TransLink contribution of $2.75 billion, and local government contribution of $0.5 billion alongwith supportive land use.

Specifics of the plan include:

$1.4 billion to build the 11 km the Evergreen Line by 2014, connecting Coquitlam Centreto Lougheed Town Centre;

- $2.8 billion to build a 12 km line to UBC by 2020;

$3.1 billion to double capacity on the Expo Line, by increasing station size to allowlarger trains and by having a 6 km extension to Surrey by 2020;

- $1 billion for new railcars;

$1.2 billion for new energy efficient high-capacity RapidBus service along 7 major routesin Metro Vancouver; and

- $1.6 billion for 1,500 new clean energy buses and related maintenance infrastructure.

The Program estimates that transit market share will grow from 12% during weekdays at presentto 17% by 2020 and 22% by 2230. Rapid transit capacity is estimated to increase by 70%.

These are of course very substantial investments, and large scale transit plans have beenannounced in the past without coming to fruition.

(b) TransLink

(i) Purposes, and areas of responsibility

Purposes

The statutory regime provides that TransLink's purposes include:

- supporting the Regional Growth Strategy for the area it covers (which now extends fromSquamish through to Abbotsford and Mission),

supporting Provincial and regional environmental initiatives, including the reduction ofgreen house gases, and

the economic development of transportation service in the region.

Areas of responsibility

TransLink's areas of responsibility are:

18VDO POCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

public transit,

the major road and bridge network (with municipalities providing day to daymanagement), and

- transportation demand management, to reduce congestion and maximize efficiency ofpresent facilities.

TransLink's 2006 expenditures were $565 million on transit operations, $35 million on roads andbridges and $35 million on other activities.

Rapid transit network

Current rapid transit network components include:

SkyTrain (210,000 passengers per day), which consists of the Expo line (29 kilometres)and the Millennium Line (20 kilometres);

- three B-Line bus rapid transit services (with traffic priority and frequently with adedicated right of way), and Seabus; and

West Coast Express (9100 customers per day, 65 kilometres).

The Canada line is presently under construction (90,000 passengers projected for 2010, 19.5kilometres).

Frequent Transit Network

The Frequent Transit Network ("FTN") is a network of transit routes that provide service at leastevery 15 minutes, for 15 hours per day (from approximately 6 am to 9 pm) seven days a week,and offer a minimum average speed. The FTN currently serves 36% of Metro Vancouver'spopulation within 10 minute walking distance (450 metres).

Planned enhancements to the system could result in 60% of the GVRD's population being servedby the FTN by 2013. Those projections anticipate future FTN lines being selected based on:

- population densities of areas served,

- jobs in areas served (to reflect destinations within an area, as compared to sources oftraffic), and

potential transit speeds within the corridor.

Particulars of the rapid transit network and the current FTN, and the FTN as envisioned in 2031based on current OCP designations, are set out at Tab 7 of this binder.

19VDO DOCS 41681794 v. / RGEFORMAT

(ii) Planning, governance structure and funding

Plans

TransLink follows a three stage planning framework, being

- a 30 year long tenn strategy,

a 10 year strategic plan, and

- a 3 year operating plan based on the 10 year strategic plan.

Governance

The governance structure includes:

- a Board of Directors, which is responsible for planning, construction and operations. Itdevelops the 10 year strategic plan, and has sole responsibility for developing, approvingand implementing the 3 year operational plans;

a Council of Mayors, which is responsible for approving the 10 year strategic plan,including revenue measures and borrowing limits. They do this by way of weightedvoting (1 vote per 20,000 people) on base plans and supplemental plans containingadditional options; and

- a Commissioner, who is responsible for approving fare increases, assessing theconsistency of the 10 year strategic plans with the long term vision and thereasonableness of its funding assumptions, and for auditing customer satisfaction.

The regime within which TransLink operates is accordingly very different than that within whichregional planning takes place. While individual municipalities have a role:

the number of players is reduced, by using the Council of Mayors mechanism,

the role of the Council of Mayors is confined to deciding core service level and servicepriority issues, with an independent Board having significant responsibility for framingthose issues,

- decision making does not require consensus, and

financial incentives are in place, by way of access to gas tax monies on a matching basis.

Funding

The governance structure and the sources of revenue are interrelated. Leaving aside theProvincial Transit Plan, the three main sources of revenue are:

20VDO DOCS #1 681 794 v. I RGEFORMAT

property taxes (traditionally the preserve of local government),

fuel taxes, and

other revenue (fares, billboards, development etc).

(c) Interplay between the Provincial Transit Plan and TransLink

Prior to the Provincial Transit Plan, increased transportation expenditures going forward were tobe based on an equal contribution from each of those sources, with the Council of Mayors havingthe authority to increase the gas tax by up to 3 cents per litre, provided the other tools were usedin a way that matches those funds. The interplay between the Provincial Transit Plan andTransLink, however, is unclear at present.

The Provincial Transit Plan contemplates a $2.75 billion contribution by TransLink, a $500million contribution by local governments, and "supportive land use". There has also been areference to the "Hong Kong model" of transit. Specific uncertainties that arise include:

how TransLink is to raise the $2.75 billion, and

how the Province, TransLink and municipalities are to share revenues from hedevelopment of lands adjacent to transit lines.

As I have noted, municipalities commonly use extractions from development as a source ofrevenue for civic amenities and infrastructure. The Hong Kong model involves the developmentof lands adjacent to transit lines as a source of funds for the line. I will address options fortransit's role in growth management in the final section of the paper.

6. The Agricultural Land Commission

Thus far this paper has mentioned 24 bodies that have a role in growth management in theGVRD (the Province, the GVRD, 21 municipalities and TransLink). A 25th player is theAgricultural Land Commission.

(a) Role relative to that of local government

Decisions made by the Province, the GVRD and municipal Councils involve a balancing ofvarious community values and interests, with the people making the decision having been electedto do so. The ALC on the other hand is a non-elected body which receives direction from theProvince through legislation and regulations.

21VDO DOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

(b) Government policy relating to "community need"

Section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (the "ALC Act") requires the ALC to"preserve agricultural land", and section 30 gives it a broad discretion to exclude land from theALR, and in doing so to set the terms "it considers advisable". The exercise of that discretion isguided by the regulatory framework.

