, policies and directions, nor does it appropriately maintain local land use and priority setting decision making authority or maintain an appropriate level of accountability between Council and its citizens. There remain many fundamental issues to be resolved in order to achieve an acceptable level of consensus between the City and the Region. These include needed agreement on the: o adoption of a policy based approach based on key regional designations, directions, guidelines and actions for recommended implementation by municipalities, rather than the presently proposed regional regulatory approach at the parcel level, to which municipalities must strictly comply; o provision of necessary permitted discretion for municipalities to define the form, density, character and function of individual city centres in relation to their defined roles and local context as specified in their existing OCP and RCS; o amended guidelines and descriptions for land use categories that recognize the concerns outlined in this document, specifically in relation to Industrial, Frequent Transit Development Corridors, Urban Centres, Urban and "Green Zone lands"; To: Comm unity Development committee From: Director Planning and Building Re: Metro Vdncouver Di-aft RGS 2009 March 19 ........... .................................................. Page 26 o amended approach for an industrial land reserve at a policy level; o appropriate accommodation of additional designated Business Centre areas; o amendment of the current requirement for local governments to implement all 75 listed municipal actions to "recommended implementation actions and opportunities" instead of mandated commitments; o the limitation of land use reviews by TransLink as a general third approval body in the draft RGS being limited to consulting on those major developments that are proposed for locations and purposes outside the terms and scope as defined in a City's OCP and RCS; o provision of ample opportunity for a collaborative review process to allow member municipalities to assess the methodology used to develop population, dwelling unit and employment projections, comment on the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and develop municipal responses as to the acceptability, achievability and implications from a municipal perspective prior to finalization of the drafting process; and, o provision of ample opportunity to review and amend maps associated with the proposed land use designations and categories in the draft RGS. The City remains a strong supporter of the regional planning process. However, the City objects to the significant regional regulatory approach being advanced in the draft RGS. The City believes strongly that a collaborative partnership approach will provide the optimum means to advance regional objectives, while concurrently addressing local needs and aspirations. The recommendations of this report are reflective of that belief and are intended to assist with the RGS update review process, and as directed by Metro Vancouver, provide this City's initial response to the draft RGS. They are also to be made available for public consideration as part of the Region's ongoing public consultation process expected to be initiated on 2009 April 15. To assist in this process, it is also recommended that this report be sent to the Metro Vancouver Board, other member municipalities, Translink, the Urban Development Institute, NAIOP and the Burnaby Board of Trade. It is recommended that the Committee seek Council adoption of the recommendations of this report. B. Luksun, Director PLANNING AND BUILDING LP/EKIJSB:tn cc: City Manager Director Finance Director Engineering OIC - RCMP Chief Librarian Fire Chief City Solicitor Director Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services P. GoIar Ldssard Kozk RGS K(,S (,,rnn,rIe Rcp—t V7. do Attachment 1: Summary Statement of Concerns and Recommendations City of Burnaby Submission to Metro Vancouver RGS Consultation Process BwnabyAreasofConeern 8urnabsRecommendabons • New regional regulation (and approvals) • Municipalities required to comply • OCP's must be consistent with specifics of the RGS (including all municipal RGS actions) Proposed Land Use Designations and Categories • New regional (RGS) land use designations and categories (varying precision - some at parcel level) • Changes to locked in designation/category land use would require OCP and RGS Amendment (consultation and public hearing) • Significant increase in length and complexity of the 1. THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver development approval process when a designation Board that the draft RGS, in its present form, is or category change is required not supportable as a basis for subsequent A Direct Regulatory Role for Metro Vancouver acceptance and approval. • Proposed transfer of significant regulatory powers - from municipalities to Metro Vancouver 2. THAT Council advise the Metro Vancouver • Restricts cities' ability to manage and regulate land Board that the RGS should be based on the use adoption of key regional designations, directions • RGS designations and categories would supersede and guidelines for recommended implementation by municipalities, rather than Burnaby 's zoning the presently proposed regional regulatory approach to which municipalities would be required to strictly comply. Diminished Local Accountability • Metro Board would have final decision making role • Erodes Council's ability to be responsive to local needs and concerns • In the future, restricts consideration of additional alternative land uses Re: Attachment 1: Summary Statement of Concerns and Recommendations, City of Burnahv Submission to Metro Vancouver RGS Consultation Process 2009 March 19 ...............................................................Page 2 IBurnabys Areas of Concern I Burnaby's Recommendations 1 Mandatory RGS "Municipal Actions" • Shift from performance based guidelines to regional land use framework coupled with commitment to municipal actions • hard targets and requirements (75 in all) • inflexible - mandatory compliance • Requirements are varied and far reaching - some outside core City functions, some contrary to existing City policy, and some with significant resource requirements TransLink Approval Requirements • TransLink would review "major development" proposals, OCP adoptions, and OCP amendments - potentially adding a third review/approval agency to the new role suggested for Metro Vancouver and the City's existing development approval role. • "Major development" review process has yet to be defined. • Could add a significant amount of uncertainty and risk to the development review process. 3. THAT Council advise that while it is supportive of many of the municipal implementation action items contained in the draft RGS, it is concerned with the required commitment for local governments to implement all 75 listed actions, several of which would require significant financial and operating resources to pursue and implement; and would commit the City to a scope of work and positions that have not been considered in relationship to City resources, mandates, interests, priorities; and instead, Council proposes that these items be included as "recommended implementation actions and opportunities" instead of mandated commitments. THAT Council convey its concern with TransLink becoming a general third approval body in the draft F?GS for land use decisions, as this would further erode local decision making and further complicate approval processes resulting in increased uncertainty for the development community: that such reviews be limited to consulting with Translink on those proposed major developments that require an amendment to an adopted OCP and RCS. Re: Attachment 1: Summary Statement of Concerns and Recommendations, City of Burnabv Submission to Metro Vancouver RGS Consultation Process 2009 March 19 ................................................................ Page 3 Burnay's Areas of Concern - } 8ura by's Recommendations • RGS land use framework is not fully consistent with or supportive of fundamental aspects of Bumaby's OCP,_ community _plans and Zoning Bylaw. "Green Zone" and "General Urban Areas"5. THAT Council seek assurances that the current description of appropriate uses for designated definition: New "Green one ueunition.conservation-recreation lands within the draft • Focused on natural conservation/outdoor RGS would not preclude the necessary future recreation. This could preclude "indoor" uses accommodation of public developments to also (recreation, cultural, public/community),meet the indoor recreational, cultural and other • To protect for future flexibility, the City would likely public service needs of the community on have to remove significant amounts of land (e.g.,appropriate City owned lands currently shown Central Park, Deer Lake) from the "Green Zone".within the adopted Green Zone, "General Urban Areas" definition (minor concern):6. THAT Council advise that if the current • Local municipal parks, conservation areas, other description of appropriate uses for designated lands and water bodies are within "General Urban conservation-recreation lands within the draft Area" and not 'Green Zone" - this could be RGS is not amended, this will necessitate a misinterpreted as being potentially available for need for the City to remove significant public development park areas from the proposed conservation- recreation green zone designation. MunicipalCityCentres Definition: • Potential to restrict the development and function of Bumaby's town centres to: • be 'oriented to local needs', • contain 'medium and some higher density housing forms', and • accommodate 'local serving commercial 7. THAT