GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Friday, June 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. nd 2 Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 2. June 6, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 6, 2014 as circulated. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 May 9, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held May 9, 2014 as circulated. 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 4.1 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 1 Don Luymes, Manager of Community Planning, City of Surrey Subject: Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Designated Speakers: Heather McNell, Regional Planning Division Manager Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. May 30, 2014 RPA - 1 - Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Regular Agenda June 6, 2014 Agenda Page 2 of 3 That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy amendment process for the City of Surrey’s proposed amendment for the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District; b) Give 1st reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; c) Give 2nd reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2. 5.2 Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Designated Speakers: Heather McNell, Regional Planning Division Manager Jason Smith, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the GVRD Board: a) Give 1st reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; b) Give 2nd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; c) Give 3rd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; d) Give final consideration and reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014 and adopt Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; e) Adopt the revised Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy as presented in Attachment 4 of the report dated May 21, 2014 titled “Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process”. 5.3 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report - 2014 Designated Speakers: Elisa Campbell, Director of Regional and Strategic Planning Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 22, 2014, titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report - 2014”. 5.4 Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities Designated Speaker: Tom Pearce, Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department May 30, 2014 RPA - 2 - Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Regular Agenda June 6, 2014 Agenda Page 3 of 3 That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 1, 2014, titled “Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities”. 5.5 Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on the Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Designated Speaker: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 26, 2014, titled “Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan”. 5.6 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Allan Neilson, General Manager Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report”. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented. 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented. 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of June 6, 2014. Membership: Corrigan, Derek (C) – Burnaby Steves, Harold (VC) – Richmond Clay, Mike – Port Moody Daykin, Ernie – Maple Ridge Froese, Jack – Langley Township Hepner, Linda – Surrey Isaak, Kerri Palmer - Anmore Mussatto, Darrell - North Vancouver City Paton, Ian - Delta Reimer, Andrea – Vancouver May 30, 2014 RPA - 3 - Smith, Michael - West Vancouver Stewart, Richard - Coquitlam West, Brad – Port Coquitlam Wright, Wayne - New Westminster 2.1 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held at 9:08 a.m. on Friday, May 9, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. PRESENT: Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Vice Chair, Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Mike Clay, Port Moody Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Kerri Palmer Isaak, Anmore Councillor Ian Paton, Delta Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster ABSENT: Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Councillor Brad West, Port Coquitlam STAFF PRESENT: Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional and Strategic Planning, Planning, Policy and Environment Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 May 9, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for May 9, 2014 as circulated. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 March 7, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 1 of 9 RPA - 4 - It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held March 7, 2014 as circulated. CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Richard Bullock, Chair, Agricultural Land Commission Richard Bullock, Chair, Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), provided an update on the ongoing work of the ALC, elaborating on the following: • A large number of applications received by the ALC on an annual basis • Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) boundary review • Dealings with oil and gas industry, including establishment of a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission in October 2013 • The ALC plan to digitalize and publish applications and its files and policies • Concern about low fees charged for applications; reviewed potential for the ALC to become self-sustaining should the application fees be increased/fee structure revisited • The ALC regional panel system Discussion ensued on/comments were provided on: • The importance of dealing with all exclusion and non-farm use applications formally and impartially • The need for ALC policy issues to be discussed publicly • The potential for another joint meeting of the Committee and the ALC • Local governments’ appreciation and support of ALC work In response to questions and/or comments, the Committee was informed about the following: • ALC commissioners make clear distinction in their approach to applications versus general policy discussions • The ALC primary role is preservation of farmland. Ensuring that the next generation of farmers is encouraged is within senior’s government jurisdiction • More actions should be taken by senior government to encourage farming in BC • 85% of ALC funding is spent on dealing with applications. The ALC could become self-sufficient if fees were revisited and a user pay system was put in place • Value added, legitimate farm-related operations on agricultural land are acceptable in the view of the ALC Chair, providing the supplemental activity will not replace or push out the farming activities. Criteria/policies will need to be put in place re this issue. Local governments need to be involved in setting criteria for what activities are allowable. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 2 of 9 RPA - 5 - • • • • • Concern was expressed that Bill 24 is being brought forward for consultation after the fact. Local governments need to be consulted on the issue It is important that young farmers are involved in consultations Agricultural land should be considered for development only after all other options are exhausted Peace River agricultural land is under the purview of the ALC The ALC has no role in the environment assessment of the SiteC project Request of Staff Staff was requested to arrange a joint meeting of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Agricultural Land Commission. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board request the Treasury Board to allow the Agricultural Land Commission to create an application and fees schedule that will move the Agricultural Land Commission towards a self-funded model. CARRIED 4.2 Kim Grout, CAO, City of Pitt Meadows, Dana Parr, Planner, City of Pitt Meadows Kim Grout, and Dana Parr, City of Pitt Meadows, provided an overview of the City of Pitt Meadow’s Amendment Request for North Lougheed Planning Area (Area), highlighting the following: • Resolutions passed on the matter by the City of Pitt Meadows • Location and context • Current OCP and RGS land use designations • Current Pitt Meadows RCS • Municipal goals for the subject area • Plan and purpose of the proposed North Lougheed Connector road • Proposed OCP and RGS land use designations • Agricultural Land Commission land exclusion decision • The planning process for the area • Regional benefits of the proposal Presentation material titled “North Lougheed Planning Area Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Request City of Pitt Meadows” is retained with the May 9, 2014 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee agenda. Discussion ensued on the following: • Actions taken by Pitt Meadows to preserve farmland in its community • Concern that the municipality’s financial sustainability is provided as one of the reasons for the amendment • Designated use and calming of Dewdney Trunk Road Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 3 of 9 RPA - 6 - 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF 5.1 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from Pitt Meadows – North Lougheed Planning Area Report dated April 22, 2014, from Jason Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department, providing the opportunity to consider initiating the proposed Type 3 minor amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) requested by the City of Pitt Meadows. Presentation material titled “Pitt Meadows Metro 2040 Amendment” is retained with the May 9, 2014 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee agenda. Committee members spoke in support of the amendment, expressing the following: • The area was designated as a special study area during the development of Metro 2040 and Pitt Meadows met all requirements set during the process • The ALC approved the exclusion of the land from the ALR and the amendment is supported by the community and municipal staff • The new North Lougheed Connector road will help to alleviate heavy traffic/safety issues in the area Committee members expressed the following concerns about the amendment: • sustainability of city finances being provided as one of the rationales for the amendment; concern about precedent setting of the argument to other developments; the need to remove this rationale from regional consideration • potential future implications of the development on adjacent agricultural land • the impact of the development on access roads • the covenant not being upheld It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy amendment process for the City of Pitt Meadows’ proposed amendment for the North Lougheed Planning Area; b) Give 1st reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1202, 2014; c) Give 2nd reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1202, 2014; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future section 6.4.2. CARRIED Director Steves voted in the negative. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 4 of 9 RPA - 7 - 5.2 Consideration of the District of North Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement Report dated April 23, 2014, from Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department, requesting that the Board consider acceptance of the District of North Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement in accordance with Section 866 of the Local Government Act. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board accept the District of North Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement as received by Metro Vancouver on April 15, 2014. CARRIED 5.3 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment to Reflect Accepted Regional Context Statements Report dated April 28, 2014, from Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to give third and final readings to adopt a Type 3 (housekeeping) amendment to the regional growth strategy. The amendment entails incorporating changes to the Metro 2040 Regional Land Use Designation maps stemming from Regional Context Statements accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) give third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1201, 2014”; and b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1201, 2014”. CARRIED 5.4 Metro Vancouver ‘Facts in Focus’ Series Report dated April 25, 2014, from Elisa Campbell, Director of Regional and Strategic Planning, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an opportunity for the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee to review and provide input to the development of the Metro Vancouver ‘Facts in Focus’ series, to include planning and transportation issues related to Metro Vancouver’s regional planning mandate. Suggestions were provided that a visual presentation of the different types and forms of farming activities in the Metro Vancouver be prepared. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee provide input to the development of the Metro Vancouver ‘Facts in Focus’ series, to include planning and transportation issues related to Metro Vancouver’s regional planning mandate. CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 5 of 9 RPA - 8 - 5.5 Process for Developing an Action Plan for the Regional Food System Strategy Report dated April 16, 2014, from Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating and seeking the input from the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee on the development of a process for implementing an Action Plan for the Regional Food System Strategy (RFSS.) The Committee spoke in support of the action plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Proceed with the action plan as presented in the report dated April 16, 2014, titled “Process for Developing an Action Plan for the Regional Food System Strategy.” CARRIED 5.6 Proposed Changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Report dated April 30, 2014, from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, describes potential repercussions of the recent Provincial announcement regarding the Provincial Core Review of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board request that BC Premier Christy Clark and the Honourable Norm Letnick, Minister of Agriculture, delay the enactment of Bill 24 until consultation regarding the proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Commission has occurred with local governments. An amendment to the resolution was proposed, taking into consideration that the Bill will be enacted before it will be presented to the Board. Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee amend the Main Motion by replacing the phrase “request that” with the phrase “request” and by replacing the phrase “delay the enactment of Bill 24” with the phrase “that any legislation that arises from Bill 24 not be brought into force”. CARRIED Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was called on the Main Motion as amended and it was CARRIED Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 6 of 9 RPA - 9 - The Main Motion as amended now reads as follows: That the GVRD Board request BC Premier Christy Clark and the Honourable Norm Letnick, Minister of Agriculture that any legislation that arises from Bill 24 not be brought into force until consultation regarding the proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Commission has occurred with local governments. 5.7 Results of the 2013 Agriculture Awareness Grants Report dated April 11, 2014, from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, describes the projects that received Agriculture Awareness Grants from Metro Vancouver in 2013. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated April 11, 2014, titled “Results of the 2013 Agriculture Awareness Grants”. CARRIED 5.8 2014 Agriculture Awareness Grant Recommendations Report dated April 11, 2014, from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, presenting recommendations from the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) to award $40,000 in Agriculture Awareness Grants to eleven non-profit organizations in 2014. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board award Agricultural Awareness Grants to the following eleven non-profit organizations as described in the report dated April 11, 2014, titled “2014 Agriculture Awareness Grant Recommendations”: 1) BC Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation for the “Take a Bite of BC” project for the amount of $6,200; 2) BC Chicken Grower’s Association for the “Poultry in Motion Educational Mini Barn” project for the amount of $6,000; 3) Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust for the “Day at the Farm” event for the amount of $3,000; 4) Evergreen Society for the “Seeding Healthy Communities” project for the amount of $1,500; 5) Fraser Valley Direct Marketing Association for the “Using Social Media to Grow the Market for Local Farm Products” project in the amount of $2,300; 6) Growing Chefs for the “Classroom Gardening Program” for the amount of $5,000; 7) Langley Environmental Partners Society for the “Seed to Plate: Community Action for a Sustainable Food System” project for the amount of $4,000; 8) Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association for the “Backyard Farming” display at County Fest for the amount of $2,500; Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 7 of 9 RPA - 10 - 9) 10) 11) 5.9 North Shore Neighbourhood House for the “Strong Roots and Fresh Starts at the Loutet Farm” project for the amount of $5,000; Sharing Farm Society for the “ 6th Annual Garlic Festival” for the amount of $3,000; and Vancouver Urban Farming Society for the “Metro Vancouver Cross Cultural Urban Farm Tour” in the amount of $1,500. CARRIED Manager’s Report Report dated April 22, 2014, from Elisa Campbell, Director of Regional and Strategic Planning, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating the Committee about the following: • Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee 2014 Workplan • Map of the Month In response to an inquiry, the Committee was informed that the Corporation of Delta's proposed regional growth strategy amendment to the Southlands site will be considered at the May 23, 2014 GVRD Board meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated April 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report”. CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information item 6.1 Regional Planning Monthly Data as follows: a) March 2014. b) April 2014. CARRIED 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 8 of 9 RPA - 11 - 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee conclude its regular meeting of May 9, 2014. CARRIED (Time: 11:18 a.m.) ____________________________ Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees ____________________________ Derek Corrigan, Chair 9427448 FINAL Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held on Friday, May 9, 2014 Page 9 of 9 RPA - 12 - 5.1 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 22, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy amendment process for the City of Surrey’s proposed amendment for the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District; b) Give 1st reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; c) Give 2nd reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2. PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider initiating the proposed Type 3 minor amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) requested by the City of Surrey (the City). BACKGROUND On May 2, 2014, Metro Vancouver received a request from the City of Surrey to amend Metro 2040 for part of an area called the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District. The request consists of re-designating 6.5 hectares of regionally designated Industrial lands to Mixed Employment. This is a Type 3 amendment which, as per Metro 2040 6.3.4 b) applies “for sites within the Urban Containment Boundary, amendments from Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban land use designations to any other such regional land use designations”. Site Context Metro 2040 Designation OCP Designation Proposed Metro 2040 Designation Site Size: Proposed Development RPA - 13 - Industrial Industrial (designated Mixed employment in the new OCP – not yet adopted) Mixed Employment Nine parcels totaling 6.5 hectares No specific development proposal. Planning study for the area contemplates establishing a Central Newton Cultural Commercial District including a mix of small-scale manufacturing and repair, business and personal services, and retail sales. Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 8 A Type 3 amendment requires an amendment bylaw that receives an affirmative 50%+1 weighted vote by the Metro Vancouver Board at every reading, including adoption, to proceed (Attachment 1). A draft version of this report and its attachments was presented to the Regional Planning Advisory Committee for review on May 22, 2014, as required by RGS Procedures Bylaw No. 1148. DISCUSSION The Proposed Amendment The Central Newton Cultural Commercial District (the Cultural District) site is approximately 16 hectares in total, and is located around the intersection of 128th Street and 80th Avenue in an area that is predominantly surrounded by Metro 2040 Industrial land (Figure 1). Within the Cultural District boundary, parcels totaling 6.5 hectares 1 are designated Metro 2040 Industrial, and the rest is designated Metro Figure 1: Proposed CNCCD area 2040 Mixed Employment (Figure 2, Attachment 2). No changes to the surrounding Industrial designations are proposed. The proposed amendment site consists of nine properties that are currently zoned for light industrial or business park uses, and are designated Industrial under the City’s existing OCP. Development applications for commercial businesses in the Cultural District have been submitted to the City, pending the acceptance of the Metro 2040 amendment. In July 2012, after Metro 2040 adoption, Surrey authorized a planning study to address the proliferation of commercial businesses around the intersection of 128th Street and 80th Avenue area and to consider the development of a new commercial district - the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District. Figure 2: Proposed Metro 2040 Amendment 1 Surrey’s application requests an amendment to 8.5 hectares of Metro 2040 Industrial land; however this area also includes road and utility right-of-ways. The area of the actual parcels subject to re-designation is 6.5 hectares. RPA - 14 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 3 of 8 The Cultural District planning process considered: • OCP re-designation from Industrial to Commercial for the affected area; • Developing design guidelines; • Potential establishment of a Business Improvement Area for the new commercial district; • Introduction of a community amenity contribution scheme; and • A public consultation process. City of Surrey Rationale The proposed Cultural District area includes both Metro 2040 Mixed Employment and Industrial lands. The Industrial lands within the Cultural District form the basis of this amendment. These lands are designated “Industrial” in the OCP and “General Industrial” in the Newton Local Area Plan. The Cultural District boundary incorporates properties around the intersection of 128th Street and 80th Avenue, and is drawn to include three major anchor sites: Payal Centre to the northeast, York Centre to the south and the Punjab Cloth House development site to the west and northwest. The City’s rationale for the amendment is to contain the existing commercial uses, protect surrounding industrial lands and establish a cultural district. The City’s staff reports note a history of commercial uses evolving in the Cultural District area. Policy measures to curb the trend were adopted but were largely unsuccessful. Commercial uses continued to emerge due to permissive accessory use provisions in the zoning bylaw and difficulties with enforcement. Further measures were taken address the problem, and a new industrial zone is being proposed to avoid similar challenges in new development in other industrial areas. However, some commercial uses had established themselves as major anchor businesses prior to Metro 2040 adoption, and continue to attract interest from other commercial users. Through the Cultural District amendment, the City is proposing to draw boundaries around those industrial areas where commercial uses are already most prevalent to focus commercial interest, and to remove pressure to convert adjacent industrial lands. The Cultural District is intended to build on the existing presence of specialized commercial anchor businesses to create a cultural district that meets the needs of the South Asian community. Surrey staff reports and other materials are attached (Attachment 3). Metro 2040 Considerations Analysis of the proposal based on the relevant sections of Metro 2040 is presented below, structured to respond to Metro 2040 goals. RPA - 15 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Goal 2 Protect the supply of industrial land The protection of existing industrial lands is one of Metro 2040’s core strategies. If industrial lands are converted to commercial and retail development, the result may be lost economic opportunity and pressures for securing additional industrial land for development within the region’s rural and agricultural areas. Despite municipal policy and zoning to protect industrial land, commercial uses have evolved in the Cultural District area. The amendment proposed is intended to help contain this existing commercial activity as well as to protect and retain industrial uses on surrounding lands. This outcome will be achieved by drawing boundaries around the locations where commercial uses are already most prevalent in order to direct and contain commercial interest within this area. The Cultural District boundaries are proposed as a means to dispel ambiguity about the future viability of surrounding Industrial lands by formalizing the commercial character of lands within the Cultural District and reaffirming the industrial intent of lands outside the boundaries. The Metro 2040 Industrial designation is also intended to provide greater certainty for existing and future businesses about the long term intention and economic viability of industrial activity. This stabilizing function is being impacted by the infiltration of commercial and retail type businesses in the Cultural District area, and the resulting change has affected the character of industrial land within the Cultural District so that commercial and service uses have become the dominant uses in this area. The existing commercial uses have diminished the industrial capacity of these lands, which are presently more closely aligned with a Metro 2040 Mixed Employment designation rather than Industrial. The prevalence of commercial activity in the Cultural District area is leading to ongoing and piecemeal pressure to convert nearby industrial lands to commercial. The Cultural District aims to re-stabilize the industrial functionality of the area by removing pressure to convert industrial lands outside of its boundaries. Risk of proliferation of future amendments When considering a re-designation from Industrial to Mixed Employment or any other designation, it is important to consider whether accepting this request will lead to additional requests to redesignate other industrial lands. The City sees the incursion of retail/commercial uses into industrial areas as problematic in this area and other locations in the city, and is taking steps to resolve this issue. Below is a summary of that policy work: • The creation of a Cultural District establishes rational boundaries to contain the emergent retail/commercial uses in this area and to protect surrounding industrial uses from further encroachment. • Surrey has started using specific provisions in Comprehensive Development zoning to prevent commercial infiltration in their OCP Industrial areas. • The properties surrounding the Cultural District are zoned either IL (Light Impact Industrial) or IH (High Impact Industrial), and do not permit retail uses. • Provisions in the existing industrial zoning that contributed to commercial encroachment in the Cultural District include the definitions of accessory retail/commercial uses in the ‘Business Park (IB) zone’ and specific ‘Comprehensive Development (CD) zones’. The City is proposing that a new industrial zone (IB-3) be established to more specifically limit retail/ RPA - 16 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 5 of 8 • • commercial uses and future commercial infiltration in industrial areas. This zone will come into effect once their new OCP is adopted in 2014, and be applied to future rezoning in the industrial areas. Retail/commercial encroachment in this area was partially due to challenges associated with bylaw enforcement, as some businesses operated contrary to the terms of their license, or without a license. The proposed measures are intended to provide more definition and clarity to City policies and bylaws, and will place increased focus on industrial encroachment in the area. In their new OCP, Surrey has revised OCP land use designations to more closely reflect the Metro 2040 land use designations and provisions by adding a Mixed Employment designation and amending the Industrial designation to further restrict retail and office use. The emergent retail/commercial uses in this area catered to particular cultural and community needs within the rapidly growing area. The success of those anchor businesses attracted other cultural-serving businesses. The Cultural District will formally recognize and accommodate this unique functional location. Notwithstanding the City’s efforts, there are no guarantees the proposed strategies will be successful. There is still a risk of future commercial encroachment, and acceptance of this amendment could be seen as a signal that future attempts to convert industrial land may also be successful. However, measures taken and proposed by the City of Surrey seem to provide an appropriate balance in attempting to resolve a conflicting land use issue in the community, and serve to further inhibit future encroachment on industrial lands. Concentrate major-trip generating uses in Urban Centres and FTDAs Metro 2040 asks municipalities to define major trip-generating uses in their Regional Context Statements (RCSs), and to discourage these uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs). The Cultural District staff reports suggest the area could become a regional shopping destination, but it does not meet the threshold as a major trip-generator (MTG) as defined in the City’s new OCP and proposed RCS. However, Surrey’s MTG definition is based on a floor area ratio, which does not accurately capture trip generating potential or impacts. Metro 2040 does not define MTGs or specific criteria that have to be met in defining MTGs in an RCS. Given that commercial uses generate more trips than industrial, and the Cultural District is described as a potential regional destination in Surrey staff reports, it is reasonable to assume the Cultural District could function as a MTG outside of Urban Centres and FTDAs, even if it does not technically meet the definition in the RCS. The Cultural District study includes direction for enhanced traffic and parking management within the site, as well as pedestrian and transit-supportive improvements. While these measures could have a nominal effect in reducing some anticipated traffic impacts, the proposed Cultural District will lead to an overall increase in trip-generation and related impacts, and is generally not consistent with the intent of this Metro 2040 policy, even if it meets the MTG definition in the RCS. Promote a diverse regional economy and employment close to where people live The Metro 2040 Mixed Employment land use designation is intended for industrial, commercial and other employment related uses to support the regional economy and industrial activity, and to complement the function of Urban Centres and FTDAs. The Cultural District proposes to add parcels RPA - 17 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 6 of 8 totaling 6.5 ha of Mixed Employment land to an area that already features commercial land uses, in order to create a contiguous node of Mixed Employment land. Commercial businesses in the Cultural District area are already popular among the South Asian community, and the City is proposing to build on the existing draw of this area to transform it into a regionally-unique cultural commercial district. The City’s economic analysis indicates businesses that are expected to be attracted to this area tend to offer specialized goods and services catering to the growing South Asian community, and would therefore have minimal impact on other commercial areas in Urban Centres and FTDAs. The proposed amendment would contribute to regional economic development activity, although some of it could be replacing economic activity that might otherwise occur from industrial use, or might otherwise occur elsewhere in more transit-supportive locations, such as the Newton Town Centre. Goal 4 Develop complete communities with access to a range of services and amenities The proposed Cultural District would formalize the emergence of a unique area to meet the needs and interests of Newton’s growing South Asian community. The Cultural District includes design guidelines in support of place-making and creating a vibrant and safe pedestrian environment to provide increased opportunities for social interaction. Goal 5 Coordinate land use and transportation One of the key regional objectives for Goal 5 is to coordinate land use and transportation to facilitate transit, walking, cycling and multi-occupancy vehicle trips. The subject site is in an area identified as a potential corridor in the Frequent Transit Network Concept as shown on Metro 2040 Map B.1). However, there is no planning work underway or certainty regarding future implementation. Currently, the site has limited transit service (20-30 minute service). It is not within walking distance of the existing Frequent Transit Network and there are no transit expansion plans along 80th Avenue. With limited transit service, the proposed Cultural District will increase traffic volumes and trips to and from the Mixed Employment area. The Cultural District study addresses parking and traffic considerations, and features design guidelines and proposed improvements to the public realm and access to and from transit services, including sidewalks, pedestrian connections, open space and landscaping. Although such improvements will contribute somewhat to the walkability and transit connectivity of the Cultural District area, the proposed amendment generally does not support this Metro 2040 strategy. Safe and efficient movement of people and goods The proposed Cultural District encompasses a portion of the BC Hydro railway ROW. The current use of rail in the surrounding industrial areas, and potential impacts to future rail use are not addressed in the City’s analysis. It is likely that rail use in this corridor will be constrained as a result of the proposed amendment, although City staff have informally indicated that rail use by industry in the area has been declining and mostly replaced by trucking. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy amendment process for the City of Surrey’s proposed amendment for the Central Newton Commercial Cultural District; RPA - 18 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 7 of 8 b) Give 1st reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; c) Give 2nd reading of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2. 2. That the GVRD Board decline the requested Metro 2040 amendment. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications for the alternatives presented. REGIONAL PLANNING IMPLICATIONS The proposed amendment to Metro 2040 is a Type 3 minor amendment. If the Metro Vancouver Board approves Alternative 1, initiates the amendment, and gives 1st and 2nd reading to RGS Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014 (Attachment 1), notification will be sent to affected local governments, a notice will be placed on the Metro Vancouver website and an opportunity for all to comment will be provided. The intent would be to return to the Board in September 2014 with an opportunity to consider comments received and adoption of the Bylaw. Surrey’s new RCS would be considered at the same meeting. In terms of regional impacts, if the amendment is approved, there will be a loss of 6.5 hectares of industrial land parcels within the Cultural District area, and an increase in trip generation in an area with currently limited transit services outside of Urban Centres and FTDAs. However, the intent is to stabilize the long-term protection of industrial lands immediately outside of the Cultural District area, contain and focus commercial activity to where it is already occurring and most prevalent, and support a regionally and culturally unique economic generator. If the Board approves Alternative 2, and declines the amendment, potential implications might include further destabilization of industrial land in the area via ongoing pressure for commercial conversion, and diminished opportunity for diversifying the regional economy. Similarly, if the Industrial designation remains in name only, and does not accurately reflect what’s on the ground, the intent of the Metro 2040 land use designations might be diminished. The regional benefits of not accepting the amendment would include a clear message that Metro 2040 Industrial areas are to remain as a stable supply of land for industrial activity, and that, on balance, encouraging further commercial uses in the area will have significant regional impacts as a major trip generator out of centre and without adequate transit access. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The City of Surrey has requested an amendment to Metro 2040 to re-designate properties totaling 6.5 hectares from Industrial land to Mixed Employment. The amendment responds to ongoing challenges to curb the growth of retail/commercial uses in the Central Newton area by proposing to contain the existing commercial uses within a cultural commercial district. The amendment aims to resolve the conflicting land use issue by acknowledging the existing commercial character of the subject lands; a re-designation to Metro 2040 Mixed Employment would enable consistency among the establishment of the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District, the City’s new OCP, the proposed Regional Context Statement and Metro 2040. RPA - 19 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the City of Surrey – Central Newton Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 8 of 8 The amendment further articulates the City’s ongoing efforts to curb the problem of commercial growth in the area, and provides a final step to resolve prior regulatory and administrative challenges with curbing commercial growth. The proposed amendment addresses and provides a mechanism to contain the conversion of industrial land in the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District, and contributes to the broad Metro 2040 objective of protecting industrial land by providing further stability and clarity to land use in industrial areas. Metro Vancouver staff recommends Alternative 1, that the proposed amendment should proceed. If the Board approves the recommendation, the amendment bylaw will return for consideration of adoption along with all comments from the referral period. Attachments (Doc. #9499012): 1. Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014. 2. Map of Proposed Amendment to Metro 2040 Land Use Designations. 3. City of Surrey Staff Reports. 9437746 RPA - 20 - 5.1 Attachment 1 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1207, 2014 A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010. WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1136, 2010 on the 29th day of July, 2011; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in open meeting assembled ENACTS as follows: 1. The “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010” is hereby amended by revising the official regional land use designation maps numbered 2 (Regional Land Use Designations) and 6 (Industrial and Mixed Employment Areas) to record the changes in regional land use designation from Industrial to Mixed Employment, as shown in Schedule A of this Bylaw. 2. The official Citation for this bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014” This bylaw may be cited as “Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014.” Read a First time this _______________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Read a Second time this ______________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Read a Third time this _______________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Passed and Finally Adopted this ____________ day of _________________________ , 2014. _____________________ Chris Plagnol Acting Corporate Officer _________________________ Greg Moore Board Chair Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014 Page 1 of 2 RPA - 21 - Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1207, 2014 Page 2 of 2 RPA - 22 - 5.1 Attachment 2 Proposed Metro 2040 Land Use Designation Amendments Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Metro 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from Surrey - Newton Area New Westminster - Industrial to Mixed Employment (6.5 ha of parcel area, additional 2.8 ha in roads and right of ways) Surrey Delta Produced by Metro Vancouver May 14, 2014 Current Designations Proposed Changes 82 82 Industrial e Av e Av Industrial to Mixed Employment Mixed Employment General Urban 128 St 80 Ave 127 St 80 Ave 127 St 128 St 128 St 128 St Site Area Metro 2040 Land Use Designations Agricultural Conservation & Recreation Industrial Mixed Employment Rural General Urban RPA - 23 - Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) 0 120 240 Meters ± 5.1 Attachment 3 CITY CIF May 1,2014 File: 3900-20-13020 7913-0047-00 Metro Vancouver Board 4330 - I-iingsway Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8 Attention: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Dear Madam: Re: City of Surrey Regions! Growth 3 Minor Amendment Application The City of Surrey has prepared a new and corresponding Regional Context Statement which was introduced to Surrey City Council on December 16, 2013 (see Attachment A.1) and granted Third Reading on March 31, ZOI4. The RCS incorporates a number of proposed Minor Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Regions! Gro wt}: Strategy that are deemed to be consistent with the objectives of the RGS. Surrey's RC5 will be submitted for acceptance by the Metro Vancouver Board in the near future. On the advice of Metro Vancouver staff, and in order to achieve consistency between Surrey's OCP and RC5 and the Metro Vancouver RGS, the City of Surrey is requesting a Type 3 Minor Amendment to the RGS prior to submitting its RC5, as described in this letter and its attachments. Proposed Amendment Site The Type 3 Minor Amendment request is related to an 8.5 hectare (21 acre) site in the Newton employment area, near the intersection of 80 Avenue and 123 Street (Attachment B). The RC5 amendment request is to re-designate this site from Industrial to Mixed Employment, in response to a Surrey City Council resolution associated with the establishment of the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District (Attachments C.l and C.2). A further resolution 3-2406 (Attachment D.2) approved the "Central Newton Cultural Commercial District Guidelines" (see Attachment D.I In response to Corporate Report No. R252, Council directed staff by Resolution 1113-2610 to submit an RG5 amendment application to the Metro Vancouver Board related to the subject site (Attachment A.2). In accordance with section ofthe RG5, this amendment application qualifies as a Type 3 Minor Amendment. The proposed RG8 amendment subject site is comprised ofnine properties that are currently zoned either IL (Light Industrial) or CD (Comprehensive Development), based on a blend of 1B (Business Park)and IL (Light Industrial) zones. Surrounding properties to the north and east of the subject site have been rezoned over the past number ofyears to a CD zone based on the IB and CHI (Highway Commercial-Industrial) zones, as shown in Attachment B. Under the current "old" Surrey CICP these ZOIIES are consistent with the Industrial designation (Attachment E.l However, the draft "new" OCP divides the Industrial designation into Mixed Employment and designations, closely following the definitions ofthe Mixed Employment and Industrial designations in the RGS. As a result, the appropriate "new" DCP designation for these CD?2oned properties is Mixed Employment (Attachment and likewise the appropriate RGS designation for these lands is Mixed Employment as well. Plannicig 8-t Development Department l-12:15 - S?lh Sorts.-y_ Columbia Canada 3A2 (304 ?391 B04 53:) .2507 Sui ca 24- SU Initial RGS Designation While the RC5 was being prepared in 2010, the City ofsurrey submitted maps to Metro Vancouver staff that distinguished Mixed Employment and industrial uses within the City's indust.rial areas, and these maps formed the basis for the resulting RG5 designations adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on July 29, 201 I. A number of properties north and east of the subject site were designated Mixed Employment (Attachment F) to reflect the nature ofthese existing land uses. The subject site was designated Industrial in the RGS, in keeping with its existing land uses. At the time of RC5 preparation land use changes in this area were not anticipated. Central Newton Cultural Commercial District In 2012, in response to a number of development inquiries, Council directed staff to establish a defined area to contain the growing demand for mixed industrial?commercial development in the Central Newton area. in recent years this area has become a signi?cant business hub for goods and services catering primarily to the South Asian community in Surrey and across the region. This area was called the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District (Attachments C.l and (3.2). The study established the extents of this unique business district and developed a set of land use and urban design guidelines. The study was completed in 2013 and on November 25, 2013 at a Regular Meeting (Land Use), Surrey City Council passed resolution R13-2406 to approve the Guidelines (Attachments D.l and 13.2) concurrent with the introduction ofa development application within the area. Development Application No. 7913-0047-00 In 2013, a development application (7913-0047-00) was received by the City for two properties within the (as shown in Attachment D. This development application included a proposed rezoning to a CD zone based on uses permitted in the and C-8 (Community Commercial) zones. The proposed uses include office, business services, personal services and retail uses, and are similar to those on the adjacent CD-zoned properties. As this development application proposed uses that are not consistent with the Industrial designation in Surrey's OCP or with the Industrial designation in the Metro Vancouver RG5, approval of the rezoning is contingent on an OCP amendment and an RG5 amendment for the subject properties. By Resolution R13?240d (Attachment D.2) Council authorized staffto submit a Type 3 Minor Amendment of the RGS to Metro Vancouver for the properties covered by application No. 7913-0047-CID. Following a Public Hearing on December 16, 2013, Surrey City Council granted Third Reading to an OCP amendment bylaw (No. 18141) re?designating the subject properties from industrial to Commercial in the OCP. The Commercial designation was deemed appropriate in the context of? the current "old" OCP, as the Mixed Employment designation was not available; in the draft "new" DCP (currently approved at Third Reading) such a designation has been created, and the subject sites are proposed to be designated for Mixed Employment in the draft "new" DCP (see Attachments E.l and 13.2). Also on December I6, 2013, an amending bylaw (No. 18142) rezoning the subject properties from IL to CD was granted Third Reading. Re-designation Rationale At the conclusion of the study, and in the finalization of Surrey's OCP and RC5 preparation process, it became clear that an RG5 land use designation change from Industrial to Mixed Employment for the area shown in Attachment would be necessary and appropriate in 25 order to align the proposed land uses in the subject area to that of the regional plan. This would expand the existing pocket of Mixed Employment lands shown in Attachment while setting definite limits and a rational boundary on the area. In response to Corporate Report No. R252 on the preparation of the OCP and the RC5 (AttachmentA.1), Council directed staff? to prepare a Type 3 Minor Amendment ofthe RGS application for remainder ofthe (Attachment A2). The City of Surrey supports the development and definition of the as a unique and vibrant employment area within the City and region. This unique district mixes smail-scale manufacturing and repair uses, business services, personal services and retail sales within the geographical heart ofSurrey's signi?cant and growing South Asian community, in an area well- served by existing transportation networks and by existing anti future transit services. The proposed RC5 amendment will define anti contain this district and provide a clear focus for mixed employment development within this speci?ed area, thereby reducing or eliminating pressures to Convert other industrial lands in the area in a piecemeal fashion. Under the proposed RG8 amendment, residential uses will not be permitted, consistent with the Mixed Employment designation. Summary The City of Surrey requests that the Metro Vancouver Board amend the Regional Growth Strategy, Map 2: Regional Land Use Designations, to re-designate the properties as illustrated in Attachment from Industrial to Mixed Employment. This amendment will achieve consistency between Surrey's draft new O?fcrai Community Pfan, its Regional Context Statement and the Metro-Vancouver Regionai Growth Strategy, prior to the formal submission of Surrey's RCS for acceptance by the Metro Vancouver Board. Yours truly, Wit,? 4 }e?an Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development DL/CS/da/saw A.l Corporate Report R252 Official Community Plan and Regional Context St.atement .33.: Council Resolution R13-2610 B. Subject Site Location and Current Zoning C.l Corporate Report R157 Establishment of Central Newton Cultural Commercial District C.2 Council Resolution Rl2?l 597 D.l Planning Report for Development Application 13-0047-00 D.2 Council Resolution 13-2406 E.l Existing OCP Designations E.2 Proposed OCP Designations F. Proposed RGS Map 2 Re-designations v:iwp-docnadinln 3: m-io42Bl2.zacs.dncx SAW Stitld I Ida?: AM cc Heather McNeil, Regional Planning Division Manager, Metro Vancouver Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner, Metro Vancouver Melissa Johnson, Planner, City of Surrey 26- Attachment OF CORPORATE REPORT the luture lives here. R252 l- DECEMBER 16, 2013 REGULAR COUNCI I Hi} Mayor 8; Council um i: General Manager, Planning and Development I II E: New Official Cornmunity Plan and Related Regional Context Statement RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Department recommends that Council: 1. Receive this report as information; 2. Approve the draft new Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 18o2o (the "Bylaw"), a copy of which is attached to this report as Appendix I and which is generally described in this report; 3- instruct the City Clerk to bring Forward the Bylaw For first and second readings; 4. Subject to first and second readings being given to the Bylaw, instruct staff to forward a copy ofthe Bylaw to the Agricultural Land Commission (the for comment as is required under Section 881 ofthe Local Governrnent/lct; 5. Subject to receipt ofcomments from the ALC, instruct the City Clerl-t to schedule a public hearing For the Bylaw; and Subject to Council granting third reading to the Bylaw, instruct staffto submit to the Metro Va ncouvcr Board for approval, the Regional Context Statement that forms part ofthe Bylaw as is required under Section 866 ofthe Local Government Act, along with an application for a Type 3 Minor to the Regional Growth Strategy as described in Appendix II attached to this report. ll\l'l'ENT The purpose ofthis report is to provide inforniation about a draft new Official Community Plan (the that has been developed For the City and to seelc approval ofthe related OCP Bylaw and the Regional Context Statement that forms part ofthc Bylaw and authorization for staifto all necessary related actions. 27- The OCP is a keystone policy document that sets out the City's overall plan for land use, growth management and sustainable community development. The Local Government Act (the "Act") provides the authority and outlines the required and optional content ofan OCP. Section 884. of the Act stipulates that all policies, plans and bylaws adopted subsequent to an DCP must be consistent with it, or the OCP needs to be amended by bylaw to establish consistency. Wliile an OCP sets out the Future plans ofthe City, -3 local government is not obligated to immediately implement any speci?c plan or policy contained in the OCP. Section 866 ofthe Act also describes the relationship between an OCP and a regional growth strategy adopted by a regional district, such as Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy adopted in zon. The Act stipulates that an OCP contain a RCS that documents how the OCP aligns with the RC3. The Act requires local governments to submit their RC5 within two years ofthc adoption ofa ROS. In July 2.013, the City advised Metro Vancouver ofthe anticipated timeline for adopting the City's new DCP and for submitting the related RC5 to the Metro Vancouver Board for approval. It is expected that the Metro Vancouver Board will consider Surrey's RC3 and an accompanying Type 3 Minor Amendment to the RGS for acceptance in the Spring ofzoixt. BAC KG ROUND The draft OCP included three years ofinternal and external consultation with staff groups, community stakeholders and rnetnbers ofthe public, other governmental and non?governmental agencies, Advisory Committees of Council, and several with Council. At its Regular meeting on June 17, 2013, Council received Corporate Report No. R120, which provided information about the draft new OCP. At? that meeting Council authorized staffto conduct public and agency Consultation on the draft DCP. A public open house was held at City Hall on ]t1ne 27, mt}, which included display boards, copies ofthe draft OCP, a staffpresentation and a question and answer session. Those in attendance were provided with a comment sheet on which they could formally submit comments about the draft OCP. The public open house was attended by approximately 7o persons, and 21 completed comment sheets were submitted. A regarding the draft DCP was held on July 11, 2013 with a group ofstakeholders representing business, environmental, social and cultural groups in Surrey as well representatives ofSurrey community and neighbourhood associations. The workshop included focused discussion on lcey issues, a review of the entire OCP document and a plenary question and answer session. Staff has also met with representatives ofltey agencies including Metro Vancouver, TransLinl-z, BC Hydro and the Ministry in relation to the OCP and RC5, and has received formal comments from Metro Vancouver staffand TransLinlv: staffon the draft RCS. 28- DISCUSSION Major Elements in the OCP The OCP sets out the City's vision and its long-range plan for community development,including land uses and densities, urban development and housing, infrastructure, environmental protection, social development and economic development. The OCP responds to existing and emerging planning issues and challenges including: I Accommodating sustained population and employment growth while continuing to improve the quality oflife in Surrey and addressing the integrity ofthe natural environment; - lncreasing public transit and active (walking and cycling) transportation choices and reducing residents? reliance on the private automobile; - Preparing for an uncertain energy future and the likely effects ofclimate change; and - Serving the needs ofan aging population and an increasingly diverse community. The following sections provide a briefoverview ofthe various sections ofthe draft new OCP, a full copy ofwhich is attached to this report as Appendix I): In troduction and Authority This section outlines the legislative authority for the OCP, the required and optional elements of the OCP, and the public consultation that was undertaken as part ofits formation. Cho?enges This section discusses the most significant emerging planning challenges facing the City that are addressed in the DCP. including: I Accommodating continued population and employment growth through the next 3o years while protecting the integrity ofthe natural environment; I Reducing reliance on private automobiles in order to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions; I Responding to issues related to energy cost increases and the likely effects of climate change; and - Serving the social and cultural needs ofan aging and increasingly diverse population. Vision This section places the Sustainability Charter as the guiding document for the OCP, and describes a vision for the City ofSurrcy as a "green, compact, connected, complete. healthy, safe and inclusive, resilient and beautiful City". All ofthe land use plans and policies contained in the OCP are focused on achieving this vision. Land Uses and Densities This section, which is often considered the "meat" ofthe OCP, sets out 12 land use designations that determine permitted uses and densities in general terms for every parcel ofland in the City. ?l'he Future Land Use Map illustrates how the entire City is divided into one ofthese designations. The land use designations include: 29 I Agricultural - areas protected primarily for farming activity: I Conservation Recreation -- areas protected as primarily natural environments, usually within extensive regional or City parlts; I Rural low?density residential areas not serviced with municipal infrastt't1ctL1re; I Suburban low density residential areas that may be serviced, antl that are expected to remain suburban in character; I Suburban Future Urban Reserve low density areas that may be planned for urban uses in the Future through NCP processes; I Industrial areas set aside primarily for industrial uses such as manufacturing and warehousing; I Mixed Employment areas permitting inr:lustrial uses along with some hybrid industrial/commercial uses; I Commercial areas intended as primarily commercial (office or retail) with mixed development permitted; I Urban low and medium density residential neighbourhoods (detached homes and townhouses) with local neighbourhood services and schools; I Multiple Residential - areas ofhigher?density, primarily residential clevelopment, mostly in the form of apartment buildings; I Town Centre - higher?density, transit oriented centres encouraging mixed commercial- residential development along with civic and institutional uses (Semiahmoo. Cloverdale, Fleetwood, Newton and Guildford Town Centres); and I Central Business District the core areas of?urrey City Centre, encouraging the highest density ofmixed?use, transiborientecl development in the City, along with major, region- serving institutions. In addition, this section introduces the concept of Frequent Transit Development Areas These are areas outside ofTown Centres that contain a planned rapid transit station where higher densities may be permitted within the land use designations described above. These areas are identified in the City's RC5 and have been determined in consultation with TransLinl<. There are three FDTA proposed in the draft OCP as follows: I along 104 Avenue between City Centre and Guildford Town Centre; I at 1.52 Street and Fraser Highway in Fleetwood; and I at 192 Street and Fraser Highway in the Clayton area ofCloverdalc. in addition, two future FTDAS are identified in the new'OCP: I at the Scott Road Station; and I along Scott Roadhzo Street, wl?Iich is being planned in collaboration with the Corporation of Delta. 30- Policies This section contains the policies and act ions guiding community development. The section is structured into six Themes as Follows: Urban Structure themes: A: Growth anagemcnt B: Centres, Corridors and Neighbourhoods C: lntrastructure themes: D: Ecosystems E: Economy F: Society 8: Culture Each theme is articulated through several olnjectives, which in turn contain a series ofspecific policies and actions. Intpfernentotion This section describes the various ways in which the OCP is implemented, including Secondary Plans such as Neighbourhood Concept Plans and Town Centre Plans, various Master Plans and Strategies on select topics, amendments to the Zoning By?law. and the issuance oFTemporary Use Permits and Development Permits. The designation, justification and intent oFDeve1oprnent Permit Areas are included in this section as authorized by the Act (Sections 919.1 and 92.0). Regional Context Statement The RC8 is a required component of the OCP, and is separately submitted to the Metro Vancouver Board for approval. The RCS indicates how the CJCP aligns with and supports the Metro Vancouver RG5, which was approved in .2011 by the Metro Vancouver Board. Development Permit Guidelines Development Permit guidelines set out the special considerations that apply to particular classes ofdevelopment within Development Permit Areas that are identified in the OCP. The draft DCP identifies Four DP Areas as described below: I Form and Character of Commercial, Industrial and Multifamily Residential Development: The entire City (with some exceptions for industrial development) is designated as for ensuring a high quality ofurban and site design For these classes of development; 0 - Hazard Lands: Areas ofthe City that are on or adjacent to steep slopes or ?oodplains are designated under this DP area to ensure mitigation of natural hazards associated with landslide or ?ooding related to new development; I Sensitive Ecosystems: Areas ofthe City that contain or are adjacent to Riparian Areas associated with fisheries habitat and/or areas that contain or are adjacent to the Green Infrastructure Network as identi?ed in the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) will be designated under this DP area, subject to Council approval ofthe BCS. It is expected that the new OCP will be amended to incorporate along with associated DP Guidelines once the RC3 is adopted by Council; and I Agricultural Areas: Areas otthc City that are adjacent to the Agricultural designation comprise which is intended to cnsu re an appropriate interface between urban areas and agricultural areas for the protection c)Hat't1tit1g activity. Changes from the Existing OCP While there is a strong continuity between the current OCP and the draft new OCP, there are several areas oftlifference and areas ofdill"c1'ing, emphasis. Tltesc areas are discussed in the Following, section. Major Differences between the Current and the draft new OCP In comparison to the current OCP the new OCP: I Permits higher densities in Centres (City Centre and in most Town Centres) and in areas adjacent to existing and planned rapid transit stations (Frequent Transit Development Areas); I Allows the calculation ofdensity on gross site areas for commercial developments, high?density apartment development and mixed-use development within City Centre, Town Centres and FTDA to encourage the dedication oflands for public purposes such as roads, walkways and public open spaces; I Creates a new OCP designation for "Mixed Employment" as distinct from "industrial" to dit'ect the location of business parks and office/indt1stI*ial and warehouse/retail establishments and reduce the erosion ofiindustrial lands; I Creates a new OCP designation labelled "Suburban Future Urban Reserve" to clearly distinguish suburban areas that are expected to remain unchanged from areas expected to transition to urban densities through future NCP processes; I Amends the Future Land Use Map to reflect the general land uses approved by Council through existing Secondary Plans; I Reduces "red tape" by authorizing Temporary Use Permits without requiring an CJCP amendment to accompany each TUP. as permitted by legislation; I Designates new DP Areas and development guidelines for Hazard Lands (Steep Slopes and Floodplains) and for Environmental Protection (Riparian Areas and Sensitive Ecosystems) to provide consistent and transparent requirements for development within and adjacent to these areas; and I Provides an entirely new RC5, as required by the adoption of the Metro Vancouver RGS. 32 .7. in Emphasis between the Current OCP and the draft new OCP In comparison to the current the new OCP reflects the following: I A greater emphasis on directing higher-density growth to locations along existing and future transit corridors, particularly rapid transit corridors along Fraser Highway, 104 Avenue and King George Boulevard; - A greater emphasis on the development ofCity Centre and the Town Centres as transit?oriented places with high standards ofurban design; - Policies supporting the development ofa finer-grained road network to improve pedestrian connections and local traffic distribution; I A greater emphasis on energy conservation anti greenhouse gas reductions, including the addition design guidelines into development permit requirements; 0 More prominent policies related to grecnways, public art, civic beauti?cation, heritage conservation, walking and Cycling infrastructure and district energy systems; I More policy emphasis related to civic engagement, literacy, post?secondary education, skills training. affordable housing, social services and crime reduction initiatives; and - A greater emphasis on tree retention and replanting, biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration, including the setting oftree canopy targets for the City. These changes in policy emphasis are consistent with the City's Sustainability Charter, with contemporary "best practices" in community planning and with direction provided by Council. Adiustrnents to the Draft OCP The feedback received on the draft OCP through the public consultation processes along with the agency meetings, Advisory Committee input and formal cornrnents submitted by Metro Vancouver and Tran5Linl< staff has resulted in several minor refinements to the draft OCP that was presented to Council in June 2on3. These refinements include wording changes to a number ofpolicies to add clarity of intent, adjustments to the population distribution projections for City Centre and Town Centres in response to comments by Metro Vancouver staff. and a new policy statement and map (Figure 19) that provide further emphasis on transit-oriented development related to future rapid transit in the City. The new policy statement is B36: Engage in land use planning processes in consultation with the community for those area along the Frequent Transit Corridors (as shown in Figure 19) in order to define appropriate land uses and densities. These processes may result in de?ning additional FTDA within Surrey. The intention ofthis new policy statement is to indicate that Further transit-oriented areas may be designated in the future, through local land use planning processes. This policy responds to concerns expressed by TransLinl< and Metro Vancouver staff, and to recent direction from 33 Council regarding the definition ofdensities along the planned rapid transit corridors in Surrey. This new policy statement is accompanied by a new map (Figure 19) that illustrates areas where such transit?nriented land use plans may be developed along future rapid transit corridors. /in adjustment to the General Land Use Designations map (Figure 3) was made to identify an area ofland south ofthe Campbell Heights industrial area designated Agricultural, but outside the Agricultural Land Reserve as a "special study area" that will be the subject ofa future planning process. This adjustment conforms to the Metro Vancouver RG5, which also identifies this area as a "special study area" while remaining in its current "Rural" designation until a planning study determines future land uses. Further formal consultation on the OCP will be conducted following first and second reading of the Bylaw, as set out in legislation. Staffwiil forward a copy ofthe Bylaw to the ALC for comment as required under Section 881 ofthe Local Government Act?. Regional Context Statement (RC8) Submission The RC8 isa component ofthe draft OCP (Appendix I) and detnonst rates close alignment of Surrey's draft new OCP with the Metro Vancouver RGS, including: I Developing Surrey City Centre as the Region's second Metropolitan Centre; - Focusing additional growth capacity to Town Centres and transit corridors; I Maintaining the Urban Containment Boundary and the "Agricultural" and "Conservation Recreation" designations; 0 Planning urban land uses and neighborhoods to reduce dependency on the private automobile; and I Committing to the development and protection ofemployment areas that underpin the regional economy. The RCS also indicates that for Surrey to meet the regional growth objectives set out in the RGS, significant infrastructure needs to be delivered in Surrey through regional, provincial and federal partnerships. This includes transit and transportation infrastructure. along with community infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and university expansion, affordable housing and social services. Staff met with Metro Vancouver staffand TransLinlr. staffas the RC8 was being prepared, which included discussion regarding the definition ofUrban Centres and FTDA. In letters received in response to the draft RC5, each ofTransLinl< staffand Metro Vancouver staff, respectively, provided general support for the RC5 and the OCP, along with suggestions on how to strengthen the link between land uses and transit corridors. Speci?c comments included that a higher percentage ofSurrcy's overall projected growth could be allocated to Urban Centres and FTDA. Surrey staff has responded with the observation that, unlike most municipalities in Metro Vancouver, Surrey retains signi?cant undeveloped urban land. and that new neighbourhood development in NCPs is likely to attract a share ofgrowth over the next few decades alongside the signi?cant high-density growth projected for Town Centres and transit corridors. It is expected that as NCP areas become substantially "built out" that an increasing share ofgrowth will occur in Urban Centres and along transit corridors and this has been reflected in the updated population projections in the RC5. 34- To achieve consistency between the City's OCP land use designations and the RGS land use designations, a number of minor amendments to the RGS are proposed within the RC8. These amendments are either consistent with the policy objectives ofthe RG5 or are "housekeeping" in nature. Metro Vancouver staff has indicated that these can be "packaged" within the RC5 For consideration ofapproval by the Metro Vancouver Board as part ofthe RC5 approval process. The proposed RG5 land use amendments contained within the RC8 are illustrated in Appendix These amendments include eight additions to the area covered by the "Consc-rvation-Recreation" land use designation totalling 70 acres ofland (Figures 2A-2H) as Follows: I 1 acre in lnvergarry Parlt (Figure I 1 acre in Bonaccord Creel: Paris: (Figure 3.13) I 10.5 acres in Green Timbers Urban Forest (Figure aC); - 2.5 acres in Bear Creek Park (Figure - 35 acres in Fleetwood Parlt (Figure - 2. acres in Blacltie Spit (Figure - 4.5 acres Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest (Figure and I 13.5 acres in Redwood Park (Figure all) areas. These amendments reflect refined mapping ofnatural area parks in these areas. In addition, there are two locations where errors occurred in the preparation ofthe RG5. Existing residential developments (Figures 21 and all were incorrectly submitted by the City as "Mixed Employment" areas rather than "General Urban" areas, which are the appropriate designation, given their residential land use. Re-designation ofthese two areas totalling 43 acres from "Mixed Employment" to "General Urban" is proposed, as Follows: - the "Nuvo" live?worlt townhouse project (35 acres) in Rosemary Heights (Figure and 0 a portion (8 acres) of the "Morgan Crossing" mixed-use project in Grandview Heights (Figure Proposed Type 3 Minor Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy There is one area within the "Newton Cultural Commercial District" where Metro Vancouver stafl' advised that a_discrepancy in land use designation between the DCP and the RGS requires a Type 3 Minor amendment to the RGS to achieve consistency. Staff is proposing that Council resolve to proceed with the RGS amendment that includes several properties totalling 21 acres in the Newton Industrial Area at So Avenue and 128 Street as illustrated in Appendix ll. This Type 3 Minor Amendment will be submitted to the Metro Vancouver Board for consideration following third reading related to the draft new OCP at the same time as Su rrey's RC5 is considered by the Metro Vancouver Board. CONCLUSION The draft new CJCP outlines the City's overall plan for its growth and development over the next 30 years. The is based on the principles ofthe Sustainability Charter and places a strong emphasis on social?cultural, environmental and economic sustainability. The DCP is a "keystone" policy document for the City and sets the framework within which all subordinate bylaws and plans are developed. The new DCP bylaw will replace the existing OCP bylaw upon its final adoption. 35 -10- Basecl on the above discussion it is recoIn1?nended that Council: I Approve the draft new Dfiicial Comnitinity Plan By?law No. 18020, a copy ofwhich is attached to this report as Appendix] and which is generally described in this report; I Instruct the City Cleric to bring Forward the Bylaw For first and second readings; I Subject to first and second readings being given to the Bylaw, instruct staffto forward a copy ofthe Bylaw to the Agt?icL1ltL1ral Land Commission (ALC) For comment as is required under Section 881 ofthc Local Govermnent Act; 0 Subject to the receipt ofcom1'nents From the ALC, instruct the City Clerk to schedttle a public hearing for the Bylaw; and 0 Subject to Council granting third reading to the Bylaw, instruct staffto submit to the Metro Vancouver Board For approval the Regional Context Statement that Forrns part ofthc Bylaw as is required under Section 866 ofthe Local Government Act, along with an application for a Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy as described in Appendix II attached to this report. Original signed by Jean Lamontagne General Manager Planning and Development DL:saw Appendix I Draft New Official Community Plan By-law No. 1802:: including the Regional Context Statement Appendix II Proposed Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Appendix Minor Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy within the Regional Context Statement I- :'w-up docsud lt M.-1 36- APPENDIX I Draft New Official Community Plan By?law No. 18020 including the Regional Context Statement IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OFFICE 37- Appendix II Proposed Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy - 2 . .39? 5 1! 3. E1- LEGEND General Urban I Industrial a Mixed Employment RPA- 38- Appendix Minor Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy within the Regional Context Statement sun *W4-AVE . . 2 el - 3. I cc-mcmem If OILTQ . EGAVE AVE AVE -oAvE-~? - ?i I i i 1 LEGEND 64?: General Urban Conservation and Recreation Proposed amendments 1 Industrial I Agricultural 1 Mixed Employment Rural RPA- 39- Figure 1A - Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Invergarry Park General Urban I lnduslrial I. ran LEGEND - Conservation and Recreation General Urban RPA-40- -3- Figure 2C Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Green Timbers Urban Forest Park LEGEND -2331 General Urban - Conservation and Recreation Figure 2D Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Bear Creek Park LEGEND 1 General Urban .. 1 Mixed Employment - Conservation and Recreation 3 RPA-41 - Figu re 2E Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Fleetwood Park LEGEND Genera! Urban Figure 2F - Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Blaekie Spit Park I) LEGEND General Urban Canservatian and Recreation Figure 2G Proposed Regional Growth Strategy in Sunnysidc Acres Urban Forest Park - LEGEND General Urban Conservation and Racreatio LEGEND General Urban - Conservation and Recreation Agricultural -5- Figure 2.1 Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment in Rosemary Heights I.