It is likely that applications for exclusion based on competing community interests ("communityneed") will increase in the GVRD as communities exhaust the supply of urban lands within theirboundaries. Part of the rationale for enhancing the regional panel structure of the ALC in 2002was to provide for greater local community input into decision making, within the context of thelegislation and applicable Provincial policies.

"Community need" is not defined in the ALC's guiding policies or regulations, but is referred toin its 3 year management and budget plans as one of four performance measures, with the ideabeing that the percentage of applications approved on such grounds should stay constant ordecrease. Exclusion applications based on community need presently comprise roughly 3% ofapprovals on a Province-wide basis.

Some commentators have asserted that the ALC does not have the power to exclude land fromthe ALR based on "community need". There are strong counterarguments, however, and theanalysis is subject to change at any point should the Province choose to alter the legislativelanguage.

(c) Relationship relative to regional planning

One avenue for considering "community need" is as part of the Regional Growth Strategy andOCP planning processes.

Section 13 of the ALC Act provides for dispute resolution on a "community issue", which isdefined to include the use of land for public facilities, the development of a Regional GrowthStrategy, the form and content of OCPs, and certain other specified matters. The sectionprovides that the ALC and the local government can appoint a facilitator, who is to give weightto:

"(a) agricultural values, including the preservation ofagricultural land and the promotion of agriculture;

(b) environmental, economic, social and heritagevalues, but only if

(i) those values cannot be replaced or relocatedto land other than agricultural land, and

1) giving weight to those values results in nonet loss to the agricultural capabilities ofthe area."

22VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

(d) Decisions in specific cases

The ALC's approach to "community need" submissions has been made clearer in two recentdecisions on exclusion applications.

(i) Abbotsford

In July 2005, the ALC was faced with an application by the City of Abbotsford to remove 372hectares of land from the ALR to facilitate job creation and employment growth, in the contextof growth management challenges faced by it and the Fraser Valley Regional District.

The ALC approved the exclusion of 178 hectares, refused to exclude 121 hectares and deferredits decision regarding the balance.

(ii) Barnston Island

In 2006, the ALC was faced with the proposition that 445 hectares of land should be removedfrom the ALR at Barnston Island because:

the land had a particularly high utility for industry, given its large site and locationcharacteristics, which the owners asserted far outweighed its utility for agriculture; and

there was an impending shortage of industrial land in the region, and the lead time forbringing such land on-stream was great.

The ALC stated the following in its July 19, 2006 decision rejecting the exclusion application:

"On balance, the Commission believes the lands have agriculturalcapability. The soils on Barnston Island may well require activesoil management - this is neither unusual nor impractical. Soilmanagement is part of the normal farm practices of an agriculturaloperation and a requirement for successful farming in much of theALR throughout British Columbia. The past and presentagricultural activities on Barnston Island support the argument thatthe lands have agricultural capability...

While the Commission accepts that the existing ferry access is notideal, this challenge is not unique. The Commission hasencountered transportation challenges in other rural areas,including other islands around the Province.

When faced with a decision on whether or not to exclude soils withagricultural capability from the ALR, the Commission believes itwould be inappropriate to base its consideration solely on a presentday transportation situation...

A "community need" argument whether it be for residential,commercial, institutional, industrial purposes, etc. must originate

23VDO DOGS #I68 1 794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

from the local government — not individual property owners.Community need arguments from local governments are to bebased on local and regional planning assessments and supported byrigorous technical analysis before being considered by theCommission.

In this case, the GVRD has not put forth a community needargument as it believes non-ALR lands are available for industrialdevelopment and that excluding the lands under application onBarnston Island for industrial purposes is unnecessary."

(iii) Garden City

The ALC took a similar approach in its September 8, 2006 decision rejecting an exclusionapplication in Richmond:

"Through the application process, the Commission may excludeland from the ALR if it believes the land is not suitable foragriculture or is no longer suitable for agriculture. TheCommission may also exclude suitable agricultural land from theALR to meet community needs in cases where no reasonablealternative exists ...

Normally it is the responsibility of local government to arguecommunity need and provide supporting evidence. In this instancethe City expressed its desire to obtain access to additionalparklands and explained how the community would benefit fromthe exclusion.

However community need arguments from local governments areto be based on local and regional planning assessments and to besupported by rigorous technical analyses that clearly:

– identify the need for and expected community benefits or values to beachieved

identify and assess the impacts of risks to the community if the proposal doesnot proceed or is delayeddetermine whether there are reasonable alternative means of meetingcommunity need

– identify and assess the impacts of meeting community need on agriculture andnon-agricultural uses of the lands, and the avoidance, mitigation ormanagement of these impacts.

The Commission does not believe the City has conducted thenecessary analyses or provided the level of detail that wouldwarrant further consideration of community need. In the absence

24VDODOCS #1681794 v, 1 RGEFORMAT

of a substantive community need argument it would beinappropriate for the Commission to consider excluding land withprime agricultural capability from the ALR."

(e) Comments

One would expect the ALC to take an approach that is consistent with its role as a non-electedbody carrying out government policy. If the direction the ALC receives, for example, is:

to only exclude where local government makes the request, and only where there iscompelling evidence that there is no alternative, with

the Province, for example through Cabinet, being the appropriate body to balancecompeting community interests otherwise,

then that is the test.

One can debate whether the ALC has received a direction to set the test that the Bamston andGarden City cases have suggested, but that debate is not critical for the present purpose, becausethe Province can re-set the direction at any time if it wishes.

As a matter of policy though, it is far from clear that refusing to consider arguments not made bylocal government is appropriate in a circumstance where:

the GVRD makes submissions that are based on the Green Zone in the LRSP, when theLRSP is significantly out of date and did not in any event involve much consideration ofeconomic or sustainability impacts, and where in a number of cases land was simply putin the Green Zone because it happened to be in the ALR on the date when the LRSP wascreated;

the amendment process for the regional plan is proceeding at the glacial pace it is.

If there is a compelling community need, it needs to he responded to, whoever it may be that ispointing the need out.

7. First Nations

The emerging First Nations role has some similarities to municipal government insofar as landuse is concerned, and is worth reviewing. Treaty negotiations presently underway in the LowerMainland include the following First Nations and areas:

the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation: the north shore east, and Vancouver, Burnaby and PortMoody;

25VDO _DOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

the Musqueam First Nation: Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, the north shore and parts ofDelta;

the Squamish First Nation: the north shore, and lands north and west;

the Katzic First Nation: Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, Surrey, Langley andDelta; and

the Kwantlen First Nation: Maple Ridge, Langley and Fort Langley.