Council request that the draft RGS be activities'.amended to ensure that municipalities are • This could significantly downgrade the intensity of provided with the necessary discretion to define mixed uses currently envisioned for the Edmonds,the form, density, character and function of Lougheed and Brentwood Town Centres.individual city centres in relation to their defined • The draft RGS needs to reflect the varied roles and specific local context as specified differences in role and scale of municipal city within their OCPs and RCSs. centres across the region. Employment projections: • Significant shift to Municipal City Centres as concentrations of employment, with a primary reliance upon Regional City Centres (inconsistent with Burnaby OCP). Re: Attachment 1: Summary Statement of Concerns and Recommendations, City of Burnahv Submission to Metro Vancouver RGS Consultation Process 2009 Marc/i 19 ...............................................................Page 4 Burnaby*s Areas of Concern ':.Burnabyts Recommendations Frequent Transit Development Corridors • Suggests a residential intensification of lands currently designated for other uses.8. THAT Council request that the draft RGS be • Could reduce the viability of focused town centres amended to provide for a variation and potential and urban village development immediately mix of uses and densities within Frequent surrounding SkyTrain stations.Transit Development Corridors, as deemed • Does not recognize that employment areas are also appropriate through municipal planning an appropriate fit for transit focused development,processes. • City parks, industrial, Business Centre and single/two family residential uses could be impacted. Industrial Lands 9. THAT Council inform the Metro Vancouver • RGS proposes an industrial land reserve - essentially, the same level of protection that is Board that it is not accepting of the proposed currently afforded the 'Green Zone".approach for the protection of industrial lands, • Would establish regional industrial zoning - based characterised by the associated land use on a traditional definition of production oriented restrictions as presented in the draft RGS, given industrial uses - precluding business and its impact on long standing land use professional offices, specified commercial uses,commitments; the necessary removal of and other non-production industrial uses.permitted uses from prevailing industrial districts; the creation of legal non-conforming • Ignores the blurring of traditional lines between uses; the limitation of current and future industrial, office and production business development options; the impact on the City's classifications that is taking place in the potential employment base; the loss of marketplace.economic viability of our industrial lands; and • Would necessitate the removal of some long-the creation of a more complex and extensive standing existing permitted uses from existing land use change approval process. Burnaby zoning districts - resulting in a significant: • impact on current and future land use options for industrial land owners; and • amount of legal non-conforming uses. • Would marginalize the significant infrastructure investments already made by land owners and the City to support Bumaby's current policies of land use intensification within designated areas. Re: Attachment 1: Sunzrnaiy Statement of Concerns and Recommendations. City of Burnaby Submission to Metro Vancouver RGS Consultation Process 2009 March 19 ............................................................... Page 5 • Burnaby's Areas of Concern..Recwnnendatiàns; • Would require changing policies to encourage tower order traditional industrial uses at the expense of 10. THAT Council suggest that the Board consider more intensive/efficient commercial uses - which an alternative to the approach proposed in the could impact the City's:draft RGS by allowing instead a broader land • potential Tax base; and use objective involving 'employment uses of an • potential employment base.industrial nature' for the lands identified for industrial protection to help maintain local • Should consider the application of employment decision making autonomy and allow for the uses of an industrial nature".continuation of intra-regional differences in industrial land utilization. lndustrial.Commercial Lands 11. THAT Council advise that a finalized RGS should acknowledge, recognize and respect the• Would not allow for any future transition from City's designated Business Centre areas that industrial to Business Centre uses which are not accommodate a range of industrial, researchalready approved by Council, - in designation,and development, and business and zoning bylaw or development form (examples professional office uses under the City's would include the TransLink property on the north-adopted OCP by way of designation, zoning east