-. I. 1 i 35!! General Urban . . -MixedEmployment 2 2 Ir Figure 2] - Proposed Regional Growth Strategy Amendment at Morgan Crossing Development E. . - 1 A- LEGEND 1 General Urban - Mixed Employment 5 I. SAW B247 AM Attachment REGULAR COUNCIL - PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 16,2013 G. CORPORATE REPORTS 1. The Corporate Reports, under date of December 16, 20:3, were considered and dealt with as follows: Item No. R25: New Official Community Plan and Related Regional Context Statement File: ggoo-20-18020 Note: See Bylaw No. 18ozo under Section H. The General Manager. Planning and Development submitted a report to provide information about a draft new Official Community Plan (the that has been developed for the City and to seelt approval ofthe related DCP Bylaw and the Regional Context Statement that forms part ofthe Bylaw and authorization for staffto undertake all necessary related actions. The General Manager, Planning and Development was recommending approval of the recommendations outlined in the report. lt was Moved by Councillor Hepner Seconded by Councillor I-layne That Council: 1. Receive Corporate Report R252 as information; 2. Approve the draFt new Of?cial Community Plan Bylaw No. 18o2o (the "Bylaw"), a copy ofwhich is attached to this report as Appendix I and which is generally described in Corporate Report 3. Instruct the City Cleric to bring forward the Bylaw for first and second readings; 4. Subject to first and second readings being given to the Bylaw, instruct staff to forward a copy ofthe Bylaw to the Agricultural Land Commission (the For comment as is required under Section 381 of the Local Government Act; 5. Subject to receipt of comments From the ALC, instruct the City Clerk to schedule a public hearing for the Bylaw; and 6. Subject to Council granting third reading to the Bylaw, instruct staffto submit to the Metro Vancouver Board For approval, the Regional Context Statement that forms part ofthe Bylaw as is required under Section 866 of the Local Government Act, along with an application For a Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy as described in Appendix attached to Corporate Report R252. arried - I. 1:3. LEGEND Dcentral Newton Cultural Commercial District if I I Proposed FIGS Land Use Amendment Zoning Boundaries Attachment Igsij?pgy CORPORATE REPORT the Future lives here NO: R157 COUNCIL DATE: July 9, 2012 REGULAR COUNCIL TO: Mayor 81 Council DATE: July 9, 2.012 F-ROIV1: General Manager, Planning and Development FILE: 652o~2o (Central Newton Cultural Co mmercial District) SUBJECT: Establishment ofa Central Newton Cultural Commercial District RECOMM EN DATION The Planning and Development Department recommends that Council: 1. Receive this report as information; 2. Approve the initiation by staffofa planning process to establish a Central Newton Cultural Commercial District that will includes the Following: An Clf?cial Community Plan re?clesignation from "Industrial" to "Commercial" ofthe area that is outlined on the map, which is attached as Appendix I to this report; The development ofdesign guidelines to ensure that appropriate cultural elements are incorporated into the design and development ofsites in the with a view to elevating the overall design and architectural quality oi? the area; The possible establishment ofa Business Improvement Area (BIA) For the new commercial district to support its on-going vibrancy; The introduction of?a Neighbourhood Concept Plan-type amenity contribution scheme to Fund enhancements to the public realm in the which would include enhanced streetscapes, improved pedestrian connectivity and other public amenities; and A public consultation process regarding the above?listed matters; and 3. Authorize the City Clerk to bring forward For the required readings an amending by~law to Surrey Zoning Bylaw, 1993, No. to introduce a new "Business Park 3 (IB-3) Zone" as generally described in this report, which will support and regulate Future business park development in the City. INTENT The purpose ofthis report is to discuss the potential For expansion ofcommercial uses in the Newton industrial area and to obtain approval to undertake a process to create a Central Newton Cultural Commercial District and to introduce a new Business Park 3 (lB?3) Zone. BACKGROUND Application No. 7-goo-om-oo (Punjab Cloth House) At its Regular Council Land Use meeting on April 13, 2010, Council considered Development Application No. 7906-0121-oo related to the redevelopment ofthe property located at the northwest corner of3o Avenue and 12.8 Street. The development application included an Official Community Plan amendment from the "Industrial" designation to the "Commercial" designation and a rezoning, land use contract discharge, and development permit to allow the construction of four commercialfretail buildings including a banquet hall (see Appendix II). After considering the application Council authorized stafl? to prepare terms ofreferenee for undertaking a planning study of the area along 128 Street both north and south oFBo Avenue with a focus on de?ning a new and including a ?ilsome public consultation process. Council deferred Further consideration of Development Application No. 79o6?o12i?oo and any other commerciallretail-related applications in the study area pending completion of the planning study. Emerging Commercial/Retail Businesses on :28 Street In zoo3. Council adopted a policy, City Policy No. 0-47 (copy attached as Appendix to address the ongoing pressure to rezone "lndustrial?designated" lands in the vicinity of'12B Street and 84 Avenue for commercial uses. The Policy stipulated that the City would not support rezoning, including rezoning to Comprehensive Development (CD) Zones, for the purpose of allowing commercial uses in this area. Despite this Policy the number ofcornmercial and retail businesses on 12.8 Street in the vicinity of 30 Avenue has continued to grow since 2.003. Lands on both sides of12.8 Street. between 76 Avenue and 88 Avenue, are designated "industrial" in the OCP and "General Industrial" in the Newton Local Area Plan. Many properties in this area are zoned "Business Park (IB) Zone" or "Comprehensive Development (CD) Zone", based on either the IB Zone or the "Light Impact Industry (IL) Zone". On a number ofthese properties, commercial businesses have evolved even though the lands were intended to be developed as industrial and business park sites. The largest concentration ofcommercial businesses is in the immediate area ofthe intersection of12.8 Street and Bo Avenue. Upon examining the zones and land uses ofthese sites. two Factors appear to have contributed to the large number of commercial businesses in the area; these being: I the "accessory retail sales" Lise that is permitted in the IB Zone; and - the provision for "retail commercial" uses in some of the Comprehensive Development Zones that apply to lots in the area. The IB Zone allows for accessory retail sales as long as the products being sold are manufactured or warehoused on the lot and the area used for retail uses is less than the area used for manufacturing or warehousing uses on the same lot. This provision can be confusing to business owners and is very difficult for City staffto enforce. Some CD-zoned sites in this area allow some retail uses provided that they are limited to a small percentage ofthe total floor area on the site. it is difficult for business owners (existing or prospective) to ltnow whether the maximum area for retail uses has been reached, especially on strata-titled sites where there is no overall coordinated management ofthe site. Maintaining an accurate record ofsuch business licenses is also challenging for City staff. When retail commercial businesses become a significant component ofa site, other commercial- oriented businesses are attracted to the area. Medical of?ces. beauty salons, travel agencies, eating establishments, and other types ofservice uses, while not strictly retail in nature, change the character ofa development. This change can be so significant that the site no longer supports industrial activities, Functioning instead as a commercial shopping and service centre. This has happened on some ofthe sites that front on 128 Street both north and south of8o Avenue. DISCUSSION The expansion ofcommercial uses within the 128 Street industrial area is challenging in four specific areas as follows: Traffic and parking management; Building design and site aesthetics; Economic fairness; and Administrative challenges. Each ofthese areas is discussed in more detail in the following sections ofthis report. Traffic and Parking Management Commercial development typically generates approximately four times the vehicular traffic ofthc same area of industrial development. As a result, the Surrey Zoning By-law, 1993, No. 12000 requires more parking spaces for commercial uses than for industrial uses. Parking de?ciencies typically occur when a site that was been developed to industrial standards becomes occupied by commercial uses. Access requirements may also be different for commercial uses in comparison to industrial uses based on the higher traffic volumes generated by commercial uses. Design and Appearance of Commercial?Oriented Developments on 123 Street The lands fronting on 118 Street to the north and south of8o Avenue are designated for industrial uses. As such, industrial design standards have been applied to those developments that have been completed in the area. The existing buildings have an industrial character with limited articulation. limited decorative features and minimal architectural detailing. They also have limited landscaping and extensive signage. In general, there are few sidewalks and minimal formal pedestrian connections. Economic Comparison of Industrial Development and Commercial Development a a Leas te "lndustrial"-designated land is typically less expensive to purchase than "Commercial"-designated land. A considerable lift in value has occurred for those properties fronting 128 Street in the vicinity of3o Avenue that have been developed with commercial uses. The estimated value for raw industrial land on 128 Street in Newton is $25 per square foot while the estimated value of commercial land in the same area is approximately $5o per square foot. The lease rates For commercial tenancies are signi?cantly higher than for industrial tenancies. The commercial lease rates on 128 Street are comparable to the commercial lease rates being achieved for properties on Scott Road and on King George Boulevard in the Newton Town Centre. Development Cost Charges (DCCS) The DOC rates For industrial development are signi?cantly lower than the rates For commercial development. For example, the DCC charges for a 2.5 acre site with a two?storey, square foot building would be: I For industrial development: $208,300 - Forcornmercialdevelopment= $444,000 Since the land in the vicinity of1a8 Street and Bo Avenue is designated for industrial development and zoned primarily For industrial uses. The developers of buildings in the area have been paying DCCs at the industrial rate even though some ofthe developments in the area are largely commercial retail in nature. This has created an unequal playing field in relation to other commercial development in Newton. Complex Business Licence Administration The Business Park (IBJ Zone and some ofthe Comprehensive Development (CD) Zones that are in place on 128 Street both north and south of So Avenue are challenging to administer. In some cases, business licences must be classi?ed and tracked on a strata?unit and strata?unit basis within a development by floor area to ensure that commercial uses do not exceed speci?c floor area caps that are contained within the Zoning of the site. When commercial and service uses are intermixed with industrial uses it becomes problematic for City staff to administer and for current and prospective owners /tenants to understand. Further complicating the administration of business licences is the number of businesses that have been established that are either operating without a business licence or are operating contrary to the business license that was issued by the City For the speci?c site or unit. Such businesses are in majority retail or commercial in nature, which is adding to the commercial character ofthe area. Optional Approaches for Addressing the Current Issues Two options have been studied and evaluated in relation to resolving the above?discussed issues. These options are discussed in the Following sections. 50- Otio 1' of re Under this option staff would undertalte active enforcement of the existing zoning regulations applicable to the sites in the subject area and not support any further rezoning in the area that would allow For expanded commercial uses. Pros: In Current policies and zoning regulations would not need to be adjusted. Cone - By?law enforcement will continue to be challenging due to the complexities related to the current zones that are in place in the area and will be very tirne?consurning for staff; 4 The City would continue to experience pressure from developers and land owners to allow more commercial uses in the area in consideration ofthe success ofthe current uses in satislying a cultural market niche; and - The aesthetics of the developments in the subject area in relation to both building and site design would not improve. Qgtion 3: Qevelop Under this option, the City would redesignate a de?ned area along 123 Street for retail- commercial development by way of an OCP re-designation, which would allow for the rezoning of the lots in the area to permit commercial uses. Such rezoning would be considered on the basis of some conditions that would need to be satis?ed by the respective land owners/developers. The area would be enhanced and promoted as a unique cultural destination. Commercial uses on "1ndustrialbdesignated lands outside of the de?ned precinct would not be supported. Pros: I A "levelling ofthe playing ?eld" would result by way of the conditions that would need to be satisfied by the commercial?use developers in the area through the commercial rezoning process that would include paying commercial DCC rates similar to other parts ofthe City; 0 An opportunity would exist to create a vibrant cultural commercial area to the bene?t of the Newton area and the City as a whole: I The conditions that would need to be satis?ed in relation to the commercial?use rezoning process would include aesthetic considerations such as building design and landscaping that would be enhance the area, create a sense of place and improve the pedestrian experience of the area; - Transportation infrastructure including both access and parking would be provided to the commercial developments in a manner that would support the reasonable operation ofthe area; and an Industrial lands in Newton outside ofthe de?ned precinct would be guarded against Further commercial intrusion. -5- Cons: - The City would experience some loss ofits industrial land base but this loss would be mitigated by the Fact that it would be replaced with cornrnercial uses that also generate jobs in the local economy. I The lands redesignated For commercial uses would need to be carefully buffered from adjacent industrial uses so as to minimize potential nuisance due to adjacency. Result of Evaluation of Options: Based on the above evaluation, stafiiholds the view that Option 2 "Develop a Commercial Precinct" will yield the best results for the City over time and therefore it is the recommended approach. Proposed Boundary ofthe Commercial Precinct Based on a study the properties in the subject area of123 Street in relation to where commercial uses would be best integrated, staff has concluded that the area illustrated in Appendix I would be an appropriate area for a the commercial precinct, ie, the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District. The proposed precinct is centered on the intersection of128 Street and So Avenue and has an area ofapproximately 16 hectares (40 acres). It is composed ofthree major "anchor" sites, the existing Payal Centre to the northeast ofthis intersection, the York Centre at the southeast corner ofthe intersection and the site on which the Punjab Cloth House development is located in the northwest corner of the intersection. The properties in the immediate northeast corner oi" 123 Street and So Avenue currently do not contain commercial development; however, under the approach that is recommended in this report they could be converted to commercial uses in the future. Subject to Council approval ofthe recommendations of this report, a more detailed study ofthc area will be undertaken to establish the range of permitted commercial uses, the road and pedestrian improvements that are necessary, the design guidelines to which new development in the area would be subject, the enhancements that would be necessary to existing developments that would be necessary to ensure that they had the right "commercial fit" and "place?malm_L Inside row at trees . In-ground planters specialty paving Provide in?ground planting along the Kssa.acesr benches street edges and avoiding planter walls 7 and St-eps_ ?Ho ccantlnuousweaither Furnishings along the streets should be consistent and in character with the area for existing and new development sites. shun?! bide-llrlan ?rlet DI1 PIIVIEQ Flf?pl?y building Lighting along the streets should be con- siste nt and in character with the area along existing and new development sites. Fencing or gating along the perimeter of the site is not encouraged. 76- SITE DESIGN Site Furnishings Site furnishings to include benches, waste receptacles and bike racks to match the overall character of the development and other site fea- tures such as signage and garbage enclosures. Site Lighting Providing a hierarchy of different lighting types with a coordinated appearance such as lower scale pe- destrian pathways, parking spaces, drive aisles, building and site en- trances to larger scale parking lot Hgh?ng. Balance the need for energy effi- ciency and avoid over lighting. Using down-lighting and avoid over- spill to any adjacent residential are- 35. Coordinate the location of lighting with other landscape elements such as trees. Locate lighting to assist visual sur- veillance including site security such as cameras. Site Services Locate electrical kiosks and gas me- ters away from the visible public realm and screening. 8 Locate parking vents away from public views and incorporated into the building or landscaping. For existing kiosks, vinyl graphic wrap and landscape screening should be provided. Where garbage cannot be located under- ground, locating garbage enclosures away from the visible public realm and fully en- closed within a secure structure. Designing garbage enclosures to be coor- dinated with the overall design of the de- velopment using the same high quality durable materials and with secure gates and a roof. Site Signage Provide signage/way?nding concept plan for overall site orientation. Include con- cept for site access points. A consistent design for monument signs should be provided on each site in key lo- cations. 77- SITE DESIGN above grade. 3 tree feteh??h Plan ahd Providing mix of #2 and #5 pot size borist reirrort shrubs within islands in addition to Providing a minimum 6 Specialty trees with some evergreen oriother paved area at each driveway entrance plant material for year round interest. Where Vl5lhl?? The PUhll?3 Vealm Locating trees no closer than 2 from U5lhB durable m3t9"l3l5 5U?3h 35 face of building, building foundation or Stamped C?rlcrete Di? DEVEFS Clial'aC- Using Srna? growing tel With the ah?-?EL species within 3 m, medium growing Providing curbed landscaped islands Species within 4 and Where large throughout the parking area to define growing trees are proposed? locating "0 parking Clusters? Visually break up and less than 4 from the face of building, Screen the Scale Ofthe parking area? building foundation or retaining wall. '90 highlight Pede?tfiah r0Ut?5. l3f0VlClE? Using landscaping to screen blank walls. trees for shading. Using landscaping and landscape mate- at 1-5 "1 '3dlU5 hi" WEE rials to conform to the latest version of root balls in islands. Where a 1.5 the "gr; Landscape stand- radius cannot be provided the mini? ard~_ mum landscape strip width should not be less than 1 for protection from vehicles with structural soil surround- ing the tree under paving. Incorporating design features to avoid damage to landscape and tree trunks from vehicles. Maximizing tree spacing appropriate to the mature size of the tree species with at least one tree in each island. Using single stem, deciduous shade trees, 5 cm calliper or larger with can- opies that begin no less that 2 ITI 9 78- SITE DESIGN patible plaza activities such as skate- boarders. Placement of planters, non- moveable seating and handrails should further encourage easy wheelchair and PV0?-?id? publicallv 3CC955ibl9 pedestrian access, and seek to discour- 5l33C?l5l 0? the 5ltE'- age the use of skateboards. Locate in a sunny location, visible to the street with a seamless connection within the guardianship of ground floor commercial or residential guardians. (Refer also to City of Surrey P acemal<- ing and Public Space Guidelines.) Provide a variety of program and max- imize seating opportunities. Enhance the open space with night time lighting in character with the overall architectural design. A plaza which is furnished with a varie- ty of amenity features encourages gen- eral public usage and creates a sense of liveliness and excitement. Art work should provide a focal point for the plaza or become an integral compo- nent ofthe overall design of the plaza. Bike racks and waste receptacles are practical, essential amenities. Open spaces should also take ad- vantage of distant views to the moun- tains, Mount Baker, Fraser River and other landmarks. Selection of surface materials should result in easy access for the elderly and disabled, and also discourage incom- 10 79 - BUILDING FORM. CHARACTER AND MATERIALS Building Form and Layout Continue the predominant building form in the area as simpli?ed industrial forms but emphasize individual, vertical expres- sion reflecting ?small shop? frontages. Height could be a maximum of 4 storeys or 16m height. Locate buildings along the street to create a retail walking environments along the public streets. Create building forms along the streets to create a strong street enclosure particu- larly at corners. Locate higher building forms along streets and at corners. Visually scale down the length of the buildings with vertical articulation by step- ping down the roof forms and articulating the facade. Any ancillary or secondary buildings should be designed to the same architec- tural level as the principal buildings. E3. Eli El! -5 ll BUILDING FORM, CHARACTER AND MATERIALS Building Ground Plane Interface Step the ground floor levels to match ad- jacent sidewalk grades on sloping sites. Maximize the number of individual en- trances from the street and public areas to create the image of small shop frontag- ES. Locate active uses facing streets and non- active uses away from the streets to avoid blank walls facing the public realm. Set main building entrances at the side- walk grade without the need for transi- tions such as steps or ramps. Steps and ramps can be incorporated inside the main entrance lobby. Incorporate lighting on the building to en- hance entrances, adjacent streets and public spaces for pedestrians. Provide continuous, architecturally inte- grated weather protection over public in- terfaces including sidewalks, public open spaces, along building frontages and at building entrances; Material such as glass and metal should be considered. Provide deeper weather protection adja- cent to transit stops and main building en- trances. Emphasize main entrances to second floor uses such as banquet halls with canopies and lighting features. 12 FORM. CHARACTER AND MATERIALS Architectural Character and Materials Character should read as simple, contem- porary, high quality building and material- ity as the backdrop with colour and deco- ration added. Use durable materials which address weathering and maintenance issues. Work with the material to enhance the architectural concept such as concrete re- veals, textures and variations. Express the different functions of the building such as entrances as distinct forms by varying the parapet heights and stepping forms. Engage the second floor to pedestrians by having active uses visible such as windows at restaurant seating, commercial displays and opening doors with balcony railings. Create the image of narrow individual buildings by differentiating with colours. 13 BUILDING FORM, CHARACTER AND MATERIALS Architectural Character and Materials [continued] Enhance the character of simpli?ed indus- trial type buildings by adding decoration . to the facades and emphasizing individu- i - - ality. I i I - Garage door storefronts are encouraged. Design fully developed street?facing fa- cades on corner sites. Use materials such as extensive use of glass (transparent and spa ndrel) which offset the solid nature of the buildings. Express vertical circulation such as stairs and atria as an architectural element. Design any visible side walls with visual interest by using such features as texture, colours, graphics, wall art and lighting. Consolidate roof mechanical units into ar- eas and screening from views. Treat roof mechanical for acoustics where located adjacent to residential uses. The building design should embrace sus- tainable design principles to promote en- vironmentally sensitive solutions including passive solar, (re-luse of materials. 14 BUILDING FORM. CHARACTER AND MATERIALS Building Signage Individually illuminated channel type letters including internally illuminated or back-lighted solid letters are supported and should not exceed 60 cm. (2 feet] in height. Figurative graphics are encouraged and are effective means of communicating with the passersby. Blade signs are encouraged. The minimum vertical clearance for sign~ age (and canopies) should be 2.5m. High quality logo signage or channel lettering can be considered on the floor fascia. 15 City Boulevard Improvements The proposed off-site boulevard improve- ments include relocation of sidewalk, new strip of planting and street trees, and new pedestrian lighting. The estimated value of off-site boulevard improvements along 128 Street and 80 Avenue is approximate- ly (2013 estimate). Payal Business Centre and York Business Centre will be required to contribute to the off-site boulevard improvements in the CN CCD when the sites are rezoned to commercial. The funding formula is for Payal Business Centre and York Business Centre to share the off-site boulevard improvement cost on a per acre basis. Payal Business Centre is 13.4 acres in area and York Business Centre is 9.0 acres. Therefore Payal Busi- ness Centre would be responsible for con- tributing 67% of the cost and York Busi- ness Centre is responsible for the remain- ing 33% of the cost. 16 Existing curb (stays ea me) OFF-SITE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS 8: FUNDING FORMULA Relocate-d sidewalk New strip of plantg and street trees New pedestrian lighting New property line 7* - I I . I ELOCATION OF OFF-SITE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS The off-site boulevard improvements are proposed along 128 Street and 80 Avenue, as shown below. I ?Ill-If I In - 1? 03. LASURREY ta12.: me man-1Iml. I t? 1 . inn?nu; - - 17 Attachment REGULAR COUNCIL - LAND USE MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2.o13 LAND use APPLICATIONS AL I memos 2. 7913-oo47-oo 12329 Bo Avenue Bozo - 128 Street Dleg Verbenltov, Paci?c Land Resource Group Inc. I Muric Enterprises Ltd. OCP amendment from Industrial to Commercial I Rezoning from to CD (based on G3) Development Permit in order to permit the development ofo gvbuilding retail commercial project. The General Manager, Planning Si Development was recommending approval of the recommendations outlined in his report. It was Moved by Councillor Hunt Seconded by Councillor Steele That: 1. a By-law be introduced to amend the DCP by redesignating the subject site in Development Application No. 7913-oo47-oo from "Industrial" to "Commercial" (Appendix and a date for Public Hearing he set. 2. Council determine the opportunities for consultation with persons. organizations and authorities that are considered to be affected by the proposed amendment to the Official Community Plan, as described in the Report, to be appropriate to meet the requirement of Section 879 of the Local Act. 3. a By?law be introduced to rezone the subject site in Development Application No. 7913,-oo47-no from "Light Impact Industrial Zone (By-law No. 12000) to "Comprehensive Development Zone (By-law No. and a date be set for Public Hearing. 4. Council authorize staff to draft Development Permit No. 7913-0047-oo, including a comprehensive sign design package. generally in accordance with the attached drawings (Appendix II). 5. Council instruct staff to resolve the following issues prior to final adoption: ensure that all engineering requirements and issues including restrictive covenants, dedications, and rights-of-way Where necessary. are addressed to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Engineering; submission ofa subdivision layout to the satisfaction ofthe Approving Officer; RESR13-2406 (C) REGULAR COUNCIL LAND USE MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2.5, 2013 submission of a ?nalized tree survey and a statement regarding tree preservation to the satisfaction ofthe City Landscape Architect; submission ofa landscaping plan and landscaping cost estimate to the speci?cations and satisfaction ofthe Planning and Development Department; demolition ofexisting buildings and structures to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Department; registration ofa Section 219 Restrictive Covenant to adequately address the City's needs with respect to public art, to the satisfaction of the General Manager Parks, Recreation and Culture; discharge ofthe Section 219 Restrictive Covenant (PBoo969o) limiting use on the site to "a metal machining fabrication plant and office"; discharge of the Section 219 Restrictive Covenant (BPoo968o) restricting access to So Avenue from the existing driveway on the parcel at Bozo - 128 Street; execution of the "Corridor License Agreement" with BC Hydro to allow for the lease of a portion of the adjacent BC Hydro railway right?of?way for parking and landscaping purposes; resolution of outstanding urban design issues; and acceptance by Metro Vancouver of the proposed amendment of Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy Land Use Classi?cation from "Industrial" to "Mixed Employment" for the subject site. Council pass a resolution to adopt the Central Newton Cultural Commercial District Guidelines, including the funding formula for off-site boulevard improvements as outlined in the Guidelines. Council pass a resolution to authorize referral of the application to Metro Vancouver to amend Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy Land Use Classification from "Industrial" to "Mixed Employment" for the subject site. Council pass a resolution to amend the Newton LAP to redesign-ate the subject site from "High Impact Industrial" to ''Commercial'' when the project is considered for ?nal adoption. Canned LI. .3 LL .-I. A LEGEND Dcentral Newton Cultural Commercial District Existing RG8 Land Use General Urban Industrial Mixed Employment I - LEGEND Dcentral Newton Cultural Commercial District Parcels Proposed RG3 Land Use General Urban I Industrial v" Mixed Employment Meters i ?l I 5 /mpliceillurl 7913-0047-00 LEGEND ncentral Newton Cultural Commercial District Parcels Existing RG8 Land Use General Urban Industrial Mixed Employment I I Proposed RGS Land Use Amendment 0 100 200 0 Meters 9409263 5.2 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Jason Smith, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 21, 2014 Subject: Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Give 1st reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; b) Give 2nd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; c) Give 3rd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; d) Give final consideration and reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014 and adopt Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; e) Adopt the revised Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy as presented in Attachment 4 of the report dated May 21, 2014 titled “Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process”. PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with options for strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Metro 2040) amendment process through amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw No 1148 and the Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. BACKGROUND The Metro 2040 amendment process is outlined in four documents: • Local Government Act; • Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future; • Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011 (RGS Procedures Bylaw) (Attachment 1); and • Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS Amendment Guidelines). The RGS Procedures Bylaw was adopted in July 2011 in advance of the adoption of Metro 2040. The RGS Amendment Guidelines were adopted in March 2012 by the Metro Vancouver Board. RPA - 92 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Since the adoption of the Metro 2040, the Metro Vancouver Board has approved four amendment bylaws affecting changes to regional land use designations, the addition of special study areas, frequent transit development areas, local centres and plan text. A number of other amendments are currently being processed. The first two years of plan implementation have helped identify several procedural issues with the amendment process, in particular: • for amendments that are associated with a related municipal Official Community Plan amendment, determining when in the local process a municipality should request the amendment; • clarification on the role of the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC); • public Notification Process; and • timing of Metro Vancouver staff analysis. In response to input from Directors, Regional Planning Advisory Committee members and others, staff have identified a number of proposed changes to the RGS Procedures Bylaw and RGS Amendment Guideline for Board consideration (Attachments 2 and 3). No amendments to Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, are proposed. DISCUSSION Analysis of each of the issues is provided below followed by proposed changes to either the RGS Procedures Bylaw and/or the RGS Amendment Guidelines. All of the proposed changes have been presented to, and are supported by, the Regional Planning Advisory Committee. Alignment with the Municipal Amendment Process 1. Referral With the Corporation of Delta’s recent RGS amendment request for the MK Delta lands, the Metro Vancouver Board was faced with the issue of when in the municipal process a proposed Metro 2040 amendment request should be referred to Metro Vancouver; specifically, whether the referral should happen before or after the local public hearing. The Corporation of Delta initiated a corresponding OCP amendment bylaw process and sent the amendment request to Metro Vancouver after 1st and 2nd reading, prior to holding a local public hearing. It was Metro Vancouver staff’s understanding that in the case of the Delta request, that the Corporation of Delta wanted to assess regional acceptance of the proposal prior to requiring the applicant to expend significant dollars and effort on the detailed proposal that would be required for the subsequent OCP/rezoning process. However, members of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and Metro Vancouver Board expressed concern about considering the amendment and holding a regional public hearing without having a clear sense that the proposing municipality supported the amendment. As a result, the Metro Vancouver Board, in considering whether or not to initiate the Metro 2040 amendment, requested that Delta hold a local public hearing and give the OCP amendment bylaw 3rd reading before Metro Vancouver would proceed with the required regional public hearing. There is currently no policy directing when a local government should make a request for a Metro 2040 amendment and no policy specifying when the Board would be willing to initiate the Metro 2040 amendment process in any of the guiding documents. RPA - 93 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Proposed Changes Based on discussion with the Regional Planning Advisory Committee and concerns raised by the Metro Vancouver Board, staff is proposing an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Guidelines to state that Metro Vancouver “strongly encourages municipalities to submit their request after a local public hearing and a subsequent reading of the OCP Bylaw”. This solution will not require municipalities to submit their request after a local public hearing. The solution does, however, clearly indicate Metro Vancouver’s preference for when an amendment request should be submitted. This approach supports the Board’s recent decision requesting that Delta hold a public hearing on the MK Delta proposal prior to Metro Vancouver proceeding with the regional growth strategy amendment. It also respects municipalities’ request to maintain some flexibility in this regard. 2. 120 day limit for consideration of RCS Another issue related to aligning with the municipal process has to do with processing Metro 2040 amendments that have concurrent Regional Context Statement (RCS) amendments that must be accepted by the Board. According to Local Government Act Section 866(5), after receiving a RCS for consideration, the Board must respond by resolution within 120 days or is deemed to have accepted the RCS. When proposed Metro 2040 amendments are a Type 2 amendment requiring a regional public hearing, this time limit has been difficult if not impossible to meet when trying to process both the Metro 2040 amendment and RCS concurrently. Proposed Changes To address this issue, changes are proposed to the RGS Amendment Guidelines requesting that municipalities first submit their proposed Metro 2040 amendment, and after the Metro Vancouver Board has initiated the amendment, subsequently submit their RCS for acceptance. This change will help to ensure that the Metro 2040 amendment process has sufficient time to allow affected local governments to comment and conduct a regional public hearing (if necessary), and to ensure the most efficient processing of these concurrent requests. Clarification of the Regional Planning Advisory Committee’s role 3. Comments versus information Currently, both the RGS Procedures Bylaw and the RGS Amendment Guidelines require that the Regional Planning Advisory Committee provide comment on the draft Metro Vancouver staff report before it goes to the Board. The RGS Amendment Guideline stipulates that comments must be in the form of a resolution. This requirement has placed RPAC members in somewhat of a challenging situation where they were being asked to comment on, or take a position on, a proposed Metro 2040 amendment prior to their respective Councils having the same opportunity. 