(a) The First Nations role in the absence of a Treaty

In the absence of a Treaty, the relationship between aboriginal rights and local government landuse regulation turns on the nature of the land at issue, and who is doing what with it.

The burden of proof for establishing aboriginal rights and title is on the First Nation, who needsto prove exclusive First Nations' use and occupation for title, likely on the basis of specific sitesas compared to wide ranging territories (Delgaminikw v. B.C., SCC, and R. v. Marshall andBernard, SCC).

(i) Privately owned fee simple land

The impact of First Nation claims on the regulation of privately owned fee simple land appearsto be relatively limited.

Aboriginal rights and title in respect of such land are subject to the rights of the private propertylandowner, acting lawfully in accordance with federal, provincial and other applicable laws, andcurrent case law suggests that the appropriate remedy for a successful claim of aboriginal title iscompensation from the Crown, not remuneration by an innocent private third party or the returnof the privately owned lands from the private land owner to the First Nation asserting title.

When a local government makes a decision regarding land use regulation, it is far from clear thatthe Crown's duty to consult is engaged, on the basis that the local government is not the"Crown" for such purposes. Even if such a duty does apply, its content would reflect the effecton aboriginal interests, and the fact that aboriginal rights, if they exist, are subject to the rights ofthe owner of such land.

(ii) Provincial Crown land, and reserve land

The Crown's duty to consult is engaged when the Crown is making a decision or contemplatingan action that might adversely affect an aboriginal interest (Haida v B.C., SCC), and hence mostdispositions of interests in Provincial Crown land likely trigger the duty to consult.

Zoning bylaws typically apply to the activities of private lessees on Provincial Crown land, andcommonly apply.by Provincial policy to activities undertaken by the Province.

26VDODOCS #1681794 p. 1 RGEFORMAT

Reserve land is within federal jurisdiction, and local government land use regulation is severelyrestricted in relation thereto. Arrangements are however negotiated on a case by case basis,often in connection with the provision of local government services.

(b) Implications of the Tsawwassen Treaty

The best predictor of the regime that come into play as treaties are settled would seem to be theTsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement (the "TFN Agreement"), which was signed by theChief and Federal and Provincial Ministers in December 2007.

(1) The land involved

The TFN Agreement gives the Tsawwassen First Nation a governance role as regardsapproximately 724 hectares of land (the "Tsawwassen Lands"), in the context of a settlement ofall Tsawwassen First Nation land claims. The Lands comprise 372 hectares of former provincialCrown land and 290 hectares of former Indian reserve. Other lands can be added to theTsawwassen Lands subject to certain conditions.

The Tsawwassen First Nation will own this land in fee simple, and the reserve status will beeliminated. The TFN Agreement also provides that the Tsawwassen First Nation will own 62hectares of other land, which will remain under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Delta.

(ii) Similarities to local government

Role in land use and development control

The TFN Agreement provides for land use control, at section 1(d) of Chapter 6, stating that:

"Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of ... themanagement and use of Tsawwassen Lands, including planning,zoning and development".

The TFN Agreement also provides that before Tsawwassen makes a planning or zoning law, theTsawwassen First Nation will consult with any local government that may be affected.

Relationship to the GVRD

Chapter 17 establishes the relationship between the Tsawwassen First Nation and the GreaterVancouver Regional District ("GVRD"), stating that:

"1. On the Effective Date and in accordance with thisAgreement, Tsawwassen First Nation is a First Nationmember of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

2. Tsawwassen First Nation may participate... as a member ofthe Greater Vancouver Regional District...

27VDO _DOGS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

4. If needed for the purpose of carrying out its functions,powers, duties and obligations as a member of the GreaterVancouver Regional District ... as provided for in thisAgreement, Tsawwassen First Nation will be deemed tohave the powers of a municipality necessary for thatpurpose.

6. British Columbia will consult with Tsawwassen on anychanges to the structure of regional governance thatdirectly and significantly affect Tsawwassen First Nation.

8. On the effective date, Tsawwassen will appoint a directorto the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District."

Role vis a vis the Regional Growth Strategy

Chapter 17 also speaks to regional growth planning, providing that:

GVRD bylaws and regulations do not apply to the Tsawwassen Lands except as providedin the TFN Agreement or otherwise agreed,

the Tsawwassen First Nation will "receive and pay for Core Mandatory RegionalServices delivered by" the GVRD, and

bylaws relating to "Core Mandatory Regional Services received by" the TsawwassenFirst Nation will apply in respect of the Tsawwassen Lands.

The chapter also speaks specifically to the interplay between the Tsawwassen First Nation's landuse plan and the GVRD's Regional Growth Strategy, stating:

19. ...Tsawwassen First Nation's land use plan that is in placeat the Effective Date will be deemed to meet the statutoryrequirements of the Local Government Act for consistencywith the regional growth strategy of the Greater VancouverRegional District in place at the Effective Date.

20. A land use plan prepared by Tsawwassen First Nation afterthe Effective Date will include a statement equivalent to aregional context statement as defined in the LocalGovernment Act, identifying how its land use plan isconsistent with a regional growth strategy approved by theGreater Vancouver Regional District with the participationofTsawwassen First Nation as a member of the GreaterVancouver Regional District."

28VDO DOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMA7'

Thus:

the Tsawwassen First Nation appears to have free reign as regards its initial land use plan,without regard to the Livable Region Strategic Plan; and

the restraints of a Regional Context Statement will not apply until a new RegionalGrowth Strategy is approved with the participation of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

This language leaves some doubt as to whether the Tsawwassen First Nation must participate inregional growth management planning, and hence raises the possibility that the TsawwassenFirst Nation has it within its power to in effect exempt itself from regional growth planning. Ifso, it would be a matter of no small significance.

Role vis a vis the ALC

Under the TFN Agreement, 207 hectares of land will be removed from the ALR, with the currentexpectation being that much of it will become available for industrial use.

Other land will remain in the ALR and be subject to the jurisdiction of the ALC.