corner of BoundaryfLougheed, and the and/or approved community plans, and that it is Provincial institutional lands at WillingdonlCanada necessary to maintain the ability of the City to' Way).plan for the appropriate transition of lands in the • Retail uses permitted by the draft RGS in this City which in specific circumstances may category would not be allowed in Burnaby.involve creation df additional business centre lands. Projections - Population,Units,Employment,Housing 12. THAT Council request that, prior to • Draft RGS projects an increase in population and a advancement of the RGS, Metro Vancouver decrease in employment relative to the LRSP undertake a consultative and collaborative projections.process to allow member municipalities to review • Draft RGS does not indicate the intended purpose the methodology used to develop population, of the proposed changes in the distribution of unit and employment projections, comment on population and employment at a regional level.the appropriateness of underlying assumptions, • The limited timeframe since release of draft RGS and develop municipal responses as to the has not allowed for a complete analysis of the acceptability, achievability and implications of projections. It is difficult to determine:proposed current projections prior to finalizing the draft. • if the RGS projections are realistic for Burnaby at this time - we have not been able to compare the projections to current capacity or potential responses; • what the implications of established Burnaby policies - OCP and community plans; and • potential impact on tax base or labour force/employment ratio. PDa.idCh,o,,MS Wo,*iacOOt98doc Vecon; 2N9 Mat 13 _.c\\ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR City Hall - 20399 Douglas Crescent, Langley, BC Canada V3A 4B3 Telephone: 604-514-2801 Fax: 604-514-2838 March 24, 2.009 Our File: 400.05 Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H4G8 Attention: Johnny Canine, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Dear Sir: RE: DRAFT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY - FEBRUARY 2009 Thank you for your letter dated February 25, 2009. Langley City Council reviewed the Draft Regional Growth Strategy- February 2009 at a Briefing Session on March 9, 2009 and endorsed the following initial comments at its Regular Meeting on March 23, 2009. Urban Centres The framework of urban centres and frequent transit development corridors envisioned in Map 2 represents a significant increase in complexity over the equivalent structure employed in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. The City of Langley is concerned that the expanded hierarchy of centres and corridors serves to weaken the existing emphasis on Regional Town Centres (now called Regional City Centres). The City would prefer a narrower but stronger focus in the Regional Growth Strategy on Regional City Centres. 2. Preservation of Industrial Land The City of Langley affirmed its industrial land base in recent policy reviews (2004 Industrial Land Use Study, 2006 Official Community Plan). However, given the City's small land area, Council wishes to maintain the flexibility to respond to future requirements and to address conflicts arising from incompatible industrial uses. The proposed policies to protect the region's supply of industrial land (Strategy. 2.2) would require the City to submit revised Regional Context Statements for regional approval when changes to the OCP industrial lands are contemplated. The City considers the goals of the proposed industrial policies to be appropriate but the means to achieve those goals 2 should not include unwieldy and unnecessary intrusions into municipal land use planning authority. The region should definitely pursue a more collaborative and less restrictive approach while pursuing the overall goal of preserving industrial land. 3.Economy As one third of the sustainability equation, the City of Langley considers the absence of economic development policy to be a major deficiency of the existing Livable Region Strategic Plan. The addition of this new subject area (Goal 2) to the Draft Regional Growth Strategy is therefore welcomed. The City, however, believes that the emphasis of this section should be on attracting investment and employment to the region and in particular to its major centres. To that end, the region should vigorously advocate the need for tools such as tax incentives and enterprise zones to be created by the provincial and federal governments to reinforce the framework of centres and transit corridors envisioned in the document. Ultimately, it is the City's view that a regional economic development strategy is required to provide a comprehensive framework for the promotion of the region and the coordination of economic policy. 