4. Timing of report to RPAC In addition, the RGS Procedures Bylaw No. 1148 currently stipulates that whenever Metro Vancouver receives a request for an amendment to the RGS from a member municipal Council, “Metro Vancouver staff shall, within four weeks, prepare a draft report on the requested amendment, and refer their draft report and the proponent municipality report to the Technical Advisory Committee” (now RPAC). Given RPAC scheduling, including having no August meeting, this timeline is often not realistic. RPA - 94 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Proposed Changes Wording is proposed in the updated RGS Amendment Guidelines that identifies RPAC as being primarily a forum to discuss regional issues and to help share information amongst senior planning staff. The opportunity for RPAC to discuss all Metro 2040 amendments helps ensure that municipal staff are informed and able to best advise their respective Councils when Metro 2040 amendments are referred to affected local governments for comment. With the proposed changes to both the Procedures Bylaw and Guidelines, RPAC will not be required to provide comment on proposed Metro 2040 amendments, but rather may do so if the Committee chooses. In addition, the four week requirement has been removed to ensure that there is adequate time for Metro Vancouver staff to prepare their analysis. Timing of Metro Vancouver staff analysis 5. Staff analysis with initiation or after notification period Since the adoption of Metro 2040, the timing of the submission of a full analysis by Metro Vancouver staff of proposed Metro 2040 amendments has occurred at different times in the process for different cases. In some cases, the full staff analysis has been provided in the first report to the Board, the one requesting initiation of the amendment (e.g., the Anmore amendment), and in other cases, it has been provided in the second report to the Board, after the notification period concurrent with consideration of third reading of the amendment bylaw (e.g., the Port Moody amendment). There is no clear direction in the RGS Procedures Bylaw or the RGS Amendment Guidelines as to when the Metro Vancouver staff analysis should be provided to the Board; in other words whether it is appropriate to separate the initiation/notification of the proposed amendment from the detailed staff analysis. The challenge of meeting the four week timing requirement to get the staff analysis report to RPAC, already referenced above, has been a key reason why the Metro Vancouver staff analysis has not consistently been provided as part of the first staff report to the Board associated with initiation of the RGS amendment. The second main reason for delaying the staff analysis report to the Board has been in response to suggestions that a delay provides an opportunity for RPAC and member municipalities to consider the proposed amendment without any perceived bias attributed to the Metro Vancouver staff analysis and recommendation. This issue arose with the consideration of the Port Moody, the Delta and the Township of Langley proposed amendments, where some Board directors opposed initiating the amendment process based on not having a consistent or sufficient amount of information with which to make a decision. Proposed Changes It is proposed that the Metro Vancouver staff analysis report be provided in draft form to RPAC to facilitate its ability to comment and advise member Councils in the case that the proposed Metro 2040 amendment is initiated. In other words, the full staff analysis will accompany the initiation report. Public Notification Process 6. Changes to provide greater flexibility The public notification process outlined in the current RGS Amendment Guidelines goes further than contemplated in Metro 2040 and the RGS Procedures Bylaw. It currently mirrors the process RPA - 95 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 5 of 7 followed for a municipal rezoning/OCP amendment – in that notification must be sent out to neighbouring property owners and advertised in regional and community newspapers. There is concern that this may create duplication between the local and regional planning processes. Metro Vancouver’s intent in notifying the public is to inform them of the Metro 2040 amendment and seek their input on the regional considerations of the proposed amendment. By specifically targeting local landowners and certain communities, the current notification process favours those who may be impacted at the local level by the proposed amendment. Local level impacts are important issues that are best addressed by the local government. Proposed Changes Changes to the RGS Amendment Guidelines are proposed, specifically removing the requirement to provide mailed notices to local residents and adding language to provide more flexibility for other forms of notification and engagement rather than just newspapers (e.g., email lists, social media, and public meetings). The proposed changes do not preclude Metro Vancouver from conducting mailouts to local residents; the changes are enabling rather than prescriptive. All the proposed changes to the RGS Procedures Bylaw are contained in Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014 (Attachment 1). All the proposed changes to the Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy are provided in Attachment 2. Summary of Proposed Changes RGS Procedures Bylaw No. 1148 • Update Regional Planning Advisory Committee name and RPAC acronym (pg. 1-3); • Update Regional Planning and Agriculture definition to state that it will advise the Board on regional planning matters as opposed to strategic planning matters (pg. 1); • Delete the four week requirement to present a requested amendment to RPAC (pg. 2); • Clarify that RPAC comments on a proposed amendment are optional and must be in the form of a resolution (pg. 2). Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline # 2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy • Clarify when Metro Vancouver would like to receive amendment requests (pg.2 Section 2.1); • Clarify the role of RPAC and when Metro Vancouver staff analysis will be provided (pg. 3 Section 2.2); • Removal of the requirement to mail notices of public hearing and leave greater flexibility for providing notice of a regional public hearing (pg. 5 Section 2.4); • Changes to Part 3 - Metro 2040 Amendments and Consequential Amendments to Regional Context Statements and accompanying Figure 2 to request municipalities to submit a Metro 2040 amendment request first and then to submit the corresponding RCS amendment once the Metro 2040 amendment process has been initiated(pg. 5 -6). RPA - 96 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 6 of 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board: a) Give 1st reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; b) Give 2nd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; c) Give 3rd reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; d) Give final consideration and reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014 and adopt Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014; and e) Adopt the revised Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #2 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy as presented in Attachment 4 of the report dated May 21, 2014 titled “Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process”. 2. That the GVRD Board provide alternate direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The removal of the guideline to mail the public notification and advertise in community newspapers, as proposed as part of alternative 1, would represent a cost savings over the current process. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Several changes are proposed to strengthen the Metro 2040 amendment process and to address issues that have arisen in processing amendments that have taken place since the adoption of the Metro 2040. Changes proposed include: 1. Clearer direction on when Metro Vancouver would like to receive Metro 2040 amendment requests from municipalities is proposed by adding that Metro Vancouver “strongly encourages municipalities to submit their request after a local public hearing and a subsequent reading of the OCP Bylaw” to the RGS Amendment Guidelines. 2. Revisions to the RGS Amendment Guidelines that request municipalities to submit their proposed amendment first, and then to submit their RCS for acceptance once the Metro 2040 amendment process has been initiated by the Metro Vancouver Board. This change will help to ensure that there is sufficient time to complete the Metro 2040 amendment process where a concurrent RCS amendment is involved. 3. Clarification that RPAC’s role is primarily as a forum to share information and to ensure that municipal planning directors are informed so that they may better advise their Councils on regional planning matters. It is also proposed that RPAC’s ability to provide comment be made optional as opposed to required. 4. Clarification that Metro Vancouver staff analysis will be provided at the beginning of the process. To ensure that there is adequate time for Metro Vancouver staff to provide a fulsome staff analysis, it is proposed that the requirement to provide the staff report on the proposed Metro 2040 amendment to RPAC within four weeks of receipt be removed from the RGS Procedures Bylaw. RPA - 97 - Strengthening the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Process Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 7 of 7 5. Removal from the RGS Amendment Guidelines of the requirement to provide mailed public notification to neighbouring property owners to avoid confusion between local and regional planning issues. Language is proposed to be added that would give Metro Vancouver more flexibility to provide public notification through other means, such as social media. All of these changes have been supported by RPAC and will serve to strengthen the Metro 2040 amendment process. Staff recommend Alternative 1. Attachments (Doc. #9520579): 1. Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 20113 2. Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 1206, 2014. 3. Revised Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #2 – Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. 9308236 RPA - 98 - 5.2 Attachment 1 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY PROCEDURES BYLAW NO. 1148, 2011 Purpose The purpose of this bylaw is to establish procedures, supplementary to those set out in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Local Government Act, for the administration and implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. Definitions 1. In this bylaw: “Affected Local Government” has the meaning given to that term in section 848 of the Local Government Act; “Board” means the Metro Vancouver (Greater Vancouver Regional District) board of directors; “Council of Councils” means a meeting of all the elected representatives of the Member Municipalities and the Board director who represents Electoral Area A; “Member Municipality” means any a municipality that is subject to the Regional Growth Strategy and includes the Tsawwassen First Nation; “Regional Growth Strategy” or “Strategy” means the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010; “Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report” means the report released by the Board annually in compliance with section 869(1) of the Local Government Act; “Regional Planning Committee” means the standing committee of Metro Vancouver (GVRD) established to consider and advise the Board on Strategic Planning function matters; “Technical Advisory Committee” or “TAC” means the committee made up of planning directors or their alternates from all Affected Local Governments. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 RPA - 99 - Page 1 of 4 Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 1. Any Member Municipality may request an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. Such requests shall be submitted to Metro Vancouver accompanied by a resolution of the Member Municipal Council endorsing the requested amendment and a report explaining the purpose of and rationale for the requested amendment. 2. Whenever Metro Vancouver receives a request for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy from a Member Municipal Council, Metro Vancouver staff shall, within four weeks, prepare a draft report on the requested amendment and refer their draft report and the proponent municipality report referred to in section 1 to the Technical Advisory Committee. 3. The Technical Advisory Committee shall, within four weeks of receiving the draft Metro Vancouver staff report, prepare a TAC comment on the draft. Metro Vancouver staff and the proponent municipal staff may explain their reports and respond to questions but shall not participate in determining or preparing the TAC comment. 4. Metro Vancouver staff shall consider the TAC comment, amend their draft report as they deem fit, and submit their final report, together with the proponent municipal report referred to in section 1 and the TAC comment to the first convenient subsequent meeting of the Regional Planning Committee. 5. The Regional Planning Committee shall consider the requested amendment and provide the proponent Member Municipality, the Metro Vancouver staff and TAC the opportunity to make a presentation on their reports and positions. 6. The Regional Planning Committee shall make recommendations to the Board on the appropriate disposition of the requested amendment and the Board may, at its discretion, provide opportunity for delegations to the Board on the Committee recommendations. Reporting on performance measures 7. The Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report shall include a report on those measures set out in Section G of the Regional Growth Strategy. 8. Additionally the Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report shall include a report on the following measures: a. Metro Vancouver staff time, expressed in the number of full-time equivalent staff budgeted to administer the Regional Growth Strategy; b. The total cost of implementing, managing, monitoring and amending the Strategy for the calendar year, including the cost Metro Vancouver and municipal staff, costs related to referral of requested amendments to the Technical Advisory Committee, external consultants, external legal advisors and all other resources; Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 RPA - 100 - Page 2 of 4 c. The number of requested amendments and approved amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy by type; d. A comparison of items a), b) and c) year over year and pre- and postadoption of the Regional Growth Strategy: and e. A record of the timelines to process amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy, including staff, Technical Advisory Committee and Board review. 9. If requested by an Affected Local Government, Metro Vancouver will make a presentation on the Regional Growth Strategy Annual Report to that Affected Local Government’s Council or board, answer any questions that may arise and report back to the Board on information received during the presentation. Review of the Regional Growth Strategy 10. Prior to the Board considering, pursuant to section 869(2) of the Act, whether to review the Regional Growth Strategy for possible amendment, the Board will convene the following: a. Technical Advisory Committee Workshop – the Technical Advisory Committee may make a recommendation as to whether a general review of the Strategy is necessary or, if no general review should be undertaken, what if any specific issues should be reviewed. b. Public Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee – the Regional Planning Committee will hold a public meeting or series of public meetings to provide the opportunity for input on the need for review of the Regional Growth Strategy from all persons, organizations and authorities who wish to participate. Metro Vancouver will make best efforts to notify all parties involved in developing the Regional Growth Strategy, as well as other interested parties as outlined in section 855(2) of the Local Government Act and the public at large, of the date and location of this meeting and the opportunity to address the Committee. Metro Vancouver will maintain a record of the meeting and present a summary report to the Board. c. Council of Councils Workshop – Metro Vancouver staff will make a presentation to a Council of Council Workshop on the performance of the Regional Growth Strategy. Metro Vancouver will maintain a record of the Regional Growth Strategy discussion and present a summary report to the Board. 11. These workshops are in addition to any other opportunity for input that the Board may provide pursuant to section 869(3) of the Local Government Act. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 RPA - 101 - Page 3 of 4 12. The official citation of this bylaw is ?Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011?. This bylaw may be cited as ?Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw?. READ A FIRST TIME this [5 day of .2011 READ A SECOND TIME this [5 day of 2011 READ A THIRD TIME this [5 day of Qg?g 2011 PASSED, AND FINALLY ADOPTED this [5 day of .2011 Pa?lette A. Vetleson ?oif E. Jacikson Corporate Secretary Chair Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 Page 4 of 4 RPA 102 5.2 Attachment 2 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY PROCEDURES AMENDMENT BYLAW NUMBER 1206, 2014 A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw Number 1148, 2011 on the 15th day of July, 2011; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in open meeting assembled ENACTS as follows: 1. The “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1148, 2011” is hereby amended by: a. Wherever it appears throughout the bylaw, replacing the phrase “Regional Planning Committee” with the phrase “Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee”; b. Wherever it appears throughout the bylaw, replacing the phrase “Technical Advisory Committee” with the phrase “Regional Planning Advisory Committee”; c. Wherever it appears throughout the bylaw, replacing the term “TAC” with the term “RPAC”; d. In the section titled “Definitions”, under the definition “Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee”, replacing the phrase “Strategic Planning function matters” with the phrase “Regional Planning function matters”; e. In the section titled “Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, in part 2, deleting the phrase “, within four weeks,”; f. In the section titled “Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, in part 3, after the phrase “comment on the draft”, adding the phrase “in the form of a resolution” g. In the section titled “Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, in part 3, replacing the word “shall” with “may” and removing the phrase “within four weeks of receiving the draft Metro Vancouver staff report”; h. In the section titled “Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, in part 3, after the phrase “shall not participate in determining or preparing”, replacing the word “the” with the word “any”; and i. In the section titled “Processing requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy”, in part 4, after the phrase “report referred to in section 1 and”, replacing the word “the” with the word “any”; 2. The official Citation for This bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw Number 1206, 2014” This bylaw may be cited as “Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 1206, 2014.” Read a First time this _____________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 1206, 2014 Page 1 of 2 RPA - 103 - Read a Second time this ____________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Read a Third time this _____________ day of ________________________ , 2014. Passed and Finally Adopted this __________ day of ___________ , 2014. ________________________ Chris Plagnol Acting Corporate Officer _________________________ Greg Moore Chair Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 1206, 2014 Page 2 of 2 RPA - 104 - 5.2 Attachment 3 Metro 2040 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #2 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future REVISED April 3, 2014 Adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on March 30, 2012 RPA - 105 - Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Introduction Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the region’s regional growth strategy (RGS), was adopted in July 2011. It sets out the regional planning goals of creating a compact urban area, supporting a sustainable economy, protecting the environment, developing complete communities and supporting sustainable transportation choices. There will be circumstances where it will be necessary to amend Metro 2040. The Local Government Act, Metro 2040 and the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011 (see Attachment 1) specify the required amendment procedures. This guideline is intended to provide a more detailed explanation of the amendment procedures. The guideline should be read in conjunction with the Metro 2040 and the Procedures Bylaw, and does not supersede the amendment procedures set out in those documents. 1. Initiating Amendments The Metro Vancouver Board initiates amendments to Metro 2040 (Section 6.4.1) by resolution. Municipalities can, by Council resolution accompanied by a report explaining the purpose and rationale, request the Metro Vancouver Board to consider amendments to Metro 2040. Individuals and organizations that desire to change the regional land use designation for a specific site should approach the municipality where the property is located. The municipality will assess whether or not it wishes to submit a request for an amendment to Metro 2040 to the Metro Vancouver Board. For all other forms of amendments, individuals or organizations may approach the Metro Vancouver Board or their municipality to request an amendment. 2. Amendment Process The process for amending Metro 2040 is described below and summarized in Figure 1. Amendments initiated by Metro Vancouver, and not requested by a municipality, will follow the same process outlined in Figure 1 except for the first step (the need for a municipal Council resolution). 2.1 Submission of a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Municipalities are encouraged to have preliminary discussions with Metro Vancouver staff prior to submitting a municipal request to amend Metro 2040. If the proposed amendments have regional transportation impacts then TransLink should also be consulted. For amendments involving a change to a land uses designation, Metro Vancouver requests that a corresponding municipal process for an OCP amendment be underway and strongly encourages municipalities to submit their request after the local public hearing and a subsequent reading of the OCP Bylaw. If the change in land use designation involves an Agricultural Land Commission decision, the Agricultural Land Commission process should be completed prior to initiating the Regional Growth Strategy amendment. For amendments to land use designations where the property is located in the Agricultural Land Reserve: Section 2.3.4 of the Regional Growth Strategy states that it is Metro Vancouver’s role to “Work with the Agricultural Land Commission to protect the region’s agricultural land base and not amend the Agricultural or Rural land use designation of a site if it is still part of the Agricultural Land Reserve, except to change it to an Agricultural land use designation.” Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 RPA - 106 - 2 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 2.2 Regional Planning Advisory Committee Review The Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) comprises planning directors or their alternate from all of Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities, Tsawwassen First Nation and TransLink. RPAC is primarily a forum to discuss regional issues and to help share information amongst planning staff. The Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148 sets out provisions for RPAC to receive information about, and comment on, all proposed amendments to Metro 2040. The opportunity for RPAC to discuss all proposed amendments ensures that municipal staff will be able to best advise their respective Councils when amendments are referred to affected local governments for comment. The Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148 directs Metro Vancouver to prepare a draft report on the proposed amendment and refer it to RPAC for comment. The draft report presented to RPAC will contain the resolution of the municipal Council endorsing the requested amendment and a report from the municipality explaining the purpose of, and rationale for, the requested amendment. The report will also contain Metro Vancouver staff analysis and recommendation to the Board as to whether to proceed with initiating the proposed amendment or not. Metro Vancouver staff will consider RPAC’s comments when preparing the staff report for the Metro Vancouver Board. RPAC’s comments, if any, will be provided to the Metro Vancouver Board. 2.3 Metro Vancouver Board Process The Metro Vancouver staff report and the municipal report will be submitted to the Metro Vancouver Board committee responsible for the regional growth strategy. The Committee will make a recommendation to the Metro Vancouver Board. The Metro Vancouver Board will decide whether or not to initiate the proposed amendment, whether to provide notification to affected local governments and agencies and consider giving first and second reading to the amendment bylaw. If the Board decides to give first and second reading to the regional growth strategy amendment bylaw, the next steps depend on the type of amendment that is under consideration: • For Type 1 amendments, Metro 2040 Section 6.4.3 and the Local Government Act require unanimous acceptance of the proposed bylaw, by resolution, from all affected local governments before a Type 1 amendment bylaw can be adopted. No public hearing is required. A simple majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board is required in order for a Type 1 amendment bylaw to be adopted. • For Type 2 amendments, Metro 2040 Section 6.4.4 requires an amendment bylaw that receives an affirmative 2/3 weighted vote by the Metro Vancouver Board at each reading including adoption as well as a public hearing. • For Type 3 amendments, Metro 2040 Section 6.4.5 requires an amendment bylaw that receives an affirmative 50%+1 weighted vote by the Metro Vancouver Board at each reading including adoption. No regional public hearing is required. Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 RPA - 107 - 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 RPA - 108 - 4 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 2.4 Notification If the Metro Vancouver Board resolves to proceed with the amendment process it will notify all affected local governments of the proposed amendment in accordance with Metro 2040 Section 6.4.2. A minimum of 30 days notice is required. When the proposed amendment is to change the regional designation of a site from Industrial or Mixed Employment to General Urban, the Metro Vancouver Board will also notify Port Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, the Ministry of Transportation and/or the Agricultural Land Commission as required by Metro 2040 Section 6.4.2 (d). In addition, the Metro Vancouver Board will notify the public of all proposed Metro 2040 amendments by posting notice of the amendment on the Metro Vancouver website for a minimum of 30 days and distributing it through other communication channels as appropriate. Members of the public can provide input to the Metro Vancouver Board either in writing, by requesting to speak to the Metro Vancouver Board as a delegation, or in the case of Type 2 amendments where a Public Hearing is held, by speaking at the Public Hearing. Comments received on the proposed amendment will be provided to the Metro Vancouver Board prior to its consideration of whether or not to adopt the amendment bylaw. For all Type 1 amendments, notification will also be sent to the Regional Growth Strategy Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, in accordance with Section 867 of the Local Government Act. 3. Metro 2040 Amendments and Consequential Amendments to Regional Context Statements Most municipal requests for Metro 2040 amendments also involve amending a municipality’s Regional Context Statement (i.e. land use designation changes). The amendment(s) may be necessary to ensure general consistency between Metro 2040 and the Regional Context Statement. Any amendment to a Regional Context Statement must be accepted by Metro Vancouver as per Local Government Act Section 866(4). As outlined in Metro 2040 Section 6.2.4, Metro Vancouver will endeavour to accommodate the two processes concurrently. Metro Vancouver must respond to a submitted Regional Context Statement within 120 days of receipt as per Local Government Act Section 866(5). Some types of Metro 2040 amendments may be difficult for Metro Vancouver to process within this 120 day window. As a result, it is recommended that a municipality first submit its request for a Metro 2040 amendment by resolution, and then after the Metro Vancouver Board chooses to initiate the amendment, submit the associated, updated Regional Context Statement. This will ensure that both processes can be completed in a timely and efficient manner. Figure 2 provides a summary of how Metro Vancouver endeavours to manage the processes for proposed Metro 2040 amendments and consequential Regional Context Statement acceptance. Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 RPA - 109 - 5 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 4. Avoiding “Two-Step” Minor Amendments There is a possibility that a series of Type 3 amendments could be used to achieve what is intended to be a Type 2 amendment, in order to avoid the more stringent amendment procedures for the latter. For example, to change the regional land use designation of a site from Conservation and Recreation to Agricultural is a Type 3 amendment. To subsequently change the same site from Agricultural to Industrial is also a Type 3 amendment in circumstances where the site is contiguous with, or within, the Urban Containment Boundary and not within the Agricultural Land Reserve (Metro 2040 Section 6.3.4 (f)). However, a direct change of regional land use designation from Conservation and Recreation or Agricultural to Industrial is a Type 2 amendment, with more stringent amendment procedures. Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 RPA - 110 - 6 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy The Type 3 minor amendments outlined in Metro 2040 Section 6.3.4 are not intended to be used sequentially to avoid a Type 2 amendment. In order to avoid this occurring, Metro Vancouver staff will always include the history of the regional land use designations for the subject property as part of the staff report. 8672378 Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #2 8397563 9520579 RPA - 111 - 7 5.3 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 22, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report - 2014 Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 22, 2014, titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report - 2014”. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee with an update on the development of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report – 2014. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) Section G Performance Measures, requires that Metro Vancouver prepare an annual report on progress in meeting the goals of the regional growth strategy. The first two years after the adoption of a regional growth strategy constitute a unique period as it is during this time that municipalities develop new regional context statements (RCS). As a result, Metro Vancouver opted to develop the first annual report to monitor performance up to the end of 2013, during which time eleven RCSs were submitted and accepted, and the 2011 Census data was released (which occurred throughout 2012). This approach also facilitated establishing a 2011 baseline for a number of measures. The Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report – 2014 (Metro 2040 Annual Report) is currently being developed. The Regional Planning Advisory Committee has reviewed technical data and is currently reviewing an early draft of portions of the report. Staff is presenting a progress update to the Committee on this report. DISCUSSION The draft Metro 2040 Annual Report assesses and communicates progress on plan implementation from the July 2011 adoption to year-end 2013. The draft Metro 2040 Annual Report is structured to include: • an introductory section providing regional growth strategy context; • a synopsis of implementation actions occurring over the first two years of the plan (such as completion of municipal Regional Context Statements); RPA - 112 - Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report – 2014 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 2 • • amendments to Metro 2040 land use designations and provisions, as well as a listing of completed Metro 2040 implementation guidelines and implementation projects; and a profile of the 55 Metro 2040 performance measures, including a 2011 baseline and monitoring to year-end 2013. Staff will provide a presentation to the Committee at the June 6th, 2014 meeting to demonstrate the proposed structure and layout of the Metro 2040 Annual Report, to provide a preliminary review of some sample performance measures, and to outline next steps. The completed draft report will be provided to the Committee in July for review; staff suggest that in order to allow for a fulsome discussion that a workshop session be incorporated into the regular Committee meeting. A separate report on the financial aspects of Metro 2040 implementation as per the requirements of the Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011 is being prepared and will be provided in conjunction with the final Metro 2040 Annual Report. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are provided. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. SUMMARY Metro 2040 Section G - Performance Measures, requires Metro Vancouver to prepare a report on progress in meeting the goals of the regional growth strategy. A draft Metro 2040 Annual Report – 2014 is in progress, and will be complete and ready for the Board’s consideration of approval in early fall 2014. The Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Annual Report – 2014 is a significant document that has been carefully structured to provide a wealth of data in a user-friendly way and to communicate progress to date in implementing the regional growth strategy. 9496958 RPA - 113 - 5.4 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Tom Pearce, Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 1, 2014 Subject: Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 1, 2014, titled “Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities”. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to respond to a Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee request to provide information on the property tax implications of commercial medical marihuana production facilities. Specifically, the assessment property class implications of growing and processing facilities located in industrial, commercial or agricultural designated areas are provided. BACKGROUND At its March 7, 2014 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the report titled “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Industrial Lands”. Members expressed concerns about tax status for commercial marihuana operations arising from new Health Canada regulations. Pursuant to the BC Assessment Authority, sites used for medical marihuana production may qualify for farm class status. As such, some properties may be subject to significantly lower property taxes. The Committee subsequently recommended that staff investigate and report back on the issue of medical marijuana production facilities in Metro Vancouver communities in the context of property tax scenarios. On March 28, 2014, GVRD Board passed the following resolution: That the GVRD Board direct staff to investigate the taxation issue pertaining to growing of medical marihuana in Metro Vancouver communities. DISCUSSION In June 2013, Health Canada's new Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) were enacted and took effect April 1, 2014, to replace the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). Health Canada is currently transitioning from the old MMAR into the new MMPR. The old MMAR provisions were granted an injunction on March 21, 2014 permitting medical marihuana to continue to be grown in a private residence until the case can be heard before the federal court. Health Canada has issued 13 licenses under the new regulations and is reviewing applications across Canada from proponents applying to become a licensed producer of medical marihuana. The new MMPR will result in the creation of new commercial facilities that will produce, process, and distribute medical marihuana. RPA - 114 - Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Highlights of Health Canada's new MMPR program include: • Production in residential dwellings will no longer be permitted. • All aspects of medical marihuana growth, cultivation, processing, storage, research and development, shipping/distribution and administrative functions are to be centralized and contained in a secured facility. • A licensed producer will have the ability to conduct research and development, test and produce a wide-variety of strains. • Storefronts and retail outlets including compassion clubs will not be permitted. • All medical marihuana distribution will be by a secured courier to a registered client. • Key facility personnel must hold a valid security clearance to be reviewed and confirmed by Health Canada. • The Health Canada license application process will ensure that a facility meets security, safety, quality control, record keeping, inventory and monitoring requirements to avoid product theft. • Applicants for a Health Canada production license must notify local government staff, fire and police authorities of their intention to apply. Further, the Agricultural Land Commission has stated that licensed medical marihuana can be grown on farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). As with other agricultural commodities, processing is permissible within the ALR when greater than 50% of the product is grown or raised on the same farm operation. Taxation Implications Various local governments in BC are looking at their zoning bylaws to determine where these larger scale commercial production facilities should be directed. A number of local governments are considering industrial, commercial and agricultural zones, within purpose built structures and with siting regulations from property lines and residential uses. Others are looking to restrict this land use or to direct it to particular areas of their community. Concern was raised by the Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee about the potential property tax shifting impacts of industrial or commercial properties used for licensed marihuana production and whether farm class status applies. Municipalities will need to carefully take into account the tax impacts from commercial marihuana facilities when considering such uses through their Official Community Plan and Zoning bylaws. The Assessment Authority notes that the property classification for farmland is based on the use of the property, and those portions of the site used for medical marihuana may qualify for farm class status provided it meets all the legislated requirements. A building with more than one use may be split into more than one assessment property class. Note that the classification of property is set out in the Prescribed Classes of Property Regulation under the Assessment Act. The following table provides a property tax scenario for a hypothetical property in an industrial business park in the City of Richmond, with and without farm class status. RPA - 115 - Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Table 1: Example Property Taxation Impacts Without Farm Class With Farm Class status N/A Industrial Business Park Property 25,000 square foot warehouse 1 acre site in Richmond Market value is $2,150,000 Class 6 – Business and Other – with a $10,000 exemption* Class 9 Farm Class Rate – Farm Land Class 1 Residential Rate – Buildings with 87.5% exemption** Approximate Property Tax Difference Total Property Taxes $33,500 $395 $33,100 Notes: * Class, 4, 5 & 6 properties (Major Industry, Light Industry and Business) receive an exemption up to $10,000 of the assessed value of improvements. ** Farm buildings (other than farmers’ dwellings) receive an exemption of 87.5% of the total assessed improvement value. The difference in the property taxation for this example property would be $33,100, or a drop of 99% for all property taxes. There is a significant difference in property taxes depending on whether the owner applies for and receives farm class status. There would be no additional taxation impacts from a marihuana facility locating on a property which is already used for agricultural purposes and has farm class status. This comparison does not consider the impacts, if any, of a change in property classes on municipal utility charges. Note the following: • Farm class status is voluntary: the property owner and any subsequent owners must apply. • The applicant must provide proof they are licensed under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. • Once licensed by Health Canada, application for BC Assessment farm class status cannot be denied. • Lands used as a licensed medical marihuana production facility are treated like any other farm in terms of assessment. • The land does not need to be within the Agricultural Land Reserve in order to qualify for farm class status. The following land uses qualify for Class 9 – Farm Land: • Qualifying Agricultural Use: land used for production buildings including laboratory, offices. • Land that contributes to production, for example access/egress and parking, setbacks as required by Health Canada or local government bylaw. The following improvements qualify as farm buildings (Class 1 – Residential with farm building exemptions): • Production buildings including laboratory, offices, packing, storage. • Security and fencing as required by Health Canada. RPA - 116 - Property Taxation of Medical Marihuana Production Facilities Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 4 of 4 Local zoning bylaws may have an impact on the ability to achieve farm class status. However, zoning does not supersede the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation (BC Reg. 411/95). Although BC Assessment asserts that farm class may be applied to land if it meets the legislated requirements under the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation irrespective of zoning, a municipality may still have recourse if the farm use is not consistent with the permitted uses in an industrial or commercial zone. The issue may be whether the permitted uses could be construed to permit the production and processing of marihuana in industrial or commercial zones. Independent legal advice should be sought to provide an opinion on the specifics of each zoning bylaw. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. As such, no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications on Metro Vancouver’s and municipal property taxes will depend on the number of approved Medical Marihuana licensees, and whether these licensees apply for farm class status on properties which are currently assessed and taxed as industrial or commercial. Potential property taxation implications could be significant. OTHER IMPLICATIONS Further analysis and legal review is required by municipalities seeking prohibitions within the Agricultural Land Reserve or across a whole municipality. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report responds to the request for information on the property tax issues pertaining to medical marihuana facilities. Municipalities will need to carefully take into account the property tax benefits impacts from commercial marihuana facilities when considering such uses through their Official Community Plan and Zoning bylaws. There is a significant difference in property taxation depending on whether the owner applies for and receives farm class status compared to existing commercial or industrial taxes. Independent legal advice should be sought to provide an opinion on the specifics of each zoning bylaw. Attachment: BC Assessment Fact Sheet Attachment: November 2013 (Doc. #9437846). References: 1. Agricultural Land Commission Information Bulletin: Medical Marihuana Production in the ALR, updated January 2014: http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/ALC_Info_Bulletin_Marijuana_Amended_Jan_2014.pdf 2. UBCM Medical Marihuana Bulletin: February 5, 2014: http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/meta/news/news-archive/2014-archive/tax-status-for-commercialmarihuana-operations.html?utm_source=The+Compass++February+5&utm_campaign=Blocked+Jan+29&utm_medium=email 3. Assessment Act - Prescribed Classes of Property Regulation: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/438_81 9438615 RPA - 117 - 5.4 Attachment Medical Marihuana & Property Class Did you know? As of April 1, 2014, authorized users of ‘medical marihuana’ must purchase it from a licensed producer. A licensed producer may possess, sell, provide, ship, deliver, transport, destroy, produce, export and/or import marihuana for medical purposes. The medical marihuana program is overseen by the Federal Government and specific details may be found under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation. What is medical marihuana production? The Federal Government stipulates that medical marihuana can only be grown and sold by “licensed producers”, production must be indoors, and it is subject to strict personal and physical security requirements. Production may involve packaging, labeling and shipping. More information regarding the Federal Government’s medical marihuana program may be found at: http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2013/2013-79bk-eng.php Does medical marihuana production qualify for farm class? Under the current Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation (BC Reg. 411/95), medical marihuana production can qualify for farm classification as “medicinal plant culture” which is a qualifying agricultural use. Land used for medical marihuana production may qualify for farm class if all the other legislated requirements under that Regulation are met, including a written application, evidence in support of that application, evidence of income and proof of sales, and verification that a producer is properly licensed in accordance with Federal Government regulations. The General Application for Farm Classification may be found at www.bcassessment.ca on the Forms page under “Farm Forms”. Property Classification of Land? Property classification for farm land is based on the “use” of the property. Those portions of a site used for medical marihuana production meeting the requirements for farm classification will be granted farm class. Any portions of a site not meeting the farm requirements and having an alternate use will be classified in accordance with the Prescribed Classes of Property Regulation (BC Reg. 438/81). Property Classification of Improvements? Buildings on a property used for medical marihuana production will be classified as Class 1 – Residential or Class 6 – Business & Other, depending on their use. Note that a building having more than one use may be split into more than one property class. What do you need to know? BC Assessment will consider each farm application for medical marihuana production in terms of the requirements of the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation. The General Application for Farm Classification must be submitted to the local assessment office by October 31 for consideration in the next taxation year. What does Local Government need to know? Local zoning bylaws may have an impact on the land classification. However, zoning does not supersede the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation. If farm use is not consistent with permitted uses under the zoning, farm class may nonetheless be applied to land if it meets the legislated requirements under the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation. General information about farm classification is available at www.bcassessment.ca under Factsheets. If you have any questions or concerns about medical marihuana production and farm classification please contact BC Assessment at: Tel: 1-866-valueBC (1-866-825-8322). Email: bcacustomer.services@bcassessment.ca Website: www.bcassessment.ca 9437846 RPA - 118 - November, 2013 5.5 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 26, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 26, 2014, titled “Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan”. PURPOSE The report responds to the May 2, 2014, GVRD Board request of staff to review the municipal comment submissions on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan and to report back to the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee with respect to any inconsistencies with Metro 2040. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver staff prepared comments relating to Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan as part of the consultation process. This submission represented Metro Vancouver's complete comments under its mandates of regional land use planning (Metro 2040), as well as regional parks, environment and air quality. Along with the submissions from member municipalities, these comments illustrate support for the planning objectives outlined in Metro 2040 and a desire by local governments to work with Port Metro Vancouver to develop a Port Land Use Plan that is consistent with the established vision for the region. At its April 9, 2014, meeting, the Transportation Committee recommended that the GVRD Board: a) endorse the comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan as contained in the report titled, “Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated February 24, 2014; and b) reiterate the Board’s objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes; and c) request that Port Metro Vancouver respond to the issues identified in the report prior to finalizing the Draft Land Use Plan. These recommendations were passed by the Board on May 2, 2014, which also resolved: That the GVRD Board direct staff to compile comments on the Port Metro Vancouver land use plan, that had been submitted by all affected local governments directly to Port Metro Vancouver, and to re-submit them to Port Metro Vancouver as a separate package. RPA - 119 - Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on the Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Further, the Board also made the following request of staff: Staff was requested to review the municipal submissions on the Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan and report back to the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee on any inconsistencies with Metro 2040. DISCUSSION The Metro Vancouver comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan were sent to Robin Silvester, President & CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, on May 2, 2014 (Attachment 1). The Port responded with a letter dated May 5 (Attachment 2), stating that over the next few months the Port will release a consultation summary report and a Consideration Memo to respond to public comments, and will also respond separately to each agency's respective formal submission. With regards to the municipal comments, a total of 13 submissions were compiled (Attachment 3) by Metro Vancouver and will be resubmitted to Port Metro Vancouver as a separate package to highlight the importance of local government interests when developing plans affecting the entire region and to demonstrate alignment amongst the municipalities and region in meeting the objectives agreed to in Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future. Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Submissions Metro Vancouver staff has reviewed the municipal submissions on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan to identify any inconsistencies with Metro 2040. The municipal comments are generally consistent with the regional growth strategy. The great majority of comments from the 13 municipalities were supportive of, and consistent with, the vision and objectives of Metro 2040. The identified inconsistencies between the municipal comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan and Metro 2040 are relatively minor. Pending the outcome of further planning work by these municipalities and the Port, the regional land use designations for these small areas may be reconciled. It is important to note that the municipal comments are from the perspective of the municipality in the context of their long-term plans for these lands. In certain cases, further planning work is required before the appropriate designations can be applied, including possible regional land use designation amendments. One challenge is that Port Metro Vancouver is designating water in front of land with both OCP and Metro 2040 designations. The mapping and linework for where the land ends and water begins is sometimes unclear, leading to a few locations where discrepancies between the OCP and Metro 2040 are noted. For example: District of North Vancouver: Area immediately east of Fiberco site along Pemberton Avenue • Draft Port Plan Water Designation: Industrial • Metro 2040 Upland Designation: Industrial • Municipal OCP Designation: Parks, Open Space, and Natural Area. "Areas designated for parks, open space and natural areas are intended for a range of public and private uses focused principally on the protection and reservation of ecologically important habitat areas, the RPA - 120 - Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on the Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 3 of 4 • • regional drinking water supply, or the provision of diverse parks, outdoor recreational, or tourism opportunities." Municipal Request: That the Port re-designate the surrounding water from 'Industrial' to 'Conservation' to be consistent with intended use of this area. Metro Vancouver Comment: The municipal request and current upland Metro 2040 designation are not fully consistent, but do not present a significant issue. District of North Vancouver: Area immediately east of Canexus land • Draft Port Plan Designation: Port Terminal • Metro 2040 Designation: Industrial • Municipal OCP Designation: Parks, Open Space, and Natural Area. "Areas designated for parks, open space and natural areas are intended for a range of public and private uses focused principally on the protection and reservation of ecologically important habitat areas, the regional drinking water supply, or the provision of diverse parks, outdoor recreational, or tourism opportunities." • Municipal Request: That the Port re-designate this area from 'Port Terminal' to 'Conservation' given the proximity to Maplewoods Mudflats to protect this ecologically sensitive area and to acknowledge that it is not intended to be used for industrial purposes. • Metro Vancouver Comment: The municipal request and current upland Metro 2040 designation are not fully consistent, but do not present a significant issue. City of Port Moody: Mill and Timber site with existing saw mill facilities • Draft Port Plan Water Designation: Port Terminal • Metro 2040 Upland Designation: Industrial • Municipal OCP Upland Designation: o Current: General Industrial. o Proposed: The city's new proposed OCP (which received 3rd Reading on April 22, 2014) redesignates the site from 'General Industrial' to 'Oceanfront District'. "The Oceanfront District designation applies to the development of a mix of residential, commercial, marina, light industrial, institutional and public open space uses on the existing Mill and Timber sawmill site". • Municipal Request: That the Port re-designate the surrounding water from 'Port Terminal' to 'Port Water' to align with the expected future upland land use. • Metro Vancouver Comment: The municipal request and current Metro 2040 designation are not consistent. It is important to note that changes to the municipal designation for the Mill & Timber site have only recently been proposed, and this application is currently being processed as an amendment to Metro 2040. Further, the site is identified in Metro 2040 as Special Study Area. City of Port Moody: Eastern Part of Ioco Lands • Draft Port Plan Water Designation: Port Terminal • Metro 2040 Upland Designation: Industrial (western), and General Urban (eastern) • Municipal OCP Upland Designation: o Current: General Industrial (western) and Commercial - Mixed Use (eastern). o Proposed: The city's new proposed OCP (which received 3rd Reading on April 22, 2014) redesignates the eastern part of the site from 'Commercial - Mixed Use' to 'Mixed Use Marina'. "The Mixed Use – Marina designation applies to areas intended for the RPA - 121 - Metro Vancouver Review of Municipal Comment Submissions on the Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 4 of 4 • • development of a variety of retail, service, office and stand-alone commercial activities including marina related uses. Multi-family residential uses will also be permitted in association with commercial uses with heights not to exceed four storeys". Municipal Request: That the Port re-designate the surrounding water from 'Port Terminal' to 'Port Water' in recognition of the foreshore use and existing marina and correspond with the upland future land use and zoning. Metro Vancouver Comment: The municipal request and current Metro 2040 designation are not completely consistent. Part of the municipal upland designation on the eastern portion of the site (Commercial – Mixed use) overlaps with land designated Metro 2040 Industrial. It is important to note that changes to the municipal designation for the eastern Ioco land has only recently been proposed. Further, the site is identified in Metro 2040 as Special Study Area. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report. OTHER IMPLICATIONS The outcomes of further planning work by municipalities and Port Metro Vancouver for these areas may lead to proposed amendments to Metro 2040. These can be processed and considered as appropriate when received. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver staff have compiled and revised municipal comments on the Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan and resubmitted these to the Port as a separate package to demonstrate how municipalities are working together to meet the objectives of the regional growth strategy. The great majority of comments from the 13 municipalities were supportive of, and consistent with, Metro 2040’s vision and objectives. Metro Vancouver will continue to work closely with Port Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and other agencies, to advance land use and transportation plans in the region which support the objectives of Metro 2040. Attachments (Doc. #9505408): 1. Letter to Robin Silvester, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port Metro Vancouver, from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, titled: ‘Metro Vancouver Board Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan’, dated May 2, 2014. 2. Letter to Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee, from Robin Silvester, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port Metro Vancouver, titled: ‘Clarification of Items from Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Discussion’, dated May 5, 2014. 3. Package of member municipal comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan. References: Port Metro Vancouver – Land Use Plan Update Website: www.portmetrovancouver.com/projects/LandUsePlan.aspx 9504164 RPA - 122 - metrova ncouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION 5-5 Attachment 1 Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel. 604 432-6210 Fax 604 451-6614 MAY ll 2 201!? File: CP-07-01-016 Mr. Robin Silvester, President and CEO Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Dear r: 251 Re: Metro Vancouver Board Comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan Thank you for providing Metro Vancouver with the opportunity to participate in the consultation on the Port?s draft Land Use Plan. We appreciate the Port extending their comment period to accommodate Metro Vancouver Board comments. The Port Land Use Plan is an important policy document for the region that will have significant implications for the successful implementation of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and other established policies of the Metro Vancouver Board. On May 2, 2014, the Metro Vancouver Board considered a staff report with comments on the Port?s Draft Land Use Plan and passed the following resolution: ?That the GVRD Board: a) endorse the comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan as contained in the report titled, ?Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan?, dated February 24, 2014; and b) reiterate the Board's objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes; and c) request that Part Metro Vancouver respond to the issues raised in the report prior to finalizing the plan.? The Board report and comments are attached. The Board expressed concern that past Metro Vancouver comments have not been responded to by the Port, nor incorporated into the draft Land Use Plan. As a result, the final resolution was added, both to underscore the importance of collaboration to ensure solid alignment between the Port?s draft plans and established regional land use and transportation plans, and to request specifically that the Port respond to these comments prior to finalizing the Port Land Use Plan. In addition, the Board requested that all municipal comments on the draft Plan be consolidated by Metro Vancouver and submitted as a package to the Port for similar consideration with the intent of demonstrating how municipalities are working together to meet the objectives of the regional growth strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby,BC,Canada VSH 4G8 - 604-432-6200 - Greater Vancouver Regional District - Greater Vancouver Water District - Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District - Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation RPA 123 Port Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Board Comments on Port Metro Vancouver?: Draft Land Use Plan Page 2 of 2 Once again, we value the opportunity to provide comments on Port Metro Vancouver's draft Land Use Plan. If you have any questions, and to arrange a meeting, please contact Elisa Campbell, Director of Regional and Strategic Planning, at 604-451-6556 or ?fours truly, ouver Board cc: Mr. Greg Yeomans, Manager of Planning, Port Metro Vancouver Attachment: Metro Vancouver Board Report, dated February 24, 2014, "Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver's Draft Land Use Plan?, as amended by the Transportation Committee on April 9, 2014, and resolved by the Board on May 2, 2014. 9337616 RPA 124 Section E 3.1 To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Transportation Committee Date: April 10, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Meeting Date: May 2, 2014 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) endorse the comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan as contained in the report titled, “Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated February 24, 2014; and b) reiterate the Board’s objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes; and c) request that Port Metro Vancouver respond to the issues identified in the report prior to finalizing the Draft Land Use Plan. At its April 9, 2014 meeting, the Transportation Committee considered the attached report titled “Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated, February 24, 2014. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style. Attachment: “Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated, February 24, 2014 9305405 Greater Vancouver Regional District - 81 RPA - 125 - ATTACHMENT To: Transportation Committee From: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: February 24, 2014 Subject: Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Meeting Date: March 12, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) endorse the comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan as contained in the attachment titled, “Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated February 24, 2014; and b) reiterate the Board’s objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes. PURPOSE This report provides the GVRD Board with staff comments related to Port Metro Vancouver’s current draft Port Land Use Plan (see References). BACKGROUND The Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan (Port Land Use Plan) update process has extended over four phases between 2012 and 2014, starting with background research, developing goals, objectives and policy directions, and leading to the preparation of the draft Port Land Use Plan. Each phase has included extensive consultation. Metro Vancouver staff have attended Port sessions throughout the consultation phases, and to date have provided staff comment on the first three phases of the Port Land Use Plan process, specifically the: • Draft Goals, Objectives, and Policy Directions (November 2012 and August 2013); • Port Existing Land and Marine Designations mapping (May 2013); and • Proposed Port Designations (August 2013). Port Metro Vancouver ('the Port') is currently consulting with stakeholders as part of Phase 4 (the final phase) of the Port Land Use Plan development. As the deadline for stakeholder comment on the draft Port Land Use Plan is April 13, 2014, staff is seeking Board endorsement of comments (Attachment 1) to submit to Port Metro Vancouver. DISCUSSION Port Land Use Plan Purpose and Process Port Metro Vancouver’s current Land Use Plan is a compilation of three separate plans from each of the region’s former port authorities that amalgamated in 2008 to form Port Metro Vancouver. The Canada Marine Act requires every Canadian port authority to have a land use plan that contains objectives and policies for the physical development of the property it manages. In January 2012, Greater Vancouver Regional District - 82 RPA - 126 - Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 12, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Port Metro Vancouver began a process to update their Land Use Plan to provide a framework with updated land use designations and consistent policies to guide the physical development of Port Metro Vancouver’s lands and waters over the next 15 to 20 years. The Port Land Use Plan update process has extended over four phases between 2012 and 2014, starting from background research and concept development and leading to the preparation of the Plan, along with extensive consultation: • Phase 1 - Gathering Inputs and Setting the Context (Jan – July 2012): Phase 1 focused on data collection, background research into port planning best practices, and issue identification. This established the baseline for the Land Use Plan. • Phase 2 - Developing Goals, Objectives and Policy Directions (Aug – Nov 2012): Phase 2 focused on developing draft goals, objectives, and policy directions. These guiding principles articulate Port Metro Vancouver’s vision for managing growth and the development of port lands and waters over the decades to come. • Phase 3 - Refining Plan Policies and Updating Land Use Designations (Dec 2012 – Dec 2013): Phase 3 was implemented in several stages and provided the opportunity to: review and update the draft goals, objectives and policy directions; update the land use designations and associated mapping; seek stakeholder feedback; and develop proposed implementation measures. This material formed the basis for development of the draft Land Use Plan. • Phase 4 - Finalizing the Plan (Jan 2014 – Completion): Phase 4 involves finalizing the proposed Land Use Plan, and meeting the consultation requirements of the Canada Marine Act prior to its adoption by the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors. Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Port Metro Vancouver has developed goals, objectives and policy directions to provide the policy framework for future growth and development. These form the basis for the draft Port Land Use Plan. The five goals of the draft Port Land Use Plan are: 1. Port Metro Vancouver manages port growth and activity in support of Canada’s trade while preparing for anticipated transitions in the global economy; 2. Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in ensuring the safe and efficient movement of portrelated cargo, traffic and passengers throughout the region; 3. Port Metro Vancouver is a global leader among ports in the environmental stewardship of the lands and waters it manages; 4. Port activity and development is a positive contributor to local communities and First Nations; and 5. Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in communication and engagement in support of the use and development of port lands and waters. Port Metro Vancouver’s draft Land Use Plan includes eight land and marine designations to provide for the orderly development and management of lands and waters within the Port’s jurisdiction, and to provide clarity on long-term development. The land use designations have been updated based on current uses and development patterns, expected growth, and input provided in earlier phases of consultation. Each designation has a specific intent and list of associated and accessory uses, summarized as follows: • Port Terminal – deep-sea and marine terminals • Industrial – industrial activities in support of port operations Greater Vancouver Regional District - 83 RPA - 127 - Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 12, 2014 Page 3 of 5 • • • • • • Commercial – commercial activities related to port / marine services Log Storage and Barge Moorage – log storage, barges and related activities Recreation – public recreation use such as parks and viewing areas Conservation – habitat conservation, enhancement and restoration Port Water – open water and foreshore adjacent to Port and non-Port lands Special Study Area – areas that require additional study, consultation and planning. Lands and waters under Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction are also organized into seven distinct planning areas based on geography and port-related activities. Port Plan Implementation Port Metro Vancouver is primarily responsible for implementing the Port Land Use Plan’s policy directions and initiatives, although in many cases implementation will happen in conjunction with other agencies. The draft plan notes key partners and their roles, and also a m onitoring and reporting process. Implementation measures have been identified for each goal, and the associated timing (Short Term 2014-16; Medium Term 2016-18; Long Term 2018+; Ongoing). Additional implementation measures will be developed in the years to come and reported on, as appropriate, in Port Metro Vancouver’s annual Sustainability Report. The Port’s Project Review and Environmental Assessment Process is the key mechanism for evaluating proposed developments within the Port’s jurisdiction. Key implementation measures / actions which relate to Metro Vancouver include: • Explore initiatives to protect the region’s industrial land base and identify opportunities to expand the industrial land base (including consideration of an Industrial Land Reserve or similar approach); • Undertake a comprehensive review of each site designated as Special Study Areas in the Land Use Plan to determine their need and suitability for long term Port use; • Collaborate with agencies on development of a r egional flood management plan and sea level rise research; • Participate in the preparation of a R egional Goods Movement Strategy, and improve the efficiency of port-related truck traffic; and • Pursue strategies and initiatives that aim to reduce greenhouse gas intensity and diesel particulate matter emissions as a result of port operations. Metro Vancouver 2013 Comments on the draft Port Land Use Plan On July 26, 2013, the GVRD Board received a report from staff with comments on the draft elements for the Port Land Use Plan. At that time, the Board also passed the following resolutions: 1. Reiterate its strong objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes, and insist that the Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan confirm that agricultural land will not be used for Port Metro Vancouver’s current needs nor expansion; 2. Recommend that Port Metro Vancouver expansion in the region will take place on industrially zoned properties; and 3. Write a letter to Port Metro Vancouver, the Ministry of Transport Canada, the BC Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission advising of the Board’s position. Greater Vancouver Regional District - 84 RPA - 128 - Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 12, 2014 Page 4 of 5 In July/August 2013, Metro Vancouver submitted its comments on the June 2013 version of the Port Land Use Plan’s goals, objectives and policy directions and proposed designations to the Port. Metro Vancouver 2014 Comments on the draft Port Land Use Plan There are elements of the draft Port Land Use Plan that are consistent with Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, and other areas where some work needs to be done to ensure closer alignment. Building to accommodate future expansion of goods shipped through the ports and region is essential, but also challenging in a region where political leadership is committed to building a compact metropolitan region where agricultural, industrial and conservation and recreation lands are maintained to support the quality of life this region is known for. As well, it appears that many of the 2013 comments provided by Metro Vancouver were not incorporated into the draft Port Land Use Plan, and as a result, Metro Vancouver comments reiterate a number of previous comments, along with requests that that these be considered for incorporation into the final Port Land Use Plan. Detailed Metro Vancouver staff comments are attached to this report (Attachment 1). In particular, staff recommend improvements in the following areas to achieve better alignment between the Port Land Use Plan and Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future and TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy: • • • • • • encourage the use of Port lands for industrial activities and discourage non-port related commercial development on port lands; only consider expansion of Port operations on Metro 2040 Industrial and Mixed Employment lands; confirm that the Port will not permit non-agricultural uses on Agricultural Land Reserve or Metro 2040 Agricultural lands; continue to work closely with other agencies to support a coordinated and efficient goods and service movement network for the region; continue to work at reducing emissions related to the movement of people and goods as the Port has an important role to play in reducing energy use in its operations even as Port activity increases; work closely with municipalities and other agencies prior to acquiring new lands to work towards consistency with Metro 2040 and other land use plans; and recognizing that much work has been done to consolidate and align Port Land Use Plan mapping designations, provide greater clarity as to definition of the shoreline, coordinate marine and land use designations, and clearly articulate the land use planning rationale for the six special study areas in the draft plan and how they help achieve the regional objectives laid out in Metro 2040. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board: a) endorse the comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan as contained in the attachment titled, “Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan”, dated February 24, 2014; and Greater Vancouver Regional District - 85 RPA - 129 - Metro Vancouver Comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 12, 2014 Page 5 of 5 b) reiterate the Board’s objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes. 2. That the GVRD Board provide additional or alternate comments. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications to this report. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan is an important policy document that will have significant implications for the successful implementation of the Metro Vancouver 2040, the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and other established policies of the Metro Vancouver Board. In January 2012, Port Metro Vancouver began a process to update its Land Use Plan to provide a framework with updated land use designations and consistent policies to guide the physical development of Port Metro Vancouver’s lands and waters over the next 15 to 20 years. Port Metro Vancouver is currently consulting with stakeholders as part of Phase 4 (the final phase) of the Port Land Use Plan development. This report seeks GVRD Board endorsement of Metro Vancouver comments on Port Metro Vancouver’s draft Land Use Plan in advance of the April 13, 2014 deadline for stakeholder comment. There are elements of the draft Port Land Use Plan that are consistent with Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, and other areas where some work needs to be done to ensure closer alignment. Metro Vancouver staff recommend improvements in a range of areas (Attachment 1) to achieve better alignment between the Port Land Use Plan and both Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future and TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy. As well, it appears that many of the 2013 comments previously provided by Metro Vancouver to Port Metro Vancouver were not incorporated into the draft Port Land Use Plan. As a result, a number of the current Metro Vancouver comments reiterate previous comments, along with requests that these be considered for incorporation into the final Port Land Use Plan. Staff recommend Alternative 1. Attachments (Doc. #8715059): 1. Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan 2. Metro Vancouver Mapping Comments on Port Land Use Plan. 3. Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Review – Metro Vancouver Mapping Comments. References: - Port Land Use Plan Website: www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/projects/LandUsePlan.aspx - Port Land Use Plan - Draft December 2013: http://porttalk.ca/document/show/456 - Port Land Use Plan Update - Discussion Guide: http://porttalk.ca/document/show/469 8615318 / 9134409 Greater Vancouver Regional District - 86 RPA - 130 - Attachment 1 Metro Vancouver Comments (2014) on Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan 1.0 Background The Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan is an important policy document that will have significant implications for the successful implementation of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (the region’s regional growth strategy), the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and other established policies of the Metro Vancouver Board. Metro Vancouver staff have attended stakeholder sessions throughout Port Metro Vancouver consultation phases, and to date have provided staff comment on the first three phases of the Port Land Use Plan process, specifically the: • Draft Goals, Objectives, and Policy Directions (November 2012 and August 2013); • Port Existing Land and Marine Designations mapping (May 2013); and • Proposed Port Designations (August 2013). In July/August 2013, Metro Vancouver provided comments on the June 2013 version of the Port Land Use Plan’s goals, objectives and policy directions as well as proposed land use designations. In July 2013, the Metro Vancouver Board passed a resolution reiterating its strong objection to the use of agricultural land for Port purposes. 