(iii) Differences from local government

Notwithstanding the parallels, there are also important differences between the Tsawwassen FirstNation and a municipality. To some extent, the Treaty is an expansion and updating of theformer reserve regime into a 21 st century formula allocating governance responsibilities betweenvarious jurisdictions.

Role vis a vis residents

One key difference from local government is that the Tsawwassen Government is todemocratically accountable to its members, rather than to all those who reside within theterritory. Membership is based on aboriginal status, with there being approximately 358members at present. The TFN Agreement also provides that the Tsawwassen Government mayinclude elements of traditional governance, subject to a requirement that a majority of themembers of the Tsawwassen Government will be elected.

In the place of a voting right, non-member residents have a right to be consulted regardingmatters that directly and significantly affect them. There is also provision for a non-residentmember of various Tsawwassen Government institutions.

In considering the implications, it must of course be kept on mind that non-member residentshave never had full voting rights on the Reserve lands that make up roughly 40% of theTsawwassen Lands.

29VDODOCS # 6 1794 v. / RGEFORMAT

Immunity from unilateral change

Another key difference is that while the Province can alter legislation relating to the GVRD,TransLink, the ALC and municipalities, the Province cannot unilaterally alter a constitutionallyprotected treaty.

8. Private sector

The private sector gains from many elements of this regime. As has been noted, localizeddecision making allows local conditions to be taken into account in subtle ways that othermodels of governance might compromise. The regime has allowed a sufficiently positive risk /reward balance as to produce both an active investment climate and substantial public amenities.

The localized bias of the regime does however have some downsides. As the vacant urban landbase starts to run out, important issues arise as to how to best focus the use of the land thatremains. Two examples in particular are being raised by speakers at this program.

(a) Industrial lands

The first concern is that the present regime is allowing the region's industrial future to be put atrisk. The reasoning is as follows:

Level of supply

while a recent GVRD study indicated a 2700 hectare supply of industrial land over thelong-term based on OCP designations, when one takes into account the restraintsassociated with current uses, open space and environmental designations, road andinfrastructure requirements upon development, and so on, the supply drops to 1200hectares;

much of that land is in fractured ownership, is not serviced and is not well located forindustrial use. Fractured ownership makes it very difficult to assemble sites large enoughto warrant a developer putting up the costs of servicing. As a result, there are fewserviced sites presently available in the GVRD;

the approval process for large new sites takes approximately 6 years;

there are limited possibilities for increasing supply through intensification, given that the40% site coverage that typically applies in the Lower Mainland is an intensive sitecoverage for distribution facilities where movement is a fundamental aspect of theoperation;

Demand

even 1200 hectares is only about a 10 to 12 year supply, at current absorption rates;

30VDO _DOCS #1681794 I RGEFORMAT

more than half of the current demand relates to port activity, and the Province is makingvery substantial investments to take advantage of Metro Vancouver's relative proximityto Asia Pacific markets and triple the throughput of the port. Those investments includeover $3 billion in infrastructure funding for roads and bridges;

the ability to realize the benefits of that investment will be constrained withoutappropriate well located lands for distribution facilities.

System impacts

while individual industrial lands do not produce revenues commensurate with otherbusiness and residential uses, they have substantially higher multiplier effects in terms ofimpact on the economy. Indeed industrial activity forms the core of the economy;

municipalities rely on property taxes and development amenities and charges for revenue,however, and if a project proponent advances a proposal that produces an equivalentnumber of jobs as an industrial project and increases tax revenues, the change ofpermitted use often makes sense from a municipal perspective; and

while each individual municipality may gain from the conversion if other municipalitiespick up the slack, if no one does so, the region as a whole is hurt.

(b) Office lands

Damage can also he done if the wrong regional policy is put in place.

A second concern that has been raised is with the proposed policy of shifting office supply frombusiness parks to town centre locations. The submission is that business parks and suburbantown centres respond to different market segments, and limiting office supply to suburban towncentres would significant hurt the region's competitiveness for an important segment of themarket. The reasoning is that:

apart from Vancouver, Richmond and Burnaby, regional town centres are consideredremote and face goods transportation challenges. This is important to business parktenants, who tend to have a single major office which serves the entire region, ascompared to town centre tenants, which tend to serve the local community surroundingthe specific regional town centre;

business parks also tend to appeal to businesses that do not have frequent visitors, andhence have less to gain from transit access, and that have little to gain from nearby retail;

town centres tend to have few large vacant sites wherein a developer can generate amaster planned phased project that provides particular efficiencies to the tenant. Ratherthey tend to be in older urban areas, which have been sub-divided extensively. Many ofthe larger high tech businesses have a standard set up that they will not compromise; and

31VDO_DOCS #1681794 v. I RGEFORMAT

- British Columbia does not attract many very large-scale business tenants, compared tosimilar and larger cities in North America, and without large anchor office tenants whowill take five or more floors of an office tower, developers face a relatively a high risk inproposing a high rise project.

C. REGIMES IN PLACE ELSEWHERE

This review of the BC regime has raised numerous issues, not the least of which are:

whether the current non-hierarchical consensus-based regime for growth managementplanning is up to the task not only of freezing land from development, but of evaluatingand directing land use and intensity choices on the remaining developable land in light ofthe region's interests and sustainability considerations; and

- whether there are ways to reduce the negative impacts of "not in my back yard"considerations, without overly compromising its positive features, including livability?

I will next examine how some other jurisdictions have dealt with regional growth managementand sustainability issues.

1. Provincial direction regarding density (Ontario)

The Ontario government recently enacted the Ontario Places to Grow Act, and established theGrowth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The regime essentially provides that the Province will play a direct role in growth management.The Province has exercised this power by establishing specific criteria, and then delegating tomunicipalities the discretion as to how to proceed within the confines of those criteria.

(a) The Ontario Places to Grow Act

(i)

Role of the Province

The statute gives the Provincial Cabinet the decision whether to:

- designate an area as a growth plan area; and

approve the regional growth plan.

It gives the Provincial Minister the responsibility to prepare the regional growth plan, which isto:

contain population projections;

32VDO _DOGS #I681794 v. I RGEFORMAT

identify priority growth areas;

establish growth strategies for the growth plan area; and

establish policies, goals and criteria for intensification, density, land supply for uses,settlement areas, location of industry and commerce, protection of agriculture andsensitive lands, location of infrastructure and institutions, transportation planning, wastemanagement planning, the coordination of planning and development amongmunicipalities, affordable housing, and specific actions to be taken by municipalities.