4.Conservation/Recreation Lands Map 5 illustrates varying approaches for identifying conservation/recreation lands on the part of regional jurisdictions. Some municipalities appear to identify their entire open space networks while others only show a few very large parks or conservation areas. The City has no position on which is the best approach but it does believe that a consistent mapping methodology applied across the region would improve the public's understanding of this map and thereby strengthen the underlying policy message. 5.Frequent Transit Network With the imminent completion of the Canada Line to Richmond, Langley Centre will be the only Regional City Centre (other than Lonsdale which is connected by Seabus to the Metropolitan Core) lacking rapid transit rail service. The Frequent Transit Network Concept shown in Map 6 indicates "Proposed Rapid Transit (Rail or Bus)" connections to Langley Centre. While it is recognized that a variety of rapid transit technologies exist and that no decision has been made yet on an appropriate system for Langley Centre, the City of Langley is concerned that this centre not be left at a qualitative disadvantage when compared to other Regional City Centres. Thus the goal of the region and TransLink should be to provide an equal quality of rapid transit service to all of the Regional City Centres. The City also feels strongly that higher order transit services should extend into Downtown Langley rather than terminate on the periphery of the Regional City Centre when they become available. In support of this position, the City has taken a leadership role and pursued a long term strategy of redeveloping land for high density uses in and around its downtown core. In the last two years the City has accelerated these efforts with its Downtown Master Plan and its approval of significantly higher multifamily residential 3 densities. Through these measures the City of Langley believes it has laid the groundwork for the Frequent Transit Network and the eventual extension of rapid transit services into Downtown Langley. This continues to be a priority for our community. Our Council has also gone on record in urging Metro Vancouver, TransLink and the provincial and federal governments to work closely together in order to ensure synergy and consistency with all planning initiatives. It is anticipated that more detailed comments will be provided in the coming months as the proposed Regional Growth Strategy progresses through the public process to the formal bylaw referral stage. The City looks forward to continuing consultation with the region on this vitally important initiative. Yours truly, City of Langley H.Peter Fassbender Mayor RMB/ cc: Councillors F.Cheung, Chief Administrative Officer G.Minchuk, Director of Development Services & Economic Development Subject: Draft Regional Growth Strategy - Initial Report #: 09-019 Comments File #: 0400.05 From: Roy M. Beddow, MCIP Doc #: 87374 Deputy Director of Development Services & Economic Development Date: March 12,2009 RECOMMENDATION: 1.THAT the report of the Deputy Director of Development. Services & Economic Development regarding the draft Regional Growth Strategy be received for information. 2.THAT the draft letter containing initial comments on "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future - Draft February 2009" be approved and forwarded to Metro Vancouver prior to the April 8, 2009 deadline (Attachment 1). PURPOSE: To provide comments on the "Draft Regional Growth Strategy - February 2009" in response to the letter from Metro Vancouver dated February 25, 2009 (attached). POLICY: The proposed new Regional Growth Strategy would replace the existing Livable Region Strategic Plan which was adopted in 1996. Under Part 25 of the Local Government Act, Metro Vancouver is required to consult with affected local 25 of 49 To: Mayor Fassbender and Councillors Date: March 12, 2009 Subject: Draft Regional Growth Strategy - Initial Comments Page 2 governments whose acceptance is ultimately required before the regional board may adopt a Regional Growth Strategy. Conversely, once a new Regional Growth Strategy is adopted by the region, the member municipalities must prepare "Regional Context Statements" and submit them to the regional board for approval within two years. A Regional Context Statement explains the relationship between a municipality's Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy and how the former is to be made consistent with the latter. COMMENTS/ANALYSIS: Process Metro Vancouver has referred this most recent draft of the proposed new Regional Growth Strategy to member municipalities for initial comment prior to commencing broad public consultation on April 15, 2009. Because the Regional Growth Strategy is still in draft form and no bylaw has been prepared or considered, this referral does not trigger the statutory review mechanism and timeline set out in Part 25 of the Local Government Act. Thus there will be additional opportunities for providing municipal comments at the bylaw stage and, as set out in the letter from Metro Vancouver until May 22, 2009 on the current draft. 