2.0 General Comments • It appears that a significant proportion of the 2013 Metro Vancouver staff comments previously submitted to the Port were not incorporated into the revised draft Port Land Use Plan released in February 2014 (dated December 2013). Metro Vancouver reiterates its comments previously provided (as compiled in a package dated August 8, 2013 to Robin Silvester, President and CEO, Port Metro Vancouver) and requests that comments be again considered for incorporation into the final Port Land Use Plan. • The Port Land Use Plan does not acknowledge the important regional roles of Metro Vancouver and TransLink in land use and transportation planning. Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) is the regional growth strategy which was endorsed by 22 local governments as well as adjacent regional districts. However, Metro 2040 is not mentioned to any great extent in the draft Port Land Use Plan. Given that the various authorities responsible for land planning and management in the region are interdependent with one another, Metro Vancouver believes that their respective plans will benefit from being coordinated. As such, it is recommended that the Port Land Use Plan should contemplate all lan d uses, including commercial, industrial, residential, as well as agricultural, recreation and conservation. As well, Metro Vancouver requests that recognition of Metro 2040 and TransLink's Regional Transportation Strategy be incorporated into the Port Land Use Plan. This is particularly relevant with regards to protecting agricultural lands from potential port-related development, and encouraging port intensification on existing industrial lands. • The draft Port Land Use Plan states the need to have adequate industrial lands available in the region, which are critical to a strong economy. Reflecting a past declining stock of industrial lands in the region, the Port Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of protecting industrial Greater Vancouver Regional District - 87 RPA - 131 - lands, and also supports intensification through investments in equipment and operating procedures that increase efficiency and capacity. Metro Vancouver concurs with the Port about the importance of preserving adequate lands for industrial uses, and through Metro 2040 also seeks to protect the region’s supply of industrial land and its efficient use. At the same time, however, Metro 2040 also seeks to protect the supply of agricultural lands in the region and to promote agricultural viability. The draft Port Land Use Plan identifies Special Study Areas, “areas that require additional study, consultation and planning to determine their future use through a Land Use Plan amendment.” Currently, four of these Special Study Areas are located on lands designated as Agricultural in Metro 2040. As a result, Metro Vancouver has concerns about the possibility that the current agricultural designation of these lands may be amended for the Port’s purposes, and requests that the Port Land Use Plan confirm that agricultural land will not be used for the Port’s current needs nor for expansion. The Port Land Use Plan should not include any designation that would allow non-agricultural uses on Agricultural Land Reserve lands and regionally-designated Agricultural lands. The provisions and intentions of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act should be reinforced by the Port Land Use Plan. • Additional and enhanced implementation measures should be developed to help advance and determine success of implementing the Port Land Use Plan. These measures should include the following:  The availability of an adequate supply of industrial lands in the region for port and portrelated uses;  The overall ecological health of the region, including human health;  Creation of a Public Recreational Port Park, Public Access, and Trail Network Plan to integrate recreational lands and initiatives in the region; and  Establishing a new interagency partnership to coordinate environmental management, review and communications to achieve significant outcomes for sustainability. 3.0 Review of Port Land Use Plan by Goal 3.1 Port Plan Goal 1 - Port Metro Vancouver manages port growth and activity in support of Canada’s trade while preparing for anticipated transitions in the global economy. The goal looks ahead 15-20 years, and notes the challenge of ensuring sufficient land to support anticipated growth. The objectives for this goal address the need to protect port jurisdiction lands for port activities, and to ensure collaboration with other authorities to protect the region's industrial land base, which is consistent with Metro 2040. Further, the goal supports the intensification of port lands to achieve the highest feasible operational capacity within the existing land base, again consistent with Metro 2040. The Port Plan policy 1.3.1 considers acquisition of sites to protect their availability for future port use, noting priority for sites with ready access to shipping / transportation networks and existing port lands. However, Metro 2040 action 2.1.7 requests that the Port encourage the use of port lands for industrial activities, and discourage non-port related commercial development on port lands. Further, it requests that the Port not expand beyond the Industrial and Mixed Employment areas specified in the Metro 2040 land use designation map. Greater Vancouver Regional District - 88 RPA - 132 - As previously requested, Metro Vancouver requests that the goal should limit Port land acquisition to Metro 2040 Industrial lands or lands within the Urban Containment Boundary, and not allow for Port acquisition of ALR and/ or Metro 2040 Agricultural lands. 3.2 Port Plan Goal 2 - Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in ensuring the safe and efficient movement of port-related cargo, traffic and passengers throughout the region. The goal supports improving operational efficiencies through various means, including improving transportation corridors and infrastructure critical to a complete transportation network supporting goods movement for the Port. Specifically, this involves working closely with rail companies, port users, and industry, relating to all modes of transportation including transit. The goal addresses the need to minimize and mitigate potential impacts from port-related activities on other lands, which is consistent with Metro 2040. Additionally, Metro 2040 action 2.1.5 requests that agencies develop and operate transportation infrastructure that supports Metro 2040, and particularly for Industrial and Mixed Employment areas and port lands, while Strategy 5.2 advocates for active management of the existing and planned capacity of the road network and the demands put on it, specifically requesting that TransLink and agencies with transportation authority collaborate to support the safe and efficient movement of goods in the region. Metro 2040 action 5.2.8 requests agencies to protect rail rights-of-way and access points to navigable waterways. Metro 2040 actions 3.4.6 & 3.4.7 request collaboration with all le vels of governments to address climate change and natural hazard risks. As previously requested, Metro Vancouver requests that the goal should specify that the Port will work with other agencies to support a coordinated and efficient transportation system for the region consistent with Metro 2040 and TransLink's Regional Transportation Strategy. Further, the Port Land Use Plan should expand the references to safety and security and also address preparedness responses relating to climate change and natural disasters. 3.3 Port Plan Goal 3 - Port Metro Vancouver is a global leader among ports in the environmental stewardship of the lands and waters it manages. The goal seeks to establish a high standard for the environmental management of port lands and waters. The goal calls for working closely with other agencies, developing best practices and programs, and other means to support natural ecosystems, minimize adverse environmental impacts, and create or restore habitat as appropriate, as well as manage contaminated sites. Sustainable corporate practices are also promoted for the Port and its customers. The plan also references the need to reduce air emissions, including GHG intensity, and to promote energy conservation, which is also supported by the Metro 2040 and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. Metro 2040 action 3.3.8 requests that agencies maximize reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions and improve air quality in the transportation sector. As previously requested, Metro Vancouver requests that the port impacts included for consideration should cover not just environmental, but also human health impacts, and should target absolute reductions in air emission, GHG production, and energy use, not just intensity per Greater Vancouver Regional District - 89 RPA - 133 - unit reductions, which is directly relevant to proposed major projects such as Roberts Bank Terminal 2. 3.4 Port Plan Goal 4 - Port activity and development is a positive contributor to local communities and First Nations. This goal endeavors to balance national and local interests and to support positive economic impacts of the Port on local communities and First Nations. Specifically, the goal supports business activities relating to the Port and associated employment opportunities, provides waterfront access opportunities where appropriate, and minimizes the impacts from port operations and developments on local communities by engaging with land use authorities. This should include a formalized process for referral of local plans in support of consistency between plans, which is supported by Metro Vancouver. Additionally, Metro 2040 action 3.2.5 supports development of a connected Regional Recreational Greenway Network, and action 2.1.8 supports collaboration on a regional economic development strategy. As previously suggested, Metro Vancouver believes this goal is an opportunity to recognize “Experience the Fraser” in the Port’s Land Use Plan, supporting efforts to seek opportunities to integrate, interpret and communicate the environmental, heritage and industrial importance of the Fraser as a working river through secured public and recreational access along the Lower Fraser River. Further, the goal and objective could reinforce full integration among all relevant agencies to support overall ecological health and an enhanced ecosystem. 3.5 Port Plan Goal 5 - Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in communication and engagement in support of the use and development of port lands and waters. This goal supports engagement with the local community through a range of opportunities for consultation. Specifically this includes sharing information and consulting with stakeholders relating to port lands and waters. As previously requested, Metro Vancouver requests that the Port commit to consulting with local governments prior to acquiring new lands in order to ensure consistency with Metro 2040, municipal Official Community Plans and other land use plans. 4.0 Additional Policy Comments Additional comments relating to draft Port Land Use Plan policies are as follows: • Cruise Ship Terminal: Port Plan policy 5.4.5 addresses cruise ships, and references Ballantyne Pier as being proposed for closure and re-purposing to other uses. This future alternative use could be better explained. • Coal Transportation: Port Plan policy 5.5.2 references anticipated increases in coal exports. From an ecological health perspective, Metro Vancouver has concerns about the increase of coal exports in terms of the air pollution that occurs from coal dust. The Metro Vancouver Board on June 14, 2013, requested detailed information about coal handling infrastructure, support for the inclusion of health impact assessment for coal infrastructure, and expressed opposition to coal shipments from Fraser River Estuary other than the existing Roberts Bank coal port. Greater Vancouver Regional District - 90 RPA - 134 - • • • • Petroleum: Port Plan policy 5.5.5 references cursorily petroleum product demand and anticipated significant growth. A major concern with regards to petroleum is the associated significant increase of tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet, and potential impacts and risks. This should be more fully addressed in the Port Land Use Plan. FREMP Coding Map: The Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) established habitat coding for shorelines last updated in 2005. The Port Figure 19 Habitat Coding map identifies a n umber of areas as red coded habitat, yet these areas are designated on the Port Land Use Plan as Port Terminal, Log Storage and Barge Moorage, which are not apparently compatible. Habitat Compensation Sites: Habitat compensation sites are not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in such a land use plan. It is not clear if they are located exclusively on lands within the Port’s jurisdiction, and further, such habitat compensation programs require collaboration among different authorities and landowners. Further, the Port Figure 20 Habitat Compensation Sites map is not clear as to if these are sites that have already received habitat compensation or enhancements, or are proposed for future potential inclusion in such a program. Public Recreational Opportunities and Waterfront Access: There is an important need to clarify how the Port will deliver Objective 4.2 and provide integrated planning and the delivery of public recreation and waterfront access. It is recommended that Objective 4.2 be amended to read: “Ensure public recreational opportunities and waterfront access are provided within the Port in a manner compatible and integrated with local government initiatives and Port activities while contributing to the overall ecological health of the region.” 5.0 Port Land Use Plan Mapping Comments It is critical that the proposed Port designations be in line and integrated with Metro 2040. Detailed mapping comments were provided in 2013. Rather than re-stating all these points, Metro Vancouver reiterates comments previously provided, and requests that these be again considered for incorporation into the final Port Land Use Plan. Particularly, please note the following items with regards to land use mapping: • Define the Shoreline: There exist numerous instances where the Port marine designation encroaches on the foreshore and Metro 2040 land designations, and vice-versa. Having a consistent shoreline boundary which is updated from time to time will be beneficial to Port Metro Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, municipalities, and other parties so that designations and land and marine uses can be referenced from a common base. As part of the update to the Port’s designations, we suggest that the Port prepare an updated shoreline boundary pertaining to its jurisdiction, and ideally for the entire Metro Vancouver region, to resolve these mapping discrepancies. • Coordinate Marine and Land Use Designations: Coordinate port marine and land use designations to complement upland designations with waterfront uses. • Regional Parks: Identify and label all Regional Parks and Greenways on the Port Land Use Plan for reference and to assist with coordinating land uses, particularly for upland areas which inform the adjacent water lot designations. • Detailed Parkland Designations: See Attachments 1 & 2 for detailed designation comments. Greater Vancouver Regional District - 91 RPA - 135 - • • • Log Storage and Barge Moorage Designation: Where such log storage and barge moorage activities occur on waters adjacent to lands, the amount of associated lands designated as such should be limited and not extend significantly upland. Annacis Island Site: On the north-eastern part of Annacis Island on the west side of Derwent Way, there appears to be a site approximately 4 acres in size which is designated in Metro 2040 as ‘Industrial’, however identified in the Port Land Use Plan as ‘Commercial’. Industrial designated lands do not allow for such forms of non-accessory commercial type uses. Special Study Areas: The Port should articulate the regional land use planning rationale for designating the six special study areas as such (i.e., four sites in Richmond with a RGS Agricultural designation, one site in Vancouver RGS General Urban, and one site in Pitt Meadows RGS Agricultural). The Port should also specify the process to identify and consult on any proposals to re-designate these sites. Greater Vancouver Regional District - 92 RPA - 136 - Attachment 2 Metro Vancouver Mapping Comments of Port Land Use Plan Municipality Anmore and Belcarra Regional Park or Greenway of Interest Belcarra Regional Park District of North Vancouver and Provincial Land Langley Township Thwaytes Landing Regional Park Derby Reach Regional Park Notes and Comments • Entire park shoreline to be designated recreation, especially the west side of Bedwell Bay and waterfront at the picnic grounds. • Waters in bay fronting the landing at Thwaytes (caretaker and wharf facilities) to be designated recreation. • • • New Westminster Maple Ridge North Vancouver District Pitt Meadows Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway Kanaka Creek Regional Park Seymour River Regional Greenway Pitt River Regional Greenway • Extend the Conservation designation along park frontage on Fraser River at Cumberland Point. • Area along waterfront of Kanaka Creek Regional Park to be Conservation designation. Change the designation on the land immediately on the east side of Seymour River estuary which is currently designated Industrial to a Recreation designation. • • • Electoral Area A Barnston Island Regional Park Include Conservation designation on section of western waterfront parklands. Include Recreation designation along waterfront adjacent to the campground facilities. Include Conservation designation along entire eastern park waterfront portion to park boundary (to PMV jurisdictional boundary). • • • Change waterfront along the greenway on the east side of the Pitt River be designated as Conservation to be continuous (save for a few industrial exceptions) through to Pitt Lake as the working boundary of the greenway extends to connect with the Provincial lands at Pitt Lake. Note: Metro Vancouver has specifically acquired lands outside of the dike for conservation purposes. Ensure that there is a Recreation Designation at Mann Point which provides +/-200m wide clear route for recreational craft access to park (funnel shape). Due to shallow water the area east of Mann Point is not suitable for log storage. Label west end of Barnston Island as Robert Point (NOT a regional park). Greater Vancouver Regional District - 93 RPA - 137 - 123°1'0"W 123°0'30"W 123°0'0"W 122°59'30"W 122°59'0"W 122°58'30"W Attachment 3 122°58'0"W 49°19'30"N 123°1'30"W Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks SEYMOUR RIVER REGIONAL GREENWAY (PLANNED) 49°19'0"N (Map 1 of 6) LE G E N D Regional Park Regional Greenways: Operational Planned Seymour River Regional Greenway (Planned) Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Recreation 49°18'30"N Conservation All other categories Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation Suggested Conservation 0 2.5 5 10 15 Km 49°18'0"N Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 KEY Recreation District of West Vancouver ´ 1: 15,000 MAP District of North Vancouver Village of Anmoreof Village Belcarra City of Port Moody City of Vancouver City of Burnaby 49°17'30"N City of Coquitlam Greater Vancouver Regional District - 94 RPA - 138 - Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°57'0"W 122°56'30"W 122°56'0"W 122°55'30"W 122°55'0"W 122°54'30"W 122°54'0"W 122°53'30"W 122°53'0"W 122°52'30"W 122°52'0"W 122°51'30"W 122°51'0"W 122°50'30"W 49°20'30"N Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review Recreation Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks BELCARRA REGIONAL PARK 49°20'0"N (Map 2 of 6) LE G E N D Regional Park Recreation Regional Greenways: Operational 49°19'30"N Planned Recreation Recreation Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Recreation Conservation 49°19'0"N All other categories Belcarra Regional Park Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation Suggested Conservation 0.7 1.05 Km Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 Recreation KEY District of North Vancouver 49°18'0"N 49°18'30"N 0 0.1750.35 Village of Belcarra ´ 1: 25,000 MAP Village of Anmore City of Coquitlam City of Burnaby City of Port Moody Distric Pitt Mea 49°17'30"N City of Coquitlam Greater Vancouver Regional District - 95 RPA - 139 - Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°54'0"W 122°53'30"W 122°53'0"W 49°23'0"N Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks THWAYTES LANDING REGIONAL PARK (Map 3 of 6) LE G E N D Regional Park Regional Greenways: Operational Planned Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Recreation Thwaytes Landing Regional Park Conservation All other categories Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation Suggested Conservation 0 2.5 5 10 Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 KEY Recreation 49°22'30"N District of North Vancouver Village of Belcarra City of Vancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District - 96 RPA - 140 - City of Burnaby ´ 15 Km 1: 5,000 MAP Village of Anmore City of Coquitlam Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°47'0"W 122°46'30"W 122°46'0"W 122°45'30"W 122°45'0"W 122°44'30"W 122°44'0"W 122°43'30"W 122°43'0"W 122°42'30"W 122°42'0"W 122°41'30"W 122°41'0"W 122°40'30"W 122°40'0"W 122°39'30"W 122°39'0"W 122°38'30"W 49°17'0"N 122°47'30"W Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review 49°16'30"N Conservation Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks 49°16'0"N PITT RIVER REGIONAL GREENWAY (Map 4a of 6) 49°15'30"N LE G E N D Regional Park Conservation Regional Greenways: Operational 49°15'0"N Planned Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Conservation Conservation 49°14'30"N 49°14'0"N Recreation All other categories Colony Farm Regional Park Conservation Pitt River Regional Greenway Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation 49°13'0"N 49°13'30"N 0 0.25 0.5 1 49°12'30"N 1.5 Km Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 KEY Fraser Islands Conservation Regional Park Reserve 1: 37,000 MAP City of Coquitlam City of Port Coquitlam Barnston Island Surrey Bend Regional Park Regional Park City of Pitt Meadows District of Maple Ridge Conservation 49°12'0"N ´ Suggested Conservation City of Surrey Conservation Greater Vancouver Regional District - 97 RPA - 141 - Derby Reach Regional Park Township of Langley Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°44'30"W 122°44'0"W 122°43'30"W 122°43'0"W 122°42'30"W 122°42'0"W 122°41'30"W 122°41'0"W 122°40'30"W 122°40'0"W 122°39'30"W 122°39'0"W 122°38'30"W 122°38'0"W 122°37'30"W 122°37'0"W 122°36'30"W 122°36'0"W 122°35'30"W Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review 49°21'0"N 122°45'0"W Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve 49°20'30"N Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks PITT RIVER REGIONAL GREENWAY (PLANNED) 49°20'0"N (Map 4b of 6) LE G E N D Regional Park 49°19'30"N Regional Greenways: Operational Planned Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): 49°19'0"N Recreation Conservation All other categories 49°18'30"N Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation 49°18'0"N Pitt River Regional Greenway (Planned) 0 0.25 0.5 49°17'30"N 1 1.5 Km Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 Minnekhada Regional Park 49°17'0"N ´ Suggested Conservation KEY 1: 37,000 MAP Village of Anmore Conservation City of Coquitlam Conservation City of Port Coquitlam City of Pitt Meadows 49°16'30"N District of Maple Ridge Codd Wetland Ecological Conservancy Area Greater Vancouver Regional District - 98 RPA - 142 - Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°44'0"W 122°43'30"W 122°43'0"W 122°42'30"W 122°42'0"W 122°41'30"W 122°41'0"W 122°40'30"W 122°40'0"W 122°39'30"W Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review Conservation Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks Conservation 49°12'30"N Pitt River Regional Greenway BARNSTON ISLAND REGIONAL PARK (Map 5 of 6) LE G EN D 49°12'0"N Conservation Suggested change to Port Water designation to allow access to Recreation area Regional Park Regional Greenways: Operational Planned Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Surrey Bend Regional Park Recreation Conservation Barnston Island Regional Park All other categories 49°11'30"N Recreation Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation Suggested Conservation 0 2.5 5 10 Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 K EY 1: 18,000 MAP 49°11'0"N City of Port Coquitlam City of Pitt Meadows City of Surrey 49°10'30"N ´ 15 Km Greater Vancouver Regional District - 99 RPA - 143 - District of Maple Ridge Township of Langley Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 122°38'0"W 122°37'30"W 122°37'0"W 122°36'30"W 122°36'0"W 122°35'30"W 122°35'0"W Port Metro Vancouver Phase 4 Land Use Plan Update Review 49°13'0"N 122°38'30"W Submitted Comments from Metro Vancouver for Regional Parks DERBY REACH REGIONAL PARK and KANAKA CREEK REGIONAL PARK (Map 6 of 6) LE G EN D 49°12'30"N Conservation Regional Park Kanaka Creek Regional Park Regional Greenways: Operational Planned Port Metro Vancouver Designations (as of Feb 2014): Recreation Derby Reach Regional Park Conservation Conservation 49°12'0"N All other categories Suggested Revisions to Designations by Metro Vancouver: Suggested Recreation Suggested Conservation 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Projection: UTM Zone 10 NAD 1983 K EY 49°11'30"N City of Port Coquitlam City of Surrey 8715059 / 9134415 Greater Vancouver Regional District - 100 RPA - 144 - City of Pitt Meadows ´ 0.45 Km 1: 14,000 MAP District of Maple Ridge Township of Langley Produced by: Metro Vancouver Planning, Policy & Environment February 20, 2014 5.5 Attachment 2 PORT METRO Vancouver May 5. 2014 Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8 Dear Members of the Transportation Committee: Re: Clari?cation of Items from Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Discussion I am writing in response to the Transportation Committee's recent discussion resulting from Port Metro Vancouver's Land Use Plan item at the last committee meeting on Thursday April 10, 2014. Although we will be sending a detailed response to the of?cial Metro Vancouver comments once we have reviewed all of the consultation input. I would like to clarify a few points which were raised during the Committee's discussion. First of all, we appreciate the Committee taking the time to review Port Metro Vancouver's draft Land Use Plan as part of the formal consultation process. Metro Vancouver staff have been engaged in the Land Use Plan update process since we began our ?rst phase of consultation in 2012. This is the ?nal phase of consultation on the draft Plan, and we are now beginning the process of analyzing all the input received and considering which changes could be made to the draft as a result of the consultation. Metro Vancouver's comments will be considered as part of this process. Over the next few months, we will release a consultation summary report and a Consideration Memo to respond to public comments. In addition, we will respond separately to each agency's formal submission. We expect to submit the ?nal Plan to Port Metro Vancouver's Board for approval in the fall. In regards to your comments about the special study area designation, there are six parcels of land designated as special study areas in the draft Plan. This includes the referenced sites in Richmond as well as other sites along the Dollarton Highway, at Roberts Bank and in downtown Vancouver. The designation of ?special study area" means that the associated sites require additional study, planning and consultation to determine their future use through a Land Use Plan amendment. Until that process is completed, the current uses remain unchanged. Secondiy, I would like to provide more information about short-sea shipping, which is already being used across the Ports jurisdiction where feasible. In fact, DP World in the Burrard Inlet currently uses short-sea shipping in its operations. Short-sea shipping is market-driven, and the challenge is that it is difficult to make a strong business case for it in our region. Finally, I would like to respond to a concem raised about the Board of Port Metro Vancouver. As a non-shareholder, ?nancially se f?suf?cient corporation established under Canada Marine Act (CMA) legislative authority, Port Metro Vancouver's Board of Directors is appointed by the 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6C 3T4 portmetrovancouvencom I 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, Canada VSC 3T4 Canad? RPA 145 Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee Page 2 May 5, 2014 Minister of Transportation to provide strategic and policy direction. The Board does not make individual permitting decisions. The Board delegates authority for individual pennitting decisions to Port Metro Vancouver senior management, which are guided by, and fully compliant with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canada Marine Act. The Canada Marine Act also requires Board Members to be independent of the Port Authority, meaning that they cannot be ?users of the port" or associated with a terminal - rather, they must be free from any relationship that might interfere with the exercise of their independent judgement as a director. On an annual basis, the Board of Directors and Executives acknowledge in writing that they have read and understood the organization's Code of Conduct (Schedule of Vancouver Fraser Port Authority?s (VFPA's) Letters Patent. This Code establishes clear conflict of interest rules and Board Members must disclose any potential or real con?icts of interest. I wouid like to once again thank Metro Vancouver for their input on the Land Use Plan update process. We welcome opportunities to continue working closely with you on areas of shared interest. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions about any port-related matters. Yours truly, PORT METRO VANCOUVER Robin Silvester President and Chief Executive Officer cc: Mayor Greg Moore. Metro Vancouver Chair RPA 146 5.5 Attachment 3 March 17, 2014 File: 0430-01 Robin Silvester President and Chief Executive Officer Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe 999 Canada Place Way Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Dear Robin Silvester, Re: Final Consultation for Port Metro Vancouver’s Draft Land Use Plan At its Regular meeting of March 10, 2014, Belcarra Council passed a resolution to request that Port Metro Vancouver amend its Draft Land Use Plan by: 1. including reference to the “Village of Belcarra” in the area identified as Planning Area 3 (Indian Arm); and 2. adding under Goal 3 “Objective 3.4 - Protect the sensitive marine and estuarine environments by ensuring that effective protective emergency response plans (ERPs) are established, managed, and maintained.” If you have any questions or concerns about the foregoing, please feel free to contact me at (604) 937-4101 or lfloyd@belcarra.ca. Sincerely, Lynda Floyd Chief Administrative Officer \\belcarraserver\shared\files sk\word\letters\2014 letters\council related correspondence\2014 03 17 to pmv re draft land use plan.docx RPA - 147 - 5.2 COUNCIL REPORT File: Date: March 6, 2014 From: Lynda Floyd, Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Consultation Recommendation for Consideration: That Port Metro Vancouver be requested to amend its Land Use Plan by: 1. including reference to the “Village of Belcarra” in the area identified as Planning Area 3 (Indian Arm); and 2. adding under Goal 3 “Objective 3.4 - Protect the sensitive marine and estuarine environments by ensuring that effective protective emergency response plans (ERPs) are established and managed.” Purpose: To seek Council’s concurrence on proposed amendments to the Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan. Background: Council received a copy of Port Metro Vancouver’s draft Land Use Plan document at its February 17, 2014 meeting. Port Metro Vancouver is conducting public consultation on the document February 10 through to April 13, 2014. Upon reviewing the draft plan, the commentary for Planning Area 3 (Indian Arm) references the District of North Vancouver, Electoral Area ‘A’, and Tsleil-Waututh Nation reserve lands, and does not reference the Village of Belcarra. With respect to GOAL 3: “Port Metro Vancouver is a global leader among ports in the environmental stewardship of the lands and waters it manages”, it is suggested that Belcarra propose an additional objective under Goal 3: “Objective 3.4 – Protect the sensitive marine and estuarine environments by ensuring that effective protective emergency response plans (ERPs) are established and managed.” Alternatives: None suggested. J:\Files SK\Word\Council Meetings\Agenda\Agenda 2014\2014 03 10\RTC Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Consultation (5.3).docx 20 RPA - 148 - BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY May 9, 2014 Sent via email to: Greg Yeomans Acting Director, Planning and Development Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC, V6C 3T4 Dear Mr. Yeomans: Subject: Port Metro Vancouver Draft Land Use Plan We have taken the opportunity to review the Port Metro Vancouver Draft Land Use Plan to Bowen Island Municipality. In reviewing the draft Plan, there do not appear to be any issues of concern to Bowen Island Municipality. We do note with interest, Port Metro Vancouver's involvement in the Fraser River Improvement Initiative. We appreciate and support any assistance that Port Metro Vancouver can provide to Bowen Island Municipality in addressing derelict and problem vessels and structures. Over the past two years Bowen Island Municipality has focused efforts towards addressing the issue of problem vessels and structures within our area of Howe Sound. Through this initiative we have compiled information and strategies that are enabling us to address these issues. Extensive inventories have been conducted which included GIS data collection and photographic evidence of all problem vessel and floating structures. We are willing to discuss our findings in order to assist in positive results related to the Fraser River Improvement Initiative. We look forward to hearing from you and sharing information with the Fraser River Improvement Initiative. Chief Administrative Officer Bowen Island Municipality 0 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC, VON 162 0 TEL: 604-947-4255 9 FAX: 604-947-0193 0 0 e-mail: bim@bimbc.ca 0 website: 9 RPA 149 Froser River Improvement Initiative, Port Metro Vancouver En'cAderneck, Senior Hegionoi Pionner, Metro Vancouver Judy McLeod, Bowen Isiond Municipo?ty Controct Pionner Annie Dempster, Bowen isiond Mun:'cipoh'ty Island Community Pionner Bonny Brokenshire, Bowen islond Municipoiity Senior Bylow Services Of?cer 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC, VON 1G2 TEL: 604-94?-4255 0 e?mai : bim@bImbc.ca 0 website: RPA 150 - 2014 April 29 ,3 9 CITY OF BURNABY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR DEREK R. MAYOR FILE: 90500~Ol Chair and Members Port Metro Vancouver lO0 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Dear Chair and Members: Subject: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update (Item No. Ol, Manager?s Reports, Council 2014 April 28) Burnaby City Council, at the Open Council meeting held on 2014 April 28, received a report in response to your draft Land Use Plan and adopted the following recommendations contained therein: l. Council request that Port Metro Vancouver amend the land use designations shown for Burnaby, in the Port?s draft Land Use Plan, to the designations presented in this report which reflect existing City and Metro Vancouver land and water use designations and community planning directions. THAT a copy of this report be sent to: Port Metro Vancouver; Burnaby?s and The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Federal Minister ol'Transport; and Metro Vancouver Board of Directors THAT this report be forwarded to the Community Development Committee, Environment Committee and Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission for inforniation purposes." In accordance with recommendation No. 2, a copy of the report is Your consideration of our request is important and appreciated. Yours truly, %raA Derek R. Corrigz A ll 3* 32;; tall Einrn tin?, & •i'! 