In terms of process, the Minister can appoint people to give advice, and must, when a plan isprepared, give notice and take public input via a hearing officer. Once the plan is settled, theMinister can make amendments that do not have a significant effect on its general application.He or she then conducts a review every 10 years, and, if that an official plan does not confoiiii,he or she can give notice to submit corrective proposals, or order an amendment.

(ii) Role of the municipality

In teams of the municipality's role, once a growth plan applies:

Councils must amend their official plans to conform, before the third anniversary or onthe date directed by the Minister; and

decisions made by Councils under the Planning Act, Condominium Act and otherprescribed legislation must conform with it.

The legislation also provides that the growth plan established by the Province prevails in theevent of a conflict between it and an official plan or zoning bylaw.

(b) The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

The legislation has now been implemented in the urban core surrounding Toronto. The keyschedules are set out at Appendix #3 to this paper.

(0 Built-up areas, greenfield areas and intensification

The Growth Plan conceptually divides all land into "Built-up areas", "Designated greenfieldareas", "Greenbelt areas" and 'other plan area land' (per the shading on Schedules 2 and 4 to 6).It then:

33VDODOCS #1 681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

- empowers the Minister to delineate a "Built-up Area", and provides that by 2015 aminimum of 40% of all residential development occurring annually within eachmunicipality will be within that area. Where a higher percentage is achieved, it becomesthe minimum;

- provides that all municipalities must develop and implement policies to achieve thoselevels in the Official plans and other documents;

- provides minimum density targets for "Designated greenfield areas", and requiresmunicipalities to achieve those targets;

- provides greenbelt policies that apply in "Greenbelt areas";

- provides that an expansion of settlement area boundaries can only occur where sufficientopportunities are not available through intensification and designated greenfield areas;

(ii) Population and employment

- establishes municipality by municipality population forecasts that are to be used forplanning and, managing growth (Schedule 3);

establishes municipality by municipality employment forecasts that are to be used forplanning and managing growth (Schedule 3);

- provides that an adequate supply of lands for employment must be maintained toaccommodate that forecast;

- limits the situations in which those lands can be converted to non-employment or retailuse;

) Urban growth centres, and corridors

identifies Urban Growth Centres (shown in Schedules 2 and 4 to 6);

- provides that the Minister will determine the approximate size and location, and thatmunicipalities must then delineate the boundary in their official plans;

- establishes minimum gross density targets to be achieved by 2031 (400 residents and jobscombined per hectare in Toronto, etc);

- shows conceptual existing "major highways", "future transportation corridors","improved higher order transit" and "proposed higher order transit" (Schedules 2, 5 and6);

34VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

provides that major transit station areas and intensification corridors must be designatedin official plans to achieve densities that will support and ensure the viability of existingand proposed transit services; and

(iv) Implementation

provides that the Minister will work with other Ministers and with municipalities andother stakeholders to finalize boundaries, do sub-area assessments, and so on.

2. Mandating of an urban growth boundary (Portland, Oregon)

In an article entitled "Managing Space to Manage Growth", July 2000 (Washington University inSt Louis), Daniel Mandelker reviewed the practical effects of the urban containment regime inplace for the Willamette Valley and Greater Portland area in Oregon. The Valley has most of thestate's population and most of its valuable agricultural land. The analysis is thereforeparticularly relevant to how one might expect Green Zone and urban containment policies to playout.

The article opens with the following quote attributed to John Kitzhaber, the [then] Governor ofOregon:

"Oregonians don't like sprawl, but they don't like high densityeither."

In terms of the effectiveness of the regime, Mr. Manldelker comments that the regime issuccessful at containing sprawl, but that issues have arisen as regards both density and housingaffordability:

"Density increases inside the Portland UGB are impressive, butdensities are lower than the program intended. Lower densitieshave occurred even though zoning that discourages housing ormakes it more costly is prohibited by statute, and though LCDCrequires six to ten units per acre for the Portland area onundeveloped, residentially-designated lands.

One of the reasons why higher-density development has notoccurred inside the UGBs is that opposition to this type ofdevelopment has become increasingly common. Developersbecame disillusioned when they could not build at the expecteddensities promised by the program at its adoption....

there are significant price differences between land inside andoutside the urban growth boundary. The UGB is not responsiblefor all of the price increase that has occurred inside the boundary,but price increases aggravate affordable housing problems.

35VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

A significant problem in the Oregon UGB program is decidingwhere development should occur and at what densities.Development at low densities inside the UGBs acceleratesdemands for boundary expansion, which can damage the goal ofpreserving agricultural and forest lands. Higher densities withinthe UGB reduce demand for boundary expansion but createopposition from existing neighborhoods. Housing at higherdensities inside the UGB can be expensive and push lower-incomehousing outward. Balancing these competing claims requires acarefully orchestrated strategy, which is more difficult to secure....

The Oregon experience shows how expectations aboutdevelopment opportunities and coalition shifts can affect programperformance. The development industry welcomed the UGBbecause it seemed to provide a commitment to higher-densitydevelopment inside UGBs. When opposition arose within theUGB, the industry felt betrayed....

Higher density development often occurs as infill in existingneighborhoods and usually requires upzonings. Residents of theseneighborhoods may object if they believe higher densities willhave a negative effect on their neighborhoods....

Attention to design and scale in land development regulations canallow more intensive development that does not destroy existingneighborhood character.

Even good design is not enough if higher density development isthe real objection, which is often the case. A growth managementstrategy for urbanized areas must provide a framework for newdevelopment that existing residents can accept. Adequate designreview, density floors and ceilings in residentially designatedareas, periodic review of how the municipality has dealt with newresidential uses, and the funding of infrastructure "banks" themunicipality can draw on for capital facilities illustrate measuresthat local governments can consider....

Specifying the intensity of growth that must occur within growthboundaries can also help. Model legislation proposed by theAmerican Planning Association requires urban growth areas tocontain land at "minimum densities and intensities." They mustaccommodate a designated percentage of the growth expected tooccur within the region or county in which the urban growth areais located.

Programs to allow new development in urbanizing areas are lessdifficult to manage. Raw land converts to development in this

36VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGE VRMAT

process, and usually there are no neighbors who can object thatdevelopment is too intensive...."