2. Background The Draft Regional Growth Strategy would replace the current Livable Region Strategic Plan which was adopted in 1996. The new Regional Growth Strategy is part of Metro Vancouver's "Sustainable Region Initiative" and has been in development for the last few years. To that end, Metro Vancouver held an exhaustive series of public and technical workshops and forums within the region and published a number of background reports between 2005 and 2007. In November 2007 the Regional District circulated a discussion paper entitled, "Choosing a Sustainable. Future for Metro Vancouver - Options for Metro Vancouver's Growth Management Strategy". Preliminary drafts of the Regional Growth Strategy were released in April 2008 and September 2008 at the staff level for technical review as well as to Metro's Land Use & Transportation Committee (as it was then called) and to the Board. The current draft was received by Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Committee on February 13, 2009 and the Metro Vancouver Board on February 27, 2009. 26 of 49 To: Mayor Fassbender and Councillors Date: March 12, 2009 Subject: Draft Regional Growth Strategy - Initial Comments Pace 3 Overview of "Draft Regional Growth Strategy - February 2009" Staff reviewed the Draft Regional Growth Strategy in detail at a Council Briefing Session on March 9, 2009. The following is a brief overview of the new RGS. The Draft Regional Growth Strategy consists of a vision statement from which five goals are derived and thirteen strategies articulated for their implementation. Each of the thirteen strategies lists a number of actions to be undertaken by Metro Vancouver, its member municipalities or other governments and agencies. The five goals are: Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices The major land use and transportation policies contained in the Draft Regional Growth Strategy are summarized geographically in Map 8: Regional Growth Strategy. Appendixes A and B consist of a number of tables containing population, employment and housing projections, targets and demand estimates. 4. City of Langley and Draft Regional Growth Strategy As a "Complete, Compact Community", the City of Langley generally fits very well within the regional planning framework of the existing Livable Region Strategic Plan and likewise within the context of the Draft Regional Growth Strategy. The City offers a diversity of housing choices and employment opportunities in a compact and efficient form consistent with the vision of a livable and sustainable region. Nevertheless the City does have some concerns with the latest Draft Regional Growth Strategy. The following initial areas of concern were identified at the Council Briefing Session on March 9, 2009. Item City Concerns/Comments Urban Centres Expanded hierarchy weakens existing policy emphasis on RTC's Preservation of Industrial Land ' Too restrictive, does not allow flexibility - regional approval required for OCP amendments 27 of 49 To: Mayor Fassbender and Councillors Date: March 12, 2009 Subject: Draft Regional Growth Strategy - Initial Comments Page 4 Economy • Greater emphasis on economic development measures is required Conservation/Recreation Land Map • Consistent mapping approaches required across region Frequent Transit Network • Regional policy must support goal of providing equal quality of rapid transit service to all Regional City Centres (RCC's) Future higher order transit services for Langley RCC should extend into Downtown Langley The above concerns are described further in the draft letter to Metro Vancouver attached to this report. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: 1.Send revised initial comments to Metro Vancouver on "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future - Draft February 2009". 2.Send no initial comments to Metro Vancouver on "Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future - Draft February 2009". SUMMARY: Metro Vancouver's Draft Regional Growth Strategy was reviewed at a Council Briefing Session on March 9, 2009. The following initial areas of concern have been identified: • Urban Centres • Preservation of Industrial Land • Economy • Conservation/Recreation Land Map • Frequent Transit Network 28 of 49 To: Mayor Fassbender and Councillors Date: March 12, 2009 Subject: Draft Regional Growth Strategy - Initial Comments Page 5 It is recommended that these concerns be communicated to the region through the draft letter attached to this report. Respectfully Submitted, Roy M. Beddow, MCIP Deputy Director of Development Services & Economic Development CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS: I support the recommendation to forward