'K^ 7^^ Jo) l,^ 2>^ CITY OF PORT MOODY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR April?, 2014 Mr. Greg Yeomans, Manager of Planning Planning & Development Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe - 999 Canada Place Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3T4 File No. 0430-45-2013 Dear Mr. Yeomans: Re: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update - Phase 4 Consultation On March 25, 2014, Port Moody City Council considered a report from Development Services regarding the Land Use Plan dated December 2013 and the Discussion Guide for the Final Phase of the Land Use Plan Update and Consultation and passed the following resolution, which are submitted here as feedback to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration: "THAT a letter be sent from the Mayor to Port Metro Vancouver including the comments and recommended changes to Port Metro Vancouver's draft Land Use Plan as outlined in the Development Services report dated March 12, 2014 as part of the Phase 4 consultation." Specific comments and recommendations contained within the Development Services report and endorsed by Council are outlined below: 1. Resubmitting the policy related comments not addressed as part of the latest draft LUP (Goal 4, Goal 5, Policy Direction 3.1.4, Policy Direction 3.3.4), as specified in the table below; Proposed Goal, Objective or Policy Direction Port Moody Comments I Requested Changes for Phase 3 Port Moody Comments/ Requested Changes for Phase 4 Document 267350 100 Newport Drive, Port Moody, B.C. V3H 3E1 Telephone: 604.469.4515 Fax: 604.469.4664 RPA - 219 - Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update - Phase 4 Consultation April 07, 2014 No changes were made to the Land Use Plan goal Goal 4 (P 41) Port activity and development is a positive contributor to local communities and First Nations Proposed Goal, Objective or Policy Direction No. & Page Goal 5 (p43) Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in communications and engagement in support of the use and development of port lands and waters Support a transparent and mutually beneficial relationship with the Port Vancouver for consideration Port Moody Comments / Requested Changes for Phase 3 Support more and effective consultation and collaboration with stakeholders by the Port Collaborate with environmental Policy Direction 314 (P 40) agencies, local governments, First Nations and stakeholders to monitor and protect critical terrestrial, marine and estuanne environments Recommendation Resubmit comments to Port Metro Port Moody Comments/ Requested Changes for Phase 4 No changes were made to the Land Use Plan goal Recommendation Resubmit comments to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration No changes were made to the Land Use Plan policy direction Support collaborative environmental protection initiatives Recommendation Resubmit comments to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration No changes were made to the Land Use Policy Direction Pursue removal of derelict structures and vessels that pose a 334 hazard to safety and/or the (P 40) environment Support removal to eliminate pollution from certain anchored vessels Plan policy direction Recommendation Resubmit comments to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration 2. Requesting a land use designation change from "Port Terminal" to "Port Water" for the waters surrounding the Mill and Timber site, as shown as area "A" in Attachment 1 and discussed below: • The City has received indication from the owner of the Mill & Timber waterfront site that they will likely seek to redevelop this land under a different use within the lifetime of the Port's Land Use Plan Accordingly, the City's current Official Community Plan update process proposes a redesignation of this site from General Industrial to Oceanfront District which contemplates the potential development of a mix of residential, commercial, marina, light industrial, institutional and public open spaces The Port's draft land use designation for this site remains "Port Terminal", which is a primary shipping and transportation use The City recommends a redesignation of the Port's waters surrounding this site to align with the expected future land use. The "Port Water" designation which is used adjacent to residential and commercial mixed use elsewhere in the Port's Plan is recommended As part of the City's OCP update underway, transit-oriented development has been identified as a community goal Mixed use redevelopment at this location is consistent with this goal given the site's location within 400-800m of one of the new Evergreen Line stations 2 RPA - 220 - Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update - Phase 4 Consultation April 07, 2014 3.Requesting a land use designation change from "Port Terminal" to "Port Water" for the water side of the C-2 zoned IOCO lands, as shown in area "B" in Attachment 1 and discussed below: •The extent of the Port Terminal designation at the IOCO lands does not correspond with the upland future land use and zoning The site is primarily designated General Industrial in the OCP and zoned M-1 Industrial in accordance with the GVRD Bylaw No 511. However, the land adjacent the existing marina is designated Commercial Mixed Use and currently zoned C-2 Marina The City remains of the opinion that this most eastern portion of the IOCO lands should be redesignated to "Port Water" in recognition of the foreshore use and existing marina. 4.Requesting a land use designation change from "Port Water" to "Conservation" for tidal flats area between Rocky Point boat launch and Old Orchard beach, as shown in area "C" in Attachment 1. •In 2002 the City of Port Moody acquired stewardship of the tidal flats from the Vancouver Port Authority The tidal flats encompass a 33 6 hectare (83 03 acres) area between Rocky Point boat launch north towards Old Orchard beach and effectively join the shoreline parks together into one large protected area The environmentally sensitive tidal flats are home to several species of marine creatures, birds, animals and fish, and several important salmon-bearing streams flow into the flats The LUP identifies this area as "Port Water", but due to its environmental significance and sensitivity the City recommends a land use designation change to "Conservation". 5.Requesting incorporation of the watercourses identified in the Port Moody ESA Strategy (2003) and Map 17: Named Watercourses of the Port Moody DRAFT OCP (March 2014) and the inclusion of new policy to monitor development near where significant watercourses meet the tide of the Inlet, as shown in Attachment 2. •The City has a number of fish bearing watercourses that flow into Burrard Inlet These watercourses provide critical spawning and rearing habitat for a variety of species including coho, chum, chmook, and pink salmon, as well as rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout Fish populations are sensitive to land use changes within their watersheds Watercourses have been inventoried, mapped and assessed as part of the ESA Strategy completed in 2003 As such, the City recommends that the Port incorporate the City of Port Moody's draft Official Community Plan, Map 17: Named Watercourses into their mapping system and establish policy that will monitor development near where significant watercourses meet the tide of the Inlet 3 RPA - 221 - Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update - Phase 4 Consultation April 07, 2014 The City of Port Moody recommends that the above comments be considered by Port Metro Vancouver as part of the Phase 4 consultation and feedback Yours truly, M E (Mike) Clay, Mayor City of Port Moody End Attachment 1 Recommended Changes to Land Use Designations Attachment 2 Map 17 Named Watercourses (City of Port Moody's DRAFT OCP) RPA - 222 - Recommended Changes to Land Use Designations .CARRA tkHlwcy, 'ftivem wood A—from "Port Terminal" to "Port Water B—from "Port Terminal" to "Port Water C—from "Port Water" to "Conservation IQGO Tmhercifsi or Legend (1) Burrard South Shore (2) Burrard North Shore (3) Indian Arm (4) Fraser Inland (5) Fraser River Central O (6) Roberts Bank (7) Fraser River Arms Land Use Designations Snmel Murine Perk PETRO^ANADA (BURRAHD PRODUCTS TEf 0acnetvV">l PACIFIC COASTiSTERMINAL 'let Rd naby Mountain servalion Area U Port Terminal Industrial :rnaby Duntain Park Simon Fraser. Universily / ^crs'W % so Q Angela Or ® ivay CUirk'-' St Clarke St St Joltiis St Na/ieeno iby Moumpin t'km It Johns St El Commercial Log Storage H] Port Water Q Recreation D Conservation ¦ Special Study Area Other Features D Habitat Compensation Area Marine Terminal Locations Head Lease Boundary Port Jurisdictional Boundary RPA - 223 - Official Community ^lan NAMED WATERCOURSES' MAP 17/ f/ SASAIV1AT LAKE IBEDWELL" ""rar— ^Creek Wetlands OAVID-1—AVENUE" N Stream / Creek N Culvert Ditch N Other Water Features 1 ^Sfaughterhpusu- \Creek ,// NOTE: The stream/creek, culverts, ditches, and other water features shown on this map shall be used only as a guideline. 'murray=street7^====== :CUARKE^STRt ST.-rJOHNSrSTREET- City of the Arts RPA - 224 - erbrook Creek 99 Attachment 6.8 City of Port Moody Report/Recommendation to Council Date:March 12,2014File No. 01-0430-45-2013 Submitted by: Development Services - Planning Subject:Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update Purpose To provide feedback to Port Metro Vancouver on their updated Land Use Plan as part of Phase 4 consultations. Background The four-phase process to update Port Metro Vancouver's Land Use Plan (LUP) is coming to an end with Phase 4 consultations closing on April 13, 2014. The renewed LUP will provide a framework to guide the physical development of Port Metro Vancouver's lands and waters over the next 15 to 20 years. The new Plan includes updated land and water designation for areas within the Port's jurisdiction. These updated designations reflect the current and intended uses for each site under the Port's jurisdiction, as well as environmental and other factors specific to each site. The Plan development and consultation process undertaken by Port Metro Vancouver is intended to: reflect current best practices; be aligned with the Port's mission and vision; and incorporate social, environmental and economic values critical to successful planning. Phase 3 Consultation Summary During the Phase 3 consultation with participating local governments, there was discussion on. the collaboration and interface with municipal plans. A number of Phase 3 participants were concerned about the potential for competing or non-compatible land uses at the interface between neighbourhoods and port lands. In order to reduce or avoid land use conflicts, and the potential impacts land use uncertainty can have on business investment and development, participants requested that the Port's Land Use Plan take into consideration the guidance provided by neighbouring local government and First Nation plans. Participants were concerned also about the region's ability to work together to protect the industrial land base and the potential for the Port to acquire new lands for port-related uses. Several municipal participants suggested the Regional Growth Strategy should guide where industrial development should happen. Others thought it did not do enough to protect industrial lands. In order to reduce potential conflicts between municipal and port land uses, it was suggested that the Port should develop guidelines that address building design, setbacks, landscaping and other factors to guide industrial development and address impacts on adjacent communities and natural areas. RPA - 225 - Document: 263892 . 100 Attachment 6.8 ReportlRecommendation to Council . Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update March 12, 2014 Analysis Phase 4 of the consultation process (February April, 2014) includes further review and comment on the draft Land Use Plan dated December 2013 (Attachment 1). The land use designations in this plan version have_ been updated based on current uses and development patterns, expected growth, and input provided in earlier phases of consultation. Attachment 2 is the Discussion Guide forthe Final Phase of the Land Use Plan Update and Consultation. Port Moody is located within the Port?s Planning Area 1: Burrard lnlet/South Shore (Attachment 3). The LUP notes that within Area 1 there will be continued growth of port-related uses in all commodity sectors on the South Shore, particularly in container, dry bulk and liquid bulk, and industrial uses. Further intensification of port-related industrial uses on existing sites in Area 1 is likely. The LUP also notes that the close proximity. of residential areas to port?related activities and conversion of former industrial lands to non-industriai uses in Area 1 creates the potential for conflicts between port?related and non?industrial uses. At theJuly 23, 2013 Regular Meeting of Councii, a number of motions were passed as part of the Phase 3 consultation on Port Metro Vancouver?s draft LUP (Attachment 4). These motions were forwarded to Port Metro Vancouver and included a number of comments/requested changes with respect to the goals, objectives and policy directions as well as thedraft land use designations. The following changes have since been made to the Port?s land use designations as a result of the site specific concerns outlined in the July 23, 2013 minutes: a The public boat launch area at Rocky Point Park has been redesignated to ?Recreation?, from ?Conservation?. In addition to the City?s site specific recommendation for redesignation of the area surrounding the boat launch and clock, the remainder of Rocky Point Park as well as Shoreline and Old Orchard Parks have also been redesignated from ?Conservation? to ?Recreation?. The ?Recreation? designation is consistent with the current use of these areas for public park and recreation areas. - The ?Conservation? area on the north side of the Inlet has been revised such that the water side now follows a natural boundary and has been expanded to include where Mossom Creek, a significant watercourse, meets the tide of the Inlet. The above changes to the draft LUP land use designations are referenced in Attachment 5. Comments provided to the Port which were not considered as part of the updates to Land Use Plan include the following: A The City has received indication from the owner of the Mill Timber waterfront site that they will likely seek to redevelop this land under a different use within the lifetime of the Port?s Land Use Plan. Accordingly, the City?s current Official Community Plan update process proposes a redesignation of this site from General Industrial to Oceanfront 1 District which contemplates the potential development of a mix of residential, commercial, marina, light industrial, institutional and public open spaces. The Port?s draft land use designation for this site remains "Port Terminal?, which is a primary shipping and transportation use. Staff recommended a redesignation of the Port?s waters RPA 226 101 ReportIRecommendation to Council Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update. March 12, 2014 Attachment 6.8 surrounding this site to align with the expected future land use. The ?Port Water? designation which is used adjacent to residential and commercial mixed use elsewhere in the Port?s Plan was recommended. As part of the City?s OCP update underway, transit?oriented development has been identified as a community goal. Mixed use redevelopment at this location is consistent with this goal given the site?s location within 400?800m of one of the new Evergreen Line stations. - The extent of the Port Terminal designation at the IOCO lands does not correspond with the upland future land use and zoning. The site is primarily designated General industrial in the OCP and zoned Industrial in accordance with the GVRD Bylaw No. 511. However, the land adjacent the existing marina is designated Commercial Mixed Use and currently zoned C-2 Marina. Staff remains of the opinion that this most eastern portion of the IOCO lands should be redesignated to ?Port Water? in recognition of the foreshore use and existing marina. These areas are referenced as areas and as shown in Attachment 6. Staff recommends that the above comments be resubmitted to Port Metro Vancouver as part of the Phase 4 consultation and feedback. The goals and objectives of the updated LUP are included as Attachment 7. The table included in the July report to Council and letter submitted to the Port has been updated, below, to include a fourth column that outlines the status of previous comments and recommended changes to goals, and objectives which could be submitted as feedback to the Port at this time. Port activity and development is a Support a transparent and mutualiy No changes were made to the Land Use Plan goal. Goal 4 . . . (p 41) beneficial relationship with the Port. Recommendation; Resubmit comments to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration Port Metro Vancouver is a leader 2'0 Chan?les were made to the Land Use Goa? 5 in communications and Support more and effective. . an 908' um? Resubmit comments to Port Metro Waters? Vancouver for consideration Coiiaborate with environmentai No onengee were made to me Land use Policy agencies, iocai governments, First . Pian policy direction Direction Nations and stakeholders to Support collaborative environmental 3.1.4 monitor and protect critical protection initiatives. Recommendation; (p 40) terrestrial, marine and estuarine Resubmit comments to Port Metro environments. Vancouver for consideration No changes were made to the Land Use Policy Pursue removai of derelict . . Pian poiicy direction. Support removal to eiiminate Direction structures and vesseis that pose a pollution from Certain anchored . 3.3.4 hazard to safety and/or the vessels Recommendation: (p 40) environment. Resubmit comments to Port Metro Vancouver for consideration RPA 227 102 ReportlRe-commendation to Council Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Pian Update March 12, 2014 Attachment 6.8 Requested Changes: Changes were made to the policy Direction . . agencies to ensure appropriate, 2.3.3 strengthen established_emergency emergency and Coordinated emergency and post and post?emergency response post?emergency response plans for . (emergency response pians are in piace plans for incidents originating in incidents originating \_iv_:_t_hin the port_s_ . . . the port or directly impacting port jurisdiction or directly impacting port an.d.req.u1ar.lV reviewed for. incidents operations. operations are in place." .0ngma.tmg In the pod direct? impacting port operations." Vague policy statement and does it Owes were made to the Policy be amended to: direction as follows: Direction "Enciaqe with local qovernments First 4,3.4 Consider applicable plans of ?Consult with municipalities, First . (p42) other agencies when developing land use plans and relevant policies F0. mate? when developing Port plans and strategies. when developing Port plans and Updating Port Land Use Piana? strategies?. Request changes: Changes were made to the policy Policy Manage private recreational dock "Manage private and pubiic Direction development in a manner that recreational dock deveiopment in a "Manage recreational dock development 423 protects the environment and manner that protects the I in a manner that protects the environment (D42) suppo?sthepubhcuseand andsupponsthepub?cuseand enjoyment of foreshore and use, safety and enjoyment of enjoyment of foreshore and intertidal intertidai areas accessible within foreshore and inteitidal areas areas accessibie within their A their communities accessible within their communities.? communities.? in addition to the above recommendations, the following land use designation changes could be considered by Council as additional feedback to the Port: 1) in 2002 the City of Port Moody acquired stewardship of the tidal flats from the Vancouver Port Authority. The tidal flats encompass a 33.6 hectare (83.03 acres) area between Rocky Point boat launch north towards Old Orchard beach and effectively join the shoreline parks together into one large protected area. The environmentally sensitive tidal flats are home to several species of marine creatures, birds, animals and fish, and several important salmon-bearing streams flow into the flats. The LUP identifies this area as ?Port Water?, but due to its environmental significance and sensitivity staff recommends a land use designation change to ?Conservation?. This area is referenced as area as shown in Attachment 6. 2) The City has a number of fish bearing watercourses that flow into the mouth of the Burrard lnlet. These watercourses provide critical spawning and rearing habitat for a variety of species including coho, chum, chinook, and pink salmon, as well as rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout. Fish populations are sensitive to land use changes within their watersheds. Watercourses have been inventoried, mapped and assessed as part of the ESA Strategy completed in 2003. As such, staff recommends that the Port incorporate the City of Port Moody?s draft Official Community Plan, Map 17: Named RPA 228 103 Attachment 6.8 ReportIRecommendation to Council Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update March 12, 2014 Watercourses (Attachment 8) into their mapping system and establish policy that will monitor development near where significant watercourses meet the tide of the inlet. Concludinq Comments: As part of the Phase 4 LUP update process, staff recommends resubmitting all comments which were not considered during the Phase 3 consultation process as well as new comments as identified within this report. These include: 1. Resubmitting the policy related comments not addressed as part of the latest draft LUP (Goal 4, Goal 5, Policy Direction 3.1.4, Policy Direction 3.3.4) 2. Requesting a land use designation change from ?Port Terminal? to ?Port Water" for the waters surrounding the Mill and Timber site. 3. Requesting a land use designation change from ?Port Terminal? to ?Port Water? for the water side of the C-2 zoned IOCO lands. i 4. Requesting a land use designation change from ?Port Water? to ?Conservation? for tidal flats area between Rocky Point boat launch and Old Orchard beach. 5. Requesting incorporation of the watercourses identified in the Port Moody ESA Strategy (2003) and Map 17: Named Watercourses of the Port Moody DRAFT OCP (March 2014) and the inclusion of new policy to monitor development near where significant watercourses meet the tide of the inlet. Attachments: 1. Land Use Plan (Draft, December 2013) Discussion Guide: February April 2014 (LUP, Final Phase Consultation) LUP Regional Planning Areas Planning Area 1 Council minutes from the July 23, 2013 Regular Meeting regarding Phase 3 consultation on the Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Recent Changes to Land Use Designations in draft LUP Recommended Changes to Land Use Designations Land Use Plan Goals and Objectives Map 17: Named Watercourses (City of Port Moody?s draft Official Community Plan) Communications . The engagement feedback informed the development of the full draft of the Land Use Plan, which was reieased in February, 2014 for consultation with stakeholders, customers, tenants, First Nations, and the public, and in alignment with the Canadian Marine Act. Engagement on the Plan has been available through workshops, webinars, an online interactive map, and a feedback form. Budgetary Impact There are no budget implications relating to this report. RPA 229 104 Attachment 6.8 . ReportIRecommendation to Council Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update March 12, 2014 Council Strategic Plan Objectives This is a Port Metro Vancouver initiative and as such is not relevant to the Council Strategic Plan. Sustainability Implications The Land Use Plan Policy Direction for pursuing the removal of derelict structures and vessels that pose a hazard to safety and/or the environment, ?once implemented, would have a positive effect on reducing pollutants discharged into the local marine environment. Policy Implications There are no direct policy implications relating to this report. With this said, the proposed Port land use designation for the Mill Timber site and the easternmost portion of the IOCO site remains inconsistent with the City?s draft OCP land use designations. Alternatives THAT Council provide additional comments to be forwarded to Port Metro Vancouver. Recommendations THAT a letter be sent from the Mayor to Port Metro Vancouver including the comments and recommended changes to Port Metro Vancouver?s draft Land Use Plan as outlined in the Development Services report dated March 12, 2014 as part of the Phase 4 consultation. RPA 230 105 Attachment 6.8 Reportmecommendation to Council Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update March 12, 2014 Prepared by: - Approved for Submission to Council: id Alanna McDonagl'i Kevin Ramsay Planner City Manager Approvals Supervisor Department Head (initials): Mary De Paoli, MCIP RPP Tim Savoie, ll/lC F? RFP Corporate Review Initials Corporate Services (Human Resources, Information Services, Legislative Services) Corporate Communications Financial Services Community Services (Cultural Services, Facilities, Recreation) Engineering and Parks Services (Engineering, Parks, Operations) Fire Rescue Library Development Services (Planning, Building, Bylaws 8. Licencing) Sustainability Police Council Agenda Information Regular Council Meeting Date: March 25, 2014 RPA 231 106 This Page Intentionally Left Blank RPA 232 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan 217 Attachment 6.8 ATTACHMENT City of Port Moody Minutes Regular Meeting of Council Council Chambers Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:12pm New Business Report: Development Services Department, Planning Division dated July 4, 2013 File: 0430-45*-2013 Councillor D. Dilworth indicated a potential Conflict of Interest with this item due to her employment with a stakeholder and withdrew from the "meeting at 8:36 pm. Moved, seconded and DEFEATED THAT the City of Port Moody request wording be added to section 2.3 of the Land Use Plan to reaffirm that shipping dangerous goods through highly populated areas should be avoided. Voting against: Councillors Nuttall, Small and Mayor Clay Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the City of Port Moody request that wording be added to Goal 2.3 of the Land Use Plan that the Port will work with rail carriers to ensure stringent safety processes are in place when shipping dangerous goods through highly populated areas. RPA 233 218 Attachment 6.8 Moved, seconded and THAT comments on the goals, objectives and policy directions in the Port Metro Vancouver?s draft Land Use Plan as outlined in the table on page 2 of the Development Services report dated July 4, 2013 be submitted as feedback to Port Metro Vancouver as part of the Phase 3 consultation. Moved, seconded THAT comments on the draft land and water use designations in the Port Metro Vancouver?s draft Land Use Plan as outlined on page 4 in the July 4, 2013 report from Development Services be submitted as feedback to Port Metro Vancouver as follows: 1) The City has received indication from the owner of the Mil! Timber waterfront site that they will likely seek to redevelop this land under a different use within the lifetime of the Port?s Land Use Plan. Accordingly, the City?s current Official Community Plan update process proposes a redesignation of this site from General Industrial to Oceanfront District which contemplates the development of a mix of residential, commercial, marina, light industrial, institutional and public open spaces with low to mid rise forms not to exceed 28 storeys. The Port?s draft land use designation for this site is ?Port Terminal?, which is a primary shipping and transportation use. Staff recommends a redesignation of the Port?s waters surrounding this site to align with the expected future land use. The ?Port Water? designation which is used adjacent to residential and commercial mixed use elsewhere in the Port?s Plan is recommended. The City is supportive of rezoning to create transit-o riented development at this location given that it is within a 400m walking distance from one of the new Evergreen Line stations. Attachment provides a sketch of the subject location where the change would be requested, shown as area 2) The public boat launch area at Rocky Point Park should be designatedjas ?Recreation?, which is consistent with the existing primary use, whereas the draft currently designates it as ?Conservation?. ?Public recreation areas? is listed as a conditional use under the ?Conservation? designation; however, this refers to activities that may be permitted subject to specific regulations andlor on an interim or temporary? basis. A ?Conservation? designation could prevent any potential future expansion of the boat launch in order to separate uses for the safety and enjoyment of all users. The remainderof the park, however, is compatible with the ?Conservation? designation. RPA 234 219 Attachment 6.8 Attachment illustrates the subject area intended for redesignation, shown as area 3) The extent of the Port Terminal designation at the IOCO lands does not correspond with the upland future land use and zoning. The site is primarily designated General Industrial in the OCP and zoned M-1 Industrial in accordance with the GVRD Bylaw No. ?"511. However, the land adjacent the existing marina is designated Commercial Mixed Use and currently zoned C-2 Marina. Staff is of the opinion that this most eastern portion of the IOCO lands should be redesignated to ?Port Water? in recognition of the foreshore use and existing marina. Attachment shows the subject area labelled as area 4) The ?Conservation? area at the head of the Inlet could be revised such that the water side extent follows a natural boundary, such as the low water mark or on the recommendation of a qualified environmental professional, DFO or MOE. This portion of the Inlet is not navigable and is a highly sensitive estuarine environment so designation as ?Port Water? is not feasible. Staff further recommends supporting expansion of the Conservation designation to areas where significant watercourses, such as Mossom Creek, meet the tide of the Inlet. Alluvial deposits visible on air photos indicate these locations which are significant habitat for fish and wildlife. Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT clause 1 of the foregoing motion be amended by deleting ?not to exceed 28 storeys?. Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT clause 1 be further amended by deleting ?with iow to mid rise forms? such that the sentence reads: ?Accordingly, the City?s current Official Community Plan update process proposes a redesignation of this site from General Industrial to Oceanfront District which contemplates the development of a mix of residential, commercial, marina, light industrial, institutional and public open spaces.? Voting against: Councillors Glumac and Royer. The question on the motion, as amended, was then put and CARRIED. At 9:01 pm Councillor Dilworth rejoined the meeting. RPA 235 220 Recent Changes to Land Use Designations in draft LUP Attachment 6.8 nati?bfountain -servlnon Area "9352 .. :iun1ain Park (f?fdi Via]. 35? Mountain Paw A?-revTi-send boundary of servation? area t?m?l? Marine-Park main *3 ea!? . .4 -4 - -- Simon Fraser University 3? Earner I L1 B?.from an. ion? to ?Recreation?? Imlriivei Q. 51?: BEN hp!? PH 19% . 3% o?nqela Dr MH -games was Fem ti '9EIwem~wood 7? -at -43- COAST TERMINAL St Paiossri?. -oh-mm-e - . go? . TI mm-rcregg or Legend I [11 Burrard South Shore -9:1 I Burrard North Shore - I [31 Indian Ann I lie] Fraser Inland I Fraser River Central . I Roberts Bank - I Fraser Fthrer Arms Land Use Designations I Port Terminal industrial I Commertial Log Storage Port Water I Recreation Conservation I Special Study Area Other Features ti: I Sprayfa; St Johns 5: \3 is lieiow I Marine Tenninal Locations I Head Lease Boundaw I Habitat Compensation Area I Portlurisdictional Boundary RPA 236 221 Attachment 6.8 ATTACHMENT 6 Recommended Changes to Land Use Designatlons I [11 Burrard South Shore I Eurrard North Shore I Indian Arm I I Fraser River Central I Roberts Bank 9' . I Fraser River Arms Land Use Designations I PortTerrninaI Industrial I Commercial Log Storage Port Water .. I Recreation 51JohnsSI Canserva?an I Special Area Olher Features I Habitat Compensation Area I Ma.n'ne Terminal Locations ?s enratron Area E1 :1 5. auntenn Park Simon Fraser 5? fangela Dr ?fur-cfi way I El? cga?mg 4 I I . 51 Jolms 51 3 2 $5 boy Mountain pgHead Lease Boundan; I Port Jurisdictional Boundary RPA 237 J. -V 4 Beam? anmona -EnA~?from ?Port Terminal to -43 5 3 ??ne-Eidg .-gr I (L gong6-5. 9 way? _1imbcr??.g5, or Legend HJ TW Win? JWEFJO IJFHG an; in stream Creek Culvert Ditch OtherWa1.?erFeaturas Thu streamtcreelc. mlve?s. and olhar waiar feenures showrl on this map shall be used only as a guideline. Gm 375 750 1500 SCALE 1:33.000 The City oF1"cr1.- 1\-loo-dgr make: no tuprcsenlatinn or wan-an-ry orimp?cd with respect to the accuracy. or aft-I1-e: inzfonmnion heruon. by Enginccring 5.: Parks BURRARD RPA 238 OCIUITL 31L (WW (HWVN Of 6911 No.3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 March 31, 2014 Finance and Corporate Services Department File: 01 Fax: 604-278-5139 Craig Neeser Chair, Poit Metro Vancouver Board 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Dear Mr. Neeser: Re: Proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan This is to advise that Richmond City Council at its Regular Council meeting held on Monday, March 24, 2014, considered the above matter and adopted the following resolution: (1) That Council advise Port Metro Vancouver that it is providing only conditional support for the proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and requests that the Plan be revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land, and the ?Special Study Area? designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an ?Agricultural? designation, before it is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval; and (2) That the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board, all Metro Vancouver municipalities, Richmond MPs, and the Metro Vancouver representative to the Port Metro Vancouver Board be advised of the above recommendation. If you have any questions in regards to this matter, please contact Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning at 604.276.4139. Yours truly, Micl elle nsson Acting ctor, City Clerk ?s O?ice 4194002 Richmond RPA 239 pc: -2- Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, Government of Canada Honourable Alice Wong, Member of Parliament, Richmond and Minister of State for Seniors Honourable Kerry?Lynne Findlay, Member of Parliament, Delta/Richmond East Honourable Pat Pimm, Minister of Agriculture, Province of BC Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and In?astructure, Province of BC Richard Bullock, Chair, Agricultural Land Commission Metro Vancouver Board Penny Priddy, Metro Vancouver representative to the Port Metro Vancouver Board Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning RPA 240 City of Richmond Report to Committee Planning and Development Department To: Planning Committee Date: March 12, 2014 From: Joe Erceg, General Manager Planning and Development File: 01-0140-20PMVA1/2014-VoI01 Re: Richmond Response: Proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Staff Recommendation That: (1) Council advise Port Metro Vancouver that it is providing only conditional support for the proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and requests that the Plan be revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land, and the "Special Study Area" designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an "Agricultural" designation, before it is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval; and (2) the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of the above recommendation. & ceg, Genera Manager, Planning and De elopment JE:jh Att.4 REPORT CONCURRENCE ROUTED To: Transportation Corporate Planning Environmental & Sustainability REVIEWED BY STAFF REPORT I AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE 4166504 CONCURRENCE ~ INITIALS: CNCL - 150 RPA - 241 - CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER March 12,2014 -2Staff Report Origin The purpose of this report is to provide comments on Port Metro Vancouver's proposed final 2013 Land Use Plan (Attachment 1) by Port Metro Vancouver's mid April 2014 deadline. 2011 - 2014 Council Term Goals The report addresses the following 2011 - 2014 Council Term Goal #7, Managing Growth and Development. Background Port Metro Vancouver Planning Process Since 2008, Port Metro Vancouver's (PMV) existing Land Use Plan (Plan) has been a collection of the land use plans of the former Vancouver Port Authority, North Fraser Port Authority and the Fraser Port Authority. In early 2012, PMV started a planning process to create one unified Plan for all lands and water in its jurisdiction. Richmond's City Council and staff have participated in the PMV planning process from the beginning. The City has repeatedly requested PMV to not expand on or use agricultural land (e.g., ALR), as the protection of farmland is a Council priority (e.g., agricultural land is scarce, cannot be replaced, is essential to City sustainability, food security and many residents' livelihood and employment). As an alternative, the City has advised PMV to use Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and Richmond 2041 OCP designated Industrial and Mixed Employment areas for its expansion needs, as this approach would avoid farmland and complement the City's employment land uses and services. In mid 2013, PMV released the first draft of its Land Use Plan (Attachment 1). In response, on July 22,2013, Council advised PMV that the City continues to strongly object to any Port use of agricultural lands. As recently as February 17, 2014, at the Richmond General Purposes Committee meeting, PMV indicated that it has no plans to develop Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands owned by the Port and that the Port's use ofthose lands would be contingent on the preservation and best use of industrial lands (Attachment 2). As these PMV statements provide no assurance that the PMV will not use ALR land, staff recommend that Council continue to request PMV to state, in its proposed Plan, that it will not use ALR land for Port uses. Context A key priority for Port Metro Vancouver is to ens~re that it has an adequate supply of industrial land in the Metro Vancouver region to meet its long term trade requirements. According to the proposed Plan, PMV's current inventory of market ready industrial lands is sufficient to meet port demand for only about 10 years. PMV has stated that it needs an additional 809 hectares (2,000 acres) (approx.) to meet its long term needs. The problem is that PMV has not stated where in the Metro Vancouver region it will expand its holdings, or if it will expand in Richmond. 4166504 CNCL - 151 RPA - 242 - March 12, 2014 -3- Analysis Proposed Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Goals and Objectives A staffteam involving Policy Planning, Transportation and Community Sustainability have reviewed the proposed Plan from a land use, transportation, and environmental perspective. The proposed Plan provides a framework for the growth and development of Port lands and waters over the next 15-20 years. The Plan recognizes that PMV is a major economic generator both locally and regionally, and the City recognizes the Port's contribution to achieving the City's 2041 OCP Vision for a Resilient Economy. A summary of the proposed Land Use Plan's goals, objectives and relevant policies is listed below along with staff comments. Goal I: Port Metro Vancouver manages port growth and activity in support of Canada 's trade while preparingfor anticipated transitions in the global economy. Objectives for Goal 1: 1.1 Protect the industrial land base to support port and related activities into the future. 1.2 Optimize the use of existing port lands and waters. 1.3 Ensure the availability of a land base within the region that is sufficient to support future port and port-related activities. Policy - 1.3.1 Consider acquisition ofsites to protect their availability for future port use, giving priority to lands that demonstrate ready access to shipping and/or transportation networks and close proximity to existing Port Metro Vancouver holdings. 1.4 Lead the port community in anticipating and responding to economic trends and opportunities that will affect the growth, development and competitiveness of the Port. Staff Comments on Goal 1: There is no evidence that the Port has taken into account the protection of agricultural land. The proposed Plan does not contain any policies which commit the Port to avoid expanding on or using agricultural land for Port operations. Of particular concern is Policy 1.3.1 which states "Consider acquisition ofsites to protect their availability for future port use, giving priority to lands that demonstrate ready access to shipping and/or transportation networks and close proximity to existing Port Metro Vancouver holdings." While staff support the Port's acquisition of non-agricultural land such as the 26.6-hectare (65.6-acre) Fraser Wharves site in March 2013, the proposed Plan should be revised to make a clear statement that PMV will not use or acquire agricultural land. Goal 2: Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in ensuring the safe and efficient movement ofport-related cargo, traffic and passengers throughout the region. 4166504 CNCL - 152 RPA - 243 - March 12,2014 -4- Objectives for Goal 2: 2.1 Improve operational efficiencies of transportation modes serving the Port. 2.2 Preserve, maintain and improve transportation corridors and infrastructure critical to moving goods and passengers to and through the Port. 2.3 Ensure the safe and secure movement ofgoods and passengers through the Port. Staff Comments on Goal 2: Staff advise that this transportation goal complements the City's 2041 OCP policies and is consistent with the recommendations made in the City's February 28,2013 letter to the Port (e.g., the need to plan for the timely implementation of any future road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic growth). City staff will be working closely with the Port on a number of initiatives including the Robert Banks Terminal 2 Project and the Massey Tunnel replacement. The Port is also pursuing a transportation study of its Richmond properties in 2014 and the City is a key stakeholder to identify priorities. Staff will update Council of progress regarding these studies, as necessary. Goal 3: Port Metro Vancouver is a global leader among ports in the environmental stewardship of the lands and waters it manages. Objectives for Goal 3: 3.1 Contribute to the overall ecological health of the region by reducing impacts from port activity and protecting, sustaining and enhancing ecosystems. 3.2 Reduce air emissions, including greenhouse gas intensity, and promote energy conservation in port operations and developments. 3.3 Improve land and water quality within the Port. 3.4 Promote sustainable practices in design and construction, operations and administration in the Port. Staff Comments on Goal 3: Staff advise that this environmental stewardship goal complements the City's 2041 OCP policies and related initiatives. City staff have been working with PMV on environmental initiatives, mainly related to Objective 3.1 that are part of PMV's Habitat Banking program (e.g., Shady Island, Sturgeon Banks, and McDonald Park). Staff will continue to liaise with PMV on environmental issues that pertain to the City and update Council, as necessary. Goal 4: Port activity and development is a positive contributor to local communities and First Nations. Objectives for Goal 4: 4.1 Generate sustainable local and national economic benefits through the use and development ofport lands and waters. 4.2 Ensure public recreational opportunities and waterfront access are provided within the Port in a manner compatible with port activities and the protection offish and wildlife. 4.3 Seek to minimize the impacts from port operations and development on local communities and First Nations. 4166504 CNCL - 153 RPA - 244 - March 12, 2014 -5- Staff Comments on Goal 4: Staff advise that, while this positive contributor goal complements the City's 2041 OCP policies, it should be revised to indicate that the Port will not use agricultural land for Port purposes. This approach would better ensure sustainable benefits and minimal impacts for Richmond from Port operations. Goal 5: Port Metro Vancouver is a leader in communication and engagement in support of the use and development ofport lands and waters. Objectives: 5.1 Provide a relevant range of opportunities for communication, consultation and engagement that reflects the scale, scope, impacts and community interest in the use and development ofport lands and waters. Staff Comments on Goal 5: Staff advise that the above communication and engagement goal complements the 2041 OCP policies. However, while the Port provided a range of communication opportunities during the preparation of the proposed Plan, it does not reflect Richmond's request that the Port not use agricultural land for Port purposes. Port Metro Vancouver Land and Water Designations The PMV Plan land and water use designations are divided into seven planning areas based on geography and port-related activities. There are eight land and water designations, each having a specific intent and list of associated uses. Richmond is largely in PMV's Planning Area 7: Fraser River - North, South and Middle Arm area, with the south eastern most part of Richmond in Planning Area 5: Fraser River - Central. Port properties are designated as, either "Port Terminal", "Industrial", "Commercial", "Recreation", "Conservation", or "Special Study Area" areas. With the exception of the "Special Study Area" designation, the proposed Plan's designations are consistent with the 2041 OCP land use designations. The proposed Plan has designated four properties in the City as "Special Study Area", which is defined as areas that require further study, consultation and planning to determine their future use through a Land Use Plan amendment. The four properties total 97.2 ha (240 acres) in size, are all located within the ALR, designated "Agriculture" in the 2041 OCP and zoned AG 1 Agriculture. Attachment 3 indicates the location of these properties and Table 1 below provides a summary of these properties: No. 1 2 3 4 4166504 Table 1: Summary of Properties Designated "Special Study Area" Address Size Current Land Use 17740 River Road 3.05 ha (7.53 acres) Agriculture (Organic Eggs) 6940 No 7 Road 1.88 ha (4.64 acres) Agriculture (Nursery) 6131 No 8 Road 52.67 ha (130.14 acres) Agriculture 6220 No 8 Road 39.62 ha (97.91 acres) Agriculture CNCL - 154 RPA - 245 - March 12,2014 -6- The Plan indicates that the current use of designated "Special Study Area" areas will remain unchanged, until further consultation and analysis can be completed. The review is to include consultation with affected communities, governments, agencies and stakeholders, prior to amending the PMV Land Use Plan. Although the proposed Plan indicates that land in the "Special Study Area" sites can only allow existing uses, (until the review is completed), staff advise that this does not provide any assurance that the Port will not use them for Port purposes in the future. City staff recommend that the Port be requested to make a stronger commitment to utilizing existing Port lands more efficiently and that, if expansion is needed, it should only be on non agricultural properties throughout the Metro Vancouver region. As well, staff recommend that the "Special Study Area" designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an "Agricultural" designation, before the Plan is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval. Metro Vancouver Region Implications While PMV has not indicated where it will expand in the Metro Vancouver Region, there are non agricultural lands in the Region which the Port could use for its expansion activities (e.g., possibly along Port Moody's waterfront, along the South Arm of the Fraser River). With these opportunities, staff do not consider it acceptable for the Port to use agricultural lands. To better protect Richmond and Metro Vancouver employment lands (e.g., industrial, mixed employment) and to encourage the Port not to use farmland, City staff are participating with Metro Vancouver staff who are leading a number of regional employment land studies including: updating 2010 Metro Vancouver's Industrial Land Inventory, reviewing the Industrial Land Re-Development and Intensification - Constraints and Solutions Study (with Stantec Ltd; Site Economics), and reviewing Metro Vancouver's Industrial Land Protection and Intensification Policy Paper which integrates related Metro Vancouver studies completed since 2011. These studies are aimed at enabling all parties to better manage and protect employment and agricultural lands. Staff will continue to update Council as these studies are brought forward. Options The following options are presented for consideration: • Option 1 (Recommended): Council advise Port Metro Vancouver that it is providing only conditional support for the proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and requests that the Plan be revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land, and the "Special Study Area" designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an "Agricultural" designation, before it is presented to the PMV Board of Directors for approval. This Option also recommends that the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of Council's decision. 4166504 CNCL - 155 RPA - 246 - March 12,2014 • -7- Option 2: This Option involves not supporting the proposed PMV Land Use Plan in its entirety, until it has been revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land and the "Special Study Area" designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an "Agricultural" designation, before it is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval. This Option is identified as the protection of agricultural land is important to the City and, as the Port has not indicated that it will avoid expanding on agricultural land, many of the proposed Plan policies are questionable (e.g., the densification of existing Port industrial lands, transportation, servicing, infrastructure, environmental management). As in Option 1, Option 2 includes advising the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities of Council's decision. Financial Impact None Conclusion Staff have reviewed Port Metro Vancouver's proposed 2013 Land Use Plan and find that, after repeated Richmond requests, the proposed Plan does not protect agricultural land from Port expansion or operations. This is the final opportunity for the City to request the Port not to use agricultural land, before the Plan is adopted by the PMV Board of Directors. To take advantage of this opportunity, staff propose 2 options and recommend Option 1 which advises the PMV Board that Council is providing only conditional support for the proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and requests that the Plan be revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land, and the " Special Study Area" designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an "Agricultural" designation, before it is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval. ms Senior Planner (604-276-4279) erry Crowe Manager, Policy Planning (604-276-4139) JH:cas Att. 1 - Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan (Draft December 2013) Att. 2 - Excerpt from February 17,2014 General Purposes Committee Minutes Att. 3 - Map of Properties Designated "Special Study Area" 4166504 CNCL - 156 RPA - 247 - ATTACHMENT 2 City of Richmond Minutes General Purposes Committee Date: Monday, February 17,2014 Place: Anderson Room Riclunond City Hall Present: Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair Councillor Chak Au Councillor Linda Barnes Councillor Derek Dang Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt Councillor Ken Johnston Councillor Bill McNulty Councillor Linda McPhail Councillor Harold Steves Call to Order: The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. MINUTES It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, February 3,2014, be adopted as circulated. CARRIED DELEGATION 1. With the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedul.e 1) Robin Silvester, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Tom Corsie, Vice President, Real Estate, Port Metro Vancouver, provided an overview of the Port's activities and projects, as they relate to the City of Richmond. In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Silvester and Mr. Corsie provided the following additional information: 1. 4155046 CNCL - 239 RPA - 248 - General Purposes Committee Monday, February 17, 2014 • for the past four years, docked cruise ships have been using shore powera land-based electrical grid; • the Port is actively moving forward with bringing shore power to container ships; however, the lack of international standards has delayed the process; • the Port is undertaking a preliminary study related to Sturgeon Banks and the issues surrounding the degradation of vegetation; • the Port anticipates an annual container growth of approximately five per cent; • there are no current plans to develop Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands in the Port's land inventory; • the Port's use of the ALR lands would be contingent on the preservation and best use of industrial lands; • the Fraser River Improvement Project is a multi-year program for the proper removal and disposal of derelict vessels or structures; • the Port is actively monitoring the condition of vessels in the Fraser River, in an effort to keep owners accountable for their vessel should the vessel become derelict in the future; • the Port will provide Council a copy of the list of derelict vessels or structures found within Richmond; • issues at Finn's Slough were not included as part of the concerns raised regarding squatters on Sea Island; • the recent incident where a vessel ran aground along Richmond's coast is being investigated by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada; • approximately 85 per cent of imports leave Deltaport by rail; • Phase 1 of the Container Capacity Improvement Program, including nine railway crossing projects, is underway, and it is anticipated to be complete in the fall of2014; • the Port, in partnership with the City, has directed its efforts in the widening of Westminster Highway and Nelson Road; however, widening of Blundell Road may occur in the future; • the funding model between local, provincial, and federal governments utilized for the Highway 91INelson Road Interchange has worked well and, as such, a similar funding model may be considered for future works, such as the widening of Blundell Road; 2. CNCL - 240 RPA - 249 - General Purposes Committee Monday, February 17, 2014 • as per the Port's Land Acquisition Strategy, the Port considers factors, such as the cost, the size of the parcel, its access to both water and land, and its suitability for development, when analyzing potential parcels for acquisition; • the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project was approved based on the following conditions: (i) the preparation of a Fire Safety Plan, and (ii) the installation of a complete emergency system at the plant; • the Port welcomes opportunities to work with the City on safety related concerns; • approximately half of the fleet servicing the Port have been equipped with Global Positioning System devices, which assist the Port with tracking the fleet and collecting information on routes used; and • the Port has worked diligently to examine extending the operating hours for all port activities in an effort to minimize impacts to traffic flow during peak periods. It was moved and seconded That the verbal presentation on Port Metro Vancouver activities and projects related to the City of Richmond be received for information. CARRIED FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2. PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE BC LTD., DOING BUSINESS AS DISTINGUISHED VISITOR LOUNGE, VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - INTERNATIONAL & US ARRIVALS (File Ref. No. 12-8275-30-00112014) (REDMS No. 4132679) It was moved and seconded That the application by Plaza Premium Lounge Ltd., doing business as Distinguished Visitor Lounge, for a Liquor Primary Licence at 3211 Grant McConachie Way, in order to offer full liquor service be supported and that a letter be sent to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch advising that: (1) Council recommends the issuance of the proposed licence based on the lack of community responses received and that the operation will not have a significant negative impact on the community; (2) Council's comments on the prescribed criteria (set out in Section 10(3) of the Liquor Control and Licencing Act Regulations) are as follows; (a) the location of the establishment is zoned Airport District and since the property is under Federal jurisdiction, the City does 3. CNCL - 241 RPA - 250 - A. TTACHMENT 3 City of Richmond - ALR Boundary 1 2 3 4 / 17740 River Rd 6940 No.7 Rd 6131 No.8 Rd 6200 No.8 Rd - ----- Port Metro Vancouver Special Study Areas CNCL - 242 RPA - 251 - Original Date: 02/28/14 Revision Date: 00/00/00 Note: Dimensions are in METRES RPA 252 TrainsLink ll I Tr.?i .1: ?il.x .l ll April 11, 2014 Mr. Yeomans 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, B.C. VEC 3T4 Dear Mr. Yeomans, RE: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update We appreciate the opportunity to review Port Metro Vancouver?s Land Use Plan Update Phase A consultation materials. We have reviewed these materials within the context of our legislative mandate in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Act to manage and operate the regional transportation system and in light of our Regional Transportation Strategy (RTE) Strategic Framework. in August of 2013, TransLink had the opportunity to provide comments during Phase 3 consultation and noted that there are a number of areas of commonality with the Strategic Framework, including emphasis on partnership and collaboration and support for a strong goods movement network. While TransLink supports efforts to ensure capacity for efficient goods movement, we are pleased to see that the Port has included language in Policy Direction 2.2.3 to equally emphasize the role of effective network management in balancing the needs of different users, consistent with the RTS. Similarly, we reiterate our strong support of Policy Direction 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 regarding transit and TDM and increasing the regional options for walking, cycling and transit to promote efficient goods movement throughout the region. We also support the revisions made to these policies to include consideration of the full range of access options including walking and cycling in serving the commute needs of port workers, given the challenges discussed in our Phase 3 letter, of directly serving with transit those destinations that are not "on the way?, such as port lands. It is our understanding that the Port Terminal and industrial land use designations on the Burrard Inlet} South Shore and Burrard Inlet/North Shore planning areas will allow for continued transit operations. RPA 253 - Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update 2 TransLink would like to again acknowledge Port Metro Vancouver's major economic role regionally and nationally, and praise the collaboration and consultation effort with stakeholders through this process in strengthening regional planning coordination. We welcome opportunities to work closely together on planning efforts in the future and look forward to continue dialogue about how best to achieve shared transportation-related objectives. Please feel free to contact Joanna Brownell at 773-375-7363 should you have any questions or wish to discuss further. Sincerely, - ?xii; I Sarah Ross Senior Manager, System Planning cc: Brian Mills, Director, System Planning 8: Research RPA 254 PVX .. ,Q06r~.? or VANCOUVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning City-wide and Regional Planning April 9, 2014 Ms. Cari St.Pierre Planning and Development Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Dear Ms. St.Pierre: - RE: PMV Land Use Pian Stakeholder Feedback Please accept our comments to this round of consultation related to Port Metro Vancouver?s Draft Land Use Plan. Staff have reviewed the Port Metro Vancouver?s Draft Land Use Plan and Discussion Guide. The revised Goals, Objectives and Policy Directions are generally consistent with the goals of the City of Vancouver and are aligned with many City Policies including the Regional Context Statement, Industrial Lands Policies, Transportation Plan and the Greenest City Action Plan. Outlined below are areas of the Plan and the Discussion Guide that we would like to have clarified and/or be considered for amendments: 1. A key objective of the Vancouver Greenest City Action Plan (GCAP) is to reduce Vancouver's dependence on fossil fuels for heating buildings. Fundamental to the success of the GCAP is the low?carbon conversion of the Central Heat Ltd. steam system, which serves m-ore than 200 buildings in the downtown area. A study co- funded by the City and Port Metro Vancouver has indicated that there would be benefits to siting a iow?carbon conversion project on Port Metro Vancouver lands, which could potentially serve Central Heat and major Port process steam users Westcoast Reductions, Rogers Sugar}. Because the conversion project would require a significant amount of bio-fuel deiivery, it would strongly benefit from barge access. in orrjet to align with the aforementioned project, piease consider expanding the Pianis Aneendix B: implementation Measures, Goat 4 (page to inciude positive contributions to iocai corninunitiesg and First Nations to incitsoie initintives that gsrni/Ede at other envirnn-rnentafi benefits. ilitie? nf ?ir-iancetzver, Pianning anti Deizeientnent Serviarea Pia-nning, ?lity-wide and friegionai Pianning ??iEi3 West 'i?itE'i Avenue ?v?aneoi:ver, British Coiumbia Canada tei: fax: website: vancotzvehea RPA 255 2. Plan Context Terminal Development (page 28): The Plan includes reference to increasing capacity for handling coal. As per our previous comments, please be aware that on July 9, 2013, Council passed the following Zoning and Development By-law amendments (By-Law No. 3575) with regards to prohibiting the handling, storage and trans-shipment of coal at Marine Terminals and Berths: ?Section 10.38 Marine Terminal or Berth 10.38.1 A marine terminal or berth must not be used for the bulk storage and handling and trans-shipment of coal. 3. Ballantyne Pier: We recognize that Ballantyne Pier and the surrounding areas are designated as Port Terminal. Given this designation, we are interested in better understanding the future plans for this Pier and I or the process moving forward if the Pier were to change from its current use (cruise terminal). At the time PMV undertakes to evaluate options for repurposing Ballantyne Pier, the City would appreciate the opportunity to be actively involved in this decision-making process. -4. Planning Area 1: Burrard Inlet/South Shore (page -47): Consistent with our previous comments in the Phase 3, the City?s interests in this area include: Accommodating better community access to the water and specifically improved access and linkages from the Gastown area to Crab Park across the rail on the western edge of the park. Ensuring the area designated as the Special Study Area is important for future pedestrian and bike connectivity to the Waterfront Station and associated uses and transit facilities. including First Nation interests in a possible Salish Sea Civilization heritage center in the vicinity of Crab Park (Portside Park) and/or on a portion of the area next to Crab Park. Meeting the long?term goal of creating a public recreation area (with community access to the Burrard inlet). The general area of consideration for this park/recreation area to the west of New Brighton Park, between Victoria Drive and North Nanaimo Street in the Grandview~Woodland local area. Te align with the City?s potentiai vision for the area, please consider amending the eeritiitienai uses fer areas designated as Part Terminal to ineiucie recreatien. Aiternativeiy", as per eer discussieris, we weaid appreciate same assurances that recreatieriai tees be acceeiriiedateri tiireugii a iara? use amendment precess its the riitare. ?rife wei.:i.ti ta rrieei: eat: this furtiier te diseases iiraw ear irrtereats ear: Tee receettiied. Page- 2 at 3 RPA 256 5. Planning Area 7: Fraser River North, South and Middle Arm (page 59): We understand that Port jurisdiction in this area will change as a result of the end of the Head Lease with the Province in December 2014. As a result, land use regulation with regards to these areas will revert to the Province. As per our discussions, we are hopeful that the Province utilize the information the Port gathered from the City in previous phases of this land use planning process to inform the administration of the land-s in the future. in particular, we would like to ensure that in this changed regulatory environment, Port Metro Vancouver will continue to actively support the City in working with the Province to secure the City?s long term access to these lands. Appendix B: implementation Measures, Goal 2 - No.9 (page 76): Consider expanding the measure to include working with local municipalities on goods movement (both regionally and locally) and include metrics to gauge success. For example, Vancouver?s Transportation 2040 Plan has direction on local and regional goods movement that should be coordinated with the port. Should you have any questions about the considerations we have put forward, please contact me at your earliest convenience. We look forward to continuing to work together with you as this plan proceeds. Regards, Jim Bailey Senior Planner 453lVest12?iAvenue,Vbncouvea BC tel: 604.871.6114 fax: 604.873.7898 9505408 Page 3 oi 3 RPA 257 5.6 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Allan Neilson, General Manager Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: May 22, 2014 Subject: Manager’s Report Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the report dated May 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report”. Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee 2014 Workplan The Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee 2014 Workplan is attached to the Manager’s Report each month, with updates on the status of the items listed in the workplan (Attachment 1). Update on Regional Context Statements As of May 23, 2014, the GVRD Board had accepted 12 municipal regional context statements (RCS) from the following municipalities: • • • • • • • • • • • • Village of Belcarra Corporation of Delta City of Langley District of North Vancouver District of Maple Ridge City of Port Coquitlam City of Richmond City of Vancouver City of White Rock City of Burnaby City of Coquitlam City of Pitt Meadows. In addition, Metro Vancouver provided comments on the University of British Columbia’s RCS and declined to accept the Township of Langley’s RCS. Staff anticipates that the remaining RCSs will be submitted before the end of 2014. The remaining municipalities and anticipated timeline for submission is as follows: • • • • City of Surrey (currently processing a proposed amendment – anticipate fall 2014) City of Port Moody (currently processing 4 proposed amendments – anticipate fall 2014) City of North Vancouver (drafts reviewed - anticipate fall 2014) City of New Westminster (drafts reviewed - anticipate fall 2014) RPA - 258 - Manager’s Report Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: June 6, 2014 Page 2 of 2 • • • • District of West Vancouver (anticipate fall 2014) Village of Lions Bay (not confirmed) Village of Anmore (drafts reviewed - anticipate summer 2014) University Endowment Lands (intend to update when they update their OCP – not required). Map of the Month: Metro Vancouver Median Age Metro Vancouver’s population growth has grown by 197,000 since 2006, to a 2011 population of over 2.3 million (Attachment 2). Since 2006, median age in the region has increased from 37.4 to 40.2 years old, mainly as a result of the baby boom generation entering their senior years. The large share of Metro Vancouver’s population born between 1945 and 1965 has been influential in the way we plan our region. By 2011, the initial wave of the boomers began to retire from the labour force, and will continue to influence demand for housing, services and amenities. In 2001, 12% of the region’s population were seniors; by 2011 the share increased to 14%. This number will continue to grow to 17% by 2021 and 21% by 2031. The share of seniors increased in most municipalities while the share of youth continues to decrease. However, White Rock and New Westminster, which traditionally have a large share of seniors, actually saw a decline. There are concentrations of seniors in a number of Metro’s Urban Centres. It is anticipated that these centres will be increasingly attractive for seniors who tend to have a higher demand for apartment housing and proximity to amenities, services and public transit. The location of youth population coincides with the housing and location choices of younger families. There has been an increase in the share of youth and young families in the region’s south-eastern municipalities where housing is more affordable. The Labour Force population (those aged 20-64) remains stable, with a slight increase over the past 20 years. Though baby boomers are beginning to leave the labour force, a high proportion of regional population growth is concurrently coming from immigration and supplementing the labour force. Attachments (Doc. #9494955): 1. Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee 2014 Work Plan. 2. Map of the Month – Metro Vancouver Median Age (2011 Census). 9492721 RPA - 259 - 5.6 Attachment 1 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee 2014 Work Plan Report Date: May 22, 2014 Priorities 1st Quarter Consider acceptance of 9 Regional Context Statements Review RGS amendments proposed by member municipalities as necessary Provide input to the Action Plan for Regional Food System Strategy Review a strategic suite of policy backgrounders Review next stage of the Agricultural Land Use Inventory 2nd Quarter Consider acceptance of 9 Regional Context Statements Review RGS amendments proposed by member municipalities as necessary Provide comment on proposed RGS implementation pilot projects Complete Regional Growth Strategy Annual Plan Comment on implementation of Regional Food System Strategy Advance implementation of Frequent Transit Development Areas Review a strategic suite of policy backgrounders Provide input to a regional economic perspective to inform the integration of land use and transportation planning 3rd Quarter Consider acceptance of 9 Regional Context Statements Review RGS amendments proposed by member municipalities as necessary Provide input to addressing policy gaps in Regional Context Statements Consider and undertake RGS policy development and amendments to improve RGS clarity and implementation Review findings of Phase II and III of the Apartment Parking Study Provide input to incorporating climate change best practices into land use planning Advance implementation of Frequent Transit Development Areas Review a strategic suite of policy backgrounders Comment on proposed policy monitoring and evaluation methods 4th Quarter Review RGS amendments proposed by member municipalities as necessary Consider and undertake RGS policy development and amendments to improve RGS clarity and implementation Provide input to 2040 sub-regional visualizations and profiles Review a strategic suite of policy backgrounders Comment on development of tools to support effective policy implementation Provide comment to the Industrial Land Inventory and identification of areas with greatest intensification potential RPA - 260 - Status In progress In progress In progress In progress In progress In progress In progress Pending In progress Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending 5.6 Attachment 2 Metro Vancouver Median Age (2011 Census) ZĞŐŝŽŶĂů WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ Map of the Month June 6, 2014 ŝƚ ďŽƵƚ dŚŝƐ DĂƉ dŚŝƐ ŵĂƉ ǁĂƐ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ƵƐŝŶŐ ^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ ŽĨ ĂŶĂĚĂ ϮϬϭϭ ĞŶƐƵƐ ĚĂƚĂ͘ DĞĚŝĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞ Ăƚ ǁŚŝĐŚ ϱϬй ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ ŽůĚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ϱϬй ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ LJŽƵŶŐĞƌ͘ DŽƌĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ ĐĂŶ ďĞ ĨŽƵŶĚ Ăƚ ǁǁǁ͘ŵĞƚƌŽǀĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ͘ŽƌŐͬƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͬƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ͘ dŚĞ DĞĚŝĂŶ ŐĞ ŽĨ Ă DĞƚƌŽ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ďLJ ŶĞĂƌůLJ ϯ LJĞĂƌƐ 2006 Median Age: 2011 Median Age: ϯϳ͘ϰ LJĞĂƌƐ ϰϬ͘Ϯ LJĞĂƌƐ ŚĂŶŐĞ ŝŶ ŐĞ ŝƐƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶ ďLJ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ ϮϬͲϯϰ Under 20 ϮϬϬϭ ^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ ŽĨ ĂŶĂĚĂ ĞŶƐƵƐ Trends in Urban Centres ϯϱͲϲϰ ϲϱн tŚŝƚĞ ZŽĐŬ tĞƐƚ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ Vancouver ^ƵƌƌĞLJ Richmond WŽƌƚ DŽŽĚLJ Port Coquitlam Metro Vancouver Median Age (2011 Census) Wŝƚƚ DĞĂĚŽǁƐ North Vancouver District EŽƌƚŚ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ ŝƚLJ DĞƚƌŽ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ͛Ɛ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŚĂƐ ŐƌŽǁŶ ďLJ ϭϵϳ͕ϬϬϬ ƐŝŶĐĞ ϮϬϬϲ͕ ƚŽ Ă ϮϬϭϭ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ŽǀĞƌ Ϯ͘ϯ ŵŝůůŝŽŶ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞ ϮϬϬϲ͕ ŵĞĚŝĂŶ ĂŐĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŐŝŽŶ ǁĞŶƚ ƵƉ ĨƌŽŵ ϯϳ͘ϰ ƚŽ ϰϬ͘Ϯ LJĞĂƌƐ ŽůĚ ŵĂŝŶůLJ ĂƐ Ă ƌĞƐƵůƚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďĂďLJ ŵ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŝƌ ƐĞŶŝŽƌ LJĞĂƌƐ͘ dŚĞ ŵĞĚŝĂŶ ŝƐ Ă ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ ŽĨ ĐĞŶƚƌĂů ƚĞŶĚĞŶĐLJ ŵĞĂŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚ ŚĂůĨ ƚŚĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ ŽůĚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶ ƚŚĞ ŵĞĚŝĂŶ ĂŶĚ ŚĂůĨ ŝƐ LJŽƵŶŐĞƌ͘ EĞǁ tĞƐƚŵŝŶƐƚĞƌ Maple Ridge >ŝŽŶƐ ĂLJ >ĂŶŐůĞLJ dŽǁŶƐŚŝƉ dƌĞŶĚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ tŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞ WĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶ ZĂƚĞ ;>ĂďŽƵƌ &ŽƌĐĞ ƚŽ WŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ZĂƟŽͿ >ĂŶŐůĞLJ ŝƚLJ Electoral Area A Delta Coquitlam ƵƌŶĂďLJ ŽǁĞŶ /ƐůĂŶĚ dŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ DĞƚƌŽ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ͛Ɛ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ďŽƌŶ ďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ϭϵϰϱ ĂŶĚ ϭϵϲϱ ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ŝŶŇƵĞŶƟĂů ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂLJ ǁĞ ƉůĂŶ ŽƵƌ ƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘ LJ ϮϬϭϭ͕ ƚŚĞ ŝŶŝƟĂů ǁĂǀĞ ŽĨ ďĂďLJ ŵĞƌƐ ďĞŐĂŶ ƚŽ ƌĞƟƌĞ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞ ůĂďŽƵƌ ĨŽƌĐĞ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚŝƐ ĐŽŚŽƌƚ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ ƚŽ ŝŶŇƵĞŶĐĞ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĂŵĞŶŝƟĞƐ͘ /Ŷ ϮϬϬϭ͕ ϭϮй ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ǁĞƌĞ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ͕ ďLJ ϮϬϭϭ ƚŚĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ŚĂĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ƚŽ ϭϰй͘ dŚĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ǁŝůů ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ ƚŽ ŐƌŽǁ ƚŽ ϭϳй ďLJ ϮϬϮϭ͕ ĂŶĚ Ϯϭй ďLJ ϮϬϯϭ͘ Ɛ ƚŚĞ ŵĂƉ ƐŚŽǁƐ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶƐ ŽĨ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ ŝŶ Ă ŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ DĞƚƌŽ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ͛Ɛ hƌďĂŶ ĞŶƚƌĞƐ͘ /ƚ ŝƐ ĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞƐĞ ĐĞŶƚƌĞƐ ǁŝůů ďĞ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐůLJ ĂƩƌĂĐƟǀĞ ĨŽƌ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ ǁŚŽ ƚĞŶĚ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ Ă ŚŝŐŚĞƌ ĚĞŵĂŶĚ ĨŽƌ ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽdžŝŵŝƚLJ ƚŽ ĂŵĞŶŝƟĞƐ͕ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ĂŶĚ ƉƵďůŝĐ ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚ͘ dŚĞ ůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ LJŽƵƚŚ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ĐŽŝŶĐŝĚĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ĐŚŽŝĐĞƐ ŽĨ LJŽƵŶŐĞƌ ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ĐŚĂƌƚƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ůĞŌ ƐŚŽǁ ĂŶ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ŽĨ LJŽƵƚŚ ĂŶĚ LJŽƵŶŐ ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚĞƌŶ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƟĞƐ ǁŚĞƌĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŝƐ ŵŽƌĞ ĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞ͘ ĞůĐĂƌƌĂ Anmore Metro Vancouver 0% 10% 20% ϯϬй 40% ϱϬй 60% ϳϬй 80% ϵϬй 100% ϮϬϭϭ ^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ ŽĨ ĂŶĂĚĂ ĞŶƐƵƐ tŚŝƚĞ ZŽĐŬ tĞƐƚ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ Vancouver ^ƵƌƌĞLJ Richmond dŚĞ >ĂďŽƵƌ &ŽƌĐĞ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ;ƚŚŽƐĞ ĂŐĞĚ ϮϬͲϲϰͿ ƌĞŵĂŝŶƐ ƐƚĂďůĞ͕ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƐůŝŐŚƚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŽǀĞƌ ƚŚĞ ƉĂƐƚ ϮϬ LJĞĂƌƐ͘ dŚŽƵŐŚ ďĂďLJ ŵĞƌƐ ĂƌĞ ďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐ ƚŽ ůĞĂǀĞ ƚŚĞ ůĂďŽƵƌ ĨŽƌĐĞ͕ Ă ŚŝŐŚ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƌĞŐŝŽŶĂů ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŐƌŽǁƚŚ ŝƐ ĐŽŵŝŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ ŝŵŵŝŐƌĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐ ƚŚĞ ůĂďŽƵƌ ĨŽƌĐĞ͘ EŽƚĂďůLJ͕ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĮƌƐƚ ƟŵĞ͕ ĐĞŶƐƵƐ ĚĂƚĂ ƐŚŽǁĞĚ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞƌĞ ǁĞƌĞ ŵŽƌĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞ ŐƌŽƵƉ ϱϱ ƚŽ ϲϰ͕ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ ĂƌĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŽ ůĞĂǀĞ ƚŚĞ ůĂďŽƵƌ ĨŽƌĐĞ͕ ƚŚĂŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĂŐĞ ŐƌŽƵƉ ϭϱ ƚŽ Ϯϰ͕ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ ĂƌĞ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŽ ĞŶƚĞƌ ŝƚ͘ WŽƌƚ DŽŽĚLJ DĞƚƌŽ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ tŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞ WĂƌƟĐŝƉĂƟŽŶ ZĂƚĞ ;ϭϵϵϲͲϮϬϭϯͿ Port Coquitlam As the charts to the right indicate, the share of seniors increased ŝŶ ŵŽƐƚ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƟĞƐ ǁŚŝůĞ ƚŚĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ŽĨ LJŽƵƚŚ ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƐ ƚŽ ĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞ ;ƚŚŽƵŐŚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ ŝŶ ĂďƐŽůƵƚĞ ŶƵŵďĞƌƐͿ͘ tŚŝƚĞ ZŽĐŬ ĂŶĚ EĞǁ tĞƐƚŵŝŶƐƚĞƌ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ ŚĂǀĞ ŚĂĚ Ă ůĂƌŐĞ ƐŚĂƌĞ ŽĨ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ͕ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJ ƐĂǁ Ă ĚĞĐůŝŶĞ͘ dŚŝƐ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƐĞŶŝŽƌƐ ŵĂLJ ďĞ ŵŽǀŝŶŐ ƚŽǁĂƌĚ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ďĂůĂŶĐĞĚ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶ ĂŵŽŶŐ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƟĞƐ͘ Wŝƚƚ DĞĂĚŽǁƐ North Vancouver District ϲϵй EŽƌƚŚ sĂŶĐŽƵǀĞƌ ŝƚLJ 68% EĞǁ tĞƐƚŵŝŶƐƚĞƌ Maple Ridge 68% >ŝŽŶƐ ĂLJ ϲϳй >ĂŶŐůĞLJ dŽǁŶƐŚŝƉ ϲϳй >ĂŶŐůĞLJ ŝƚLJ Electoral Area A 66% Delta 66% Coquitlam ϲϱй ƵƌŶĂďLJ ϲϱй ŽǁĞŶ /ƐůĂŶĚ 9494955 ĞůĐĂƌƌĂ 64% Anmore Metro Vancouver 0% 10% RPA - 261 - 20% ϯϬй 40% ϱϬй 64% 2011 ϭϵϵϲ ϭϵϵϳ ϭϵϵϴ ϭϵϵϵ 2000 2001 2002 ϮϬϬϯ 2004 ϮϬϬϱ 2006 ϮϬϬϳ 2008 ϮϬϬϵ 2010 201 60% ϳϬй 80% ϵϬй 100% ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ ^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ ĂŶĂĚĂ >ĂďŽƵƌ &ŽƌĐĞ ^ƵƌǀĞLJ