3. Hong Kong

Some of the reports surrounding the Provincial Transit Plan have indicated that the Province isinterested in a model that has similarities with the public private partnership model in place inHong Kong.

Central to the Hong Kong model is MTR Corp Ltd ("MTR"), which is 77% government ownedand is to continue to have majority government ownership for another 20 years.

MTR enters into joint ventures with property developers to plan and create fully integratedcommercial and residential communities alongside its rail alignments. Property developmentsare built around the stations, and the cost of building new transit lines is borne by the profitsgenerated from property sales and development. Other advantages include giving residentsconvenient access to public transport, stimulating ridership, and keeping fares down without theneed for the government to subsidize day to day operations.

Under the regime, the developer bears all development costs, including land premium andconstruction costs, and all development risks, and MTR supervises construction of the projectsand shares in the profits upon completion and sale.

4. Other

In Canada, Winnipeg, Halifax, and to some extent Ottawa, are city-regions where the city is theregion, Edmonton has announced a move to a regional district model to allow the area's 25municipalities to plan together.

A regional layer of government is however relatively uncommon in the United States, and Stateinvolvement in land use typically arises either as a condition of infrastructure funding or as aresult of a policy issue that extends beyond municipal boundaries.

Scarcity in drinking water supply has for example driven planning in various areas. In 2004, theNew Jersey Legislature passed the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act which protectsdrinking water for 5.4 million people (more than half the State's population) and preserves openspace. The regime comprehensively regulates development, with municipalities having to revisetheir local master plans and development regulations to conform with the regime.

37VDO DOGS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

D. THE PROSPECTS FOR ClIANGE IN THE BC APPROACH TO LOCAL,GO V E RN M ENT

1. The Business Coalition on Economic Sustainability

In three recent instances the private sector has made submissions regarding BC's approach tolocal government, by way of a coalition of business interests. Roughly 20 organizations havebeen involved, including UDI, the Business Council, the. BC Chamber of Commerce and otherorganizations representing the tourism, mining, agriculture, retail and other sectors. I had thehonour of being involved in each, as well as in the development of the amenity zoning andhousing agreement provisions of the Local Government Act.

Community Charter

The Coalition first formed in response to the Community Charter, which, as noted earlier, wasaccurately described by the Minister as the most empowering local government legislation inCanada. The Coalition's concerns were rooted in the impact that NIMBY and related factorscould be expected to have, given the removal of the checks and balances in earlier legislation.

Detailed particulars regarding the concerns, and the accommodation that was ultimately reachedwith the Province, can be found in a series of papers I have written that are on the McCarthyTetrault website (www.mccarthy.ca).

Designation of private land solely for public use

A similar Coalition formed in connection with the designation by the City of Vancouver ofprivate land solely for public use, without compensation or negotiation. The City's bylaw wasultimately held to be authorized by the Vancouver Charter, in judgments that included commentsby a Court of Appeal Justice that she had to hold her nose at the result and by the Supreme Courtof Canada that it had "considerable sympathy" for the position the private land owner was left in.

The Province has however thus far resisted addressing the situation.

Phased development

A similar Coalition made representations regarding the need for legislation to provide checks andbalances in connection with multi-phase investment. That effort was successful, resulting in theaddition of Phased Development Agreement ("PDA") provisions to the Local Government Act.

2. The approach the Business Coalition has taken to problem solving

The success of the representations in two of the three cases noted is in significant part a functionof the approach taken. The Coalitions:

spent time with both the Province and UBCM with a focus on trying to achieve acollaborative solution; and

38VDO ROCS #1681794 v. 1 ROEFORMAT

focused on developing a tool that retained the benefits of the existing regime to themaximum extent possible, while addressing the specific problems of concern.

3. The impact NIMBY pressures have had on multi-phase investment

The issues of concern generally related to some aspect of the extremely high level ofresponsiveness to voters that the BC regime creates, given the substantial number of relativelysmall municipalities that is a cornerstone of the regime.

The problem is not that there is anything wrong with voter responsiveness, but rather that it canoverpower other equally relevant considerations. As 1 have already noted, there are a number ofissues connected with the region's future and with sustainability that can be said to have an equalor better claim to priority than protecting existing neighbourhoods.

The multi-phase issue arose where a private party commenced a multi-phase project on the basisof an agreed plan (which typically involved substantial amenity extractions), and then found,after the project was under way, that NIMBY pressures resulted in the local governmentchanging the rules of the game to block the completion of the project.

The need for resolution came to a head with:

the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Pacific National Investments Ltd, vVictoria (City);

other circumstances that were equally troubling but that did not proceed to Court(Fairmont Hot Springs Resort's experience in the Regional District of East Kootenaybeing one high profile example); and

- the increasing number of multi-phase projects in British Columbia.

This created a desire to find an instrument that would:

facilitate democracy, by retaining Councillor control over land use and developmentdecisions;

- facilitate larger scale planning; and

facilitate the ability of local governments to attract multi-phase investment and securebeneficial public amenities, by enabling certainty of build out for the private investor /developer, and by reducing financing costs and therefore overall development cost.

4. How other jurisdictions have addressed those pressures

Our review of the regimes in other jurisdictions indicated that three basic kinds of mechanisms.

39VDO DOGS 1681794 t% 1 RGEFORMAT

(a) Appeal Boards

The first is the Appeal Board approach, under which a Municipal Board balanced theseconsiderations on a case by case basis. This approach has the advantage of a case by casereview, but the availability of appeals for a wide range of decisions involves the use ofsubstantial resources and impose significant delays.

Municipal Board regimes exist in many provinces, with the scope of the issues that are subject toappeal varying from place to place.

(b) Vesting upon application or approval

The second approach provided for the vesting of development rights upon the filing of certainkinds of applications or the obtaining of certain kinds of approvals. This approach is favoured inthe United States, and exists in Canada in various ways.

The regimes in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington establishgrandparenting at subdivision application. Those in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and NewYork establish grandparenting at subdivision approval. And those in Colorado, North Carolina,Virginia and Texas establish vesting rights upon development application.

This approach is presently in place in British Columbia by virtue of section 943 of the LocalGovernment Act. That section grandparents a subdivision application relative to municipalbylaws, subject to a one year cap, although that limit, and the Approving Officer's public interestdiscretion, has tended to strip the protection of much of its effect.