a letter to Metro Vancouver outlining the areas of concern with respect to the draft Regional Growth Strategy. L'a. Francis Cheung, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 29 of 49 DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 3.0 MAPLE RIDGE Special Council Meeting of: March 31, 2009 Whereas the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows applied for and have been awarded the privilege of hosting the 2009 BC Disability Games; and Whereas many citizen volunteers are working on behalf of the community and are contributing both time and money toward a goal of hosting an excellent event; Now, therefore, belt resolved that staff be directed to assist in fundraising for the Games. "Ernie Daykin" DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director - Mgr - Economic Development - Mgr - Sustainability & corp Planning - Mgr - Communications - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP re Chief Mgr - Accounting - Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Developmei - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Mgr - Corporate and Development Er -/Dir - Engineering Operations Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities - Dir - Recreation - Dir - Community Services Clerk's Section - Corporate Officer - Property & Risk Manager - Lynn Marchand - Diana Dalton - Amanda Allen - Amanda Gaunt - Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the 'Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. Meeting Date Date Corporate Officer r Deciding our future How will we:. • Reduce the garbage we produce • Deal with sewage • Manage growth in the region Throughout 2009 Metro Vancouver will be hosting public meetings to discuss issues critical to the future of our region. Spring Series - Our focus is on the Zero Waste Challenge, Liquid Waste Management and the Regional Growth Strategy. Please join the discussion and give us your ideas. SPRING SERIES To secure a seat registration is encouraged. For copies of the draft plans and more information, please visit www.metrovaricouver.org metrovancouver Or call: 604.432.6200 SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE... TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTiON PUBLIC CONSULTATION CALENDAR - SPRING 2009 Public Evening Meetings: 7 - 9 pm (registration 6:30 pm) April 1 Central/Northeast Executive Plaza Hotel, 405 North Road, CoqLiitlam April 16 South of the Fraser Compass Point Inn, 9850 King George Highway, Surrey April 22 North Shore Eagles Club, 170 West 3rd Street, N. Vancouver April 29 Vancouver BCIT Downtown Campus, 555 Seymour Street, Vancouver Public Breakfast Meetings: 7:30 - 9:30 am (registration 7 am) April 8 North Shore North Vancouver City Library, 120 West 14th Street, N. Vancouver April 9 South of the Fraser Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel, 15269 104th Avenue, Surrey flII JI [ci. Public Evening Meetings: 7 9 pm (registration 6:30) April 15 Vancouver Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, 580W. Hastings Street, Vancouver April 21 Richmond Executive Airport Plaza, 7311 Westminster Hwy, Richmond April 22 Central/Northeast Executive Plaza Hotel & Conference, Ctr 405 North Road, Coquitlam April 23 South of the Fraser Compass Point Inn, 9850 King George Highway, Surrey April 28 North Shore Lonsdale Quay Hotel, 123 Carrie Cates Court, N. Vancouver Public Evening Meetings: 7 - 9 pm (registration 6:30 pm) April 22 Vancouver UBC Robson Square, Room C180, 800 Robson Street, Vancouver April 29 Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge Ridge Meadows Seniors Society, 12150 — 224th Street, Maple Ridge May 7 Burnaby/New Westminster Metro Vancouver, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby May12 North Shore Eagles Club, 170 West 3rd Street, North Vancouver May 13 Langley Douglas Recreation Centre, 20550 Douglas Crescent, Langley May 14 Richmond Richmond Cultural Centre, 180-7700 Minoru Gate, Richmond May 19 Surrey/Delta White Rock Surrey Conference Centre, 9260- 140th Street, Surrey May 21 Tn Cities Leigh Square Community Arts Village, 2253 Leigh Square, Port Coquitlam Public Breakfast Meetings: 7:30 - 9:30 am (registration 7 am) May 6 Vancouver BCIT Downtown Campus, 555 Seymour Street, Vancouver May 13 North Shore North Vancouver City Library, 120 West 14th Street, N. Vancouver May 27 South of the Fraser Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel, 15269- 104th Avenue, Surrey Regional Forums: 12 noon - 2 pm (registration 11:30 am) April 23 South of the Fraser Eaglequest Coyote Creek Golf Club, 7778 152nd Street, Surrey May 20 Vancoijvr Mi i 1 J. Wosk Centre tor Dialogue, 580W. Hastings Street, Vancouver May 27 North Shore Hollyburn Country Club, 950 Crosscreek Road, W. Vancouver Regional Forums: Evening 5 - 7 pm (registration 4:30 pm) April 30 Central/Northeast Hilton Metrotown, 6083 McKay Avenue, Burnaby