(e)

Contract based regimes

The third approach was to create a contract based regime, under which specific developmentprojects would be grandparented relative to subsequent bylaw changes. This is an additional toolover and above traditional zoning, and did not require the "cutting back" of any existingmunicipal powers.

British Columbia had some prior experience with this kind of regime, through the land usecontract provisions that were in place from 1971 through 1978.

(d) The "made in BC solution" that was arrived at

It became clear from this review that a contract based approach would enable the problem to beaddressed in a way that would cause the least interference with the BC approach. Protectionwould not arise automatically upon application for certain approvals or the obtaining of thoseapprovals, but rather would be negotiated on a case by case basis, and be the subject of a bylawapproved after a public hearing.

40VDODOCS #1681794 P. 1 RGEFORIvIAT

The tool does not mandate that downzonings can never again happen in the later phases of aphased project. Rather it creates a mechanism that a private party can use to significantlyimprove its prospects for build out. It is very important that the property owner take care innegotiating and drafting the multi-phase agreement, because there is little to be gained from theagreement if:

- the local government, motivated by voter pressures, can achieve the same effect inanother way; or

- requirements or considerations are missed the undercut the validity of the agreement.

While an error on a single building has dramatic effects for that building, an error on a multi-phase project can put the entire project at risk.

5. Details of the PDA regime

The mechanism allows the grandparenting of those zoning bylaw provisions specified in theagreement. The maximum teiiii of the protection is 10 years, or 20 years with the approval of theInspector of Municipalities.

The legislation establishes some more detailed qualifications. Changes to the specified zoningbylaw provisions will apply if they are to enable the local government to comply with a statute ora Court order, if they are necessary to address a hazardous condition of which the localgovernment was unaware at the time it entered into the PDA, or if the owner consents. Certainkinds of development permit provisions are also grandparented, and other kinds are not.

A PDA may also include additional terms and conditions agreed to by the local government andthe developer, including terms respecting specific features in the development, the provision ofamenities, the phasing and timing of the development, dispute resolution and early termination.

The legislation also provides that:

a public hearing is required prior to the enactment of the bylaw that authorizes the PDA;

PDAs can be assigned to a subsequent owner of the land if the subsequent owner isidentified in the agreement, is a member of a class of persons identified in the agreement,or the local government agrees to the assignment; and

amendments must be adopted by bylaw, except for "minor amendments" as defined in thePDA and the legislation.

41VDODOCS #I681794 I RGEFORMAT

E. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGIME GOINGFORWARD, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

So, having looked at:

- the BC regime governing growth management;

approaches taken elsewhere, and the results; and

- the fact that change is possible, if carefully thought through and advanced,

what changes should be made to the BC regime going forward?

I will make some preliminary comments on six topics, being:

the initiatives that have been advanced to date by the Province and UBCM;

- changes that could be made without a new regional plan;

- changes that could be made to the regional planning structure;

specific policies that could be included in the next regional plan;

- changes that could be made as regards the Agricultural Land Reserve and First Nationstreaties; and

suggestions for the private sector.

Current initiatives

The Province has set a goal of achieving a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from2006 levels by 2020. Specific initiatives for achieving that objective were discussed at the 2007Union of BC Municipalities Convention.

(a) The Province

In his speech at the Convention, the Premier referenced the following two measures:

"greenhouse gas reduction strategies and targets will be legally required in all OfficialCommunity Plans and Regional Context Statements"; and

"municipalities will be given the power to waive development cost charges as a way toencourage green developments, small unit housing and small lot subdivisions".

42VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

(b) UBCM

A Policy Paper presented by the Presidents Committee suggested the following initiatives:

- replacing the system of joint and several liability with one of proportionate liability as away of limiting liability risks that provide a disincentive to innovation;

- giving local governments the authority to establish carbon neutral reserve funds, tocharge carbon fees, and to deposit carbon fees in a statutory Province wide pooled carbonneutral fund which could invest in green municipal infrastructure;

- giving local governments authority to charge fees and tolls on new and major roadwaysand bridges;

- giving local governments the authority to establish energy efficient design requirementsin development permit area guidelines;

giving local governments the authority to use local area service charges to financealternate energy improvements;

- amending the Building Code to require energy and other resource efficient and non-emitting buildings;

- giving local governments the ability to require an energy performance rating as acondition of a building permit;

giving local governments the authority to charge differential fees and charges for energyefficient buildings and renovations;

- giving local governments the authority to require the reduction of volatile organiccompounds indoors; and

giving local governments the authority to establish density bonuses for energy efficiencyrelated features

(c) Comments

These initiatives all reflect the BC approach of empowering local government to act, and leavingit to them to do so. They also focus to a significant extent on imposing requirements onbuildings.

They do not address:

- the concern that the "22 parties must achieve consensus" aspect of the BC regime reducesthe likelihood that a meaningful regional plan will be arrived at; or

43VDO DOCS #1681794 / RGEFORMAT

the "many small municipalities with broad powers" aspect of the BC approach and thehigh level of responsiveness to voter pressures regarding land use that results.

These initiatives therefore:

do not provide significant checks and balances to counter pressures from citizens to"have their cake and eat it too" at the expense of future generations, by establishing anurban containment area and keeping densities in existing neighbourhoods low;

do not address the industrial land needs of the region, and

will not stop the affordability issue from worsening as regulatory requirements (greenbuildings, affordable housing covenants, etc.) are added unaccompanied by offsettingincreases in housing supply, and as the urban land base left over from the establishmentof the Green Zone is eaten into. Indeed, they are more likely than not going to escalateaffordability problems.

The requirement that municipalities establish greenhouse gas reduction strategies in theirplanning documents is virtually identical to the requirement that municipalities includeaffordable housing policies in their planning documents, and if left on its own can be expected tohave the same effect on greenhouse gas reduction as the earlier provision has had on affordablehousing.

2. Changes that could be made without a new regional plan

There are numerous arguments in favour of urban containment and a Green Zone. It supportsagriculture, livability ("Cities in a Sea of Green") and environmental protection, and is consistentwith a greater transit efficiency,

At the same time, however, urban containment is not without its costs. The availability of landin the GVRD is tight even without urban containment, given the mountains, ocean and borderthat surround it. The experience in Portland shows that urban containment will not in itselfconstrain NIMBY pressures and that it negatively impacts housing affordability. Housingaffordability is already a major issue in Metro Vancouver, and one can expect it to get seriouslyworse as the vacant urban land in the GVRD runs out and as the cost of constructing housingincreases with the imposition of greener building requirements.

Combining a Green Zone with development at lower densities, however, allows presenthomeowners to "have their cake and eat it too", but, because land supply is fixed, increases thelikelihood of a future move into the Green Zone, compromises transit efficiency, and increasesaffordable housing problems.

The provincial government in Ontario responded to these kinds of pressures by establishing agrowth plan under which a certain level of density can be compelled on an area-wide basis, withthe municipality deciding how to achieve that density within the area.

44VDODOCS #1681794 v. I RGEFOR, AT

The BC approach involves a good deal more deference to local government than in Ontario. Thetheory appears to be in part that local governments, if the Province leaves them to deal with theirown problems, will do so and come up with decisions that will reflect their substantialexperience with local conditions and that, because they have created the solution, they will havea high level of commitment too.

At the same time, however, one can argue that the GVRD has yet to reveal a clear plan forguiding the region's future and responding to sustainability concerns. Further, the GVRD has alimited land base for homes and its economy, and, as it is happening all over the world, BCneeds to specialize and direct its resources to capitalize on its strengths. If we do not makechoices while we have more flexibility to do so, some of our better options may well fall away.As an example, a key to our economy is being a western port, but a distribution economyrequires distribution lands, and there is evidence that the lack of a plan is resulting in theavailability of the best lands for that purpose being compromised.

In that light, I will speculate as to some approaches that could be taken if no regional plan isforthcoming.

(a) Residential

(i) Option #1: Minimum density bands, in conjunction with rapid transitinvestment

Given that the BC model is rooted in deference to local government, I will begin by looking atoptions that might achieve the desired effect while keeping interference to a minimum.

One possible option would be for the Province to either directly establish, or negotiate theestablishment of, "minimum density bands" in certain areas.

One particularly interesting mechanism would be to establish minimum density bands inconjunction with the implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan. In keeping with the HongKong transit / development model, the Province could define its transit project for the purposesof expropriation such that it not only includes land for the rail line, but also a wider right of wayfor adjacent development. The Province could then direct (or negotiate) density increases withinthe band, and it (or perhaps TransLink) could recapture a significant portion of the costs ofcreating the line by entering partnerships with private sector developers under which both sharein the "lift" that the density increases and the provision of transit creates.

The economics of this approach obviously needs review. Land is much more constrained inHong Kong than in the GVRD, and reliance on the car much less. Further, substantial segmentsof rapid transit system in the GVRD have already been built. The economics would presumablybe such that the minimum density bands should not be limited to the new sections of the rapidtransit system, but rather include the rapid transit system as a whole.

This approach could have significant benefits. It could assist with transit ridership economics,and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and with housing supply and affordability.

45VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORM4T

If the Province was to mandate these changes, it would of course be stepping into two areas oftraditional local government jurisdiction, being:

determinations as to density (within the band areas), and

participation in the lift over and above what the developer requires to proceed with thedevelopment.

Municipalities would presumably object strongly. At the same time, there is a legitimate basisfor Provincial intervention given sustainability impacts and given that it is the Province thatwould be advancing the monies and bearing the risks associated with the transit project. It maywell be that some kind of mutually agreeable plan involving a joint determination of densitiesand a sharing of revenues could be arrived at.

While no Provincial government in BC has yet been prepared to take the step of imposingrequired densities, and doing so would run counter to the substantial deference that has generallybeen given to local governments in BC, Provincial direction is hardly without precedent, andcompelling density immediately adjacent to a transit line is far less invasive than the muchbroader compulsion that is part of the Ontario regime.

(ii) Affordable housing zones

If the mandating of increased densities is limited to rapid transit corridors, combined withsubstantial extractions for transit, and accompanied by increased green building requirements,the housing that will be added will necessarily be expensive, and the overall contribution toaddressing housing affordability will be limited. Furthermore, density increases have relativelyless value to a developer as one moves away from the urban core and per square foot valuesdecline.

This suggests that it will also be necessary to increase supply in other ways, and that the increasebe accomplished through forms of housing that are less costly to produce.

An advantage to designation in the rapid transit context is that it is accompanied by an obviousgain, being the rapid transit line. Mandating increases in existing neighbourhoodsunaccompanied by any such gain could be expected to be a particularly potent source for electordiscontent.

One possibility worth exploring would therefore be the designation of areas at the fringes of theurban containment boundary, or in other relatively low cost areas, for the development ofaffordable housing. These areas could create such housing by providing relatively high numbersof smaller lots, keeping development charges low, and avoiding amenity extractions. A PhasedDevelopment Agreement, or some evolved form of it, may assist.

(iii) Incentives

One could also create added incentives that would result in such designation being in themunicipality's and citizens' interest.

46VDO_DOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

One possible opportunity for increased neighbourhood acceptance would be to pair thesechanges with expansions to TransLink's Frequent Transit Network. The scope for this is unclearat present, because transit projects by their nature are network based. It is difficult to establish anetwork that makes sense from a transportation perspective when a line is in essence a chain, anda chain is not a chain if an internal section is missing.

It may also be that partnerships could be formed with private sector developers, perhaps using afurther evolved foini of Phased Development Agreement.

(b) Industrial land supply

There is significant evidence that the industrial land supply in the Lower Mainland is beingdepleted in a way that is out of keeping with the region's best interests. The incentives in theBC regime are such that that trend can be expected to continue.

A review and resolution of the industrial land supply is in order. The review should include anexamination of the needs of a port and distribution economy, and the setting of parametersregarding optimal amount, location and size of sites.

Changes that could he made to the regional planning structure

As has already been noted, the consensus-based regional planning model has a number ofpositives. It creates incentives for municipalities to cooperate regionally in a way that might wellnot occur if the Province made all coordinating decisions itself, and it reduces the need for closeprovincial involvement on numerous issues.

At the same time it is not clear that the regime can in fact produce a meaningful plan.

(a) Option #1: Set a time limit for updating the regional plan

One option for the Province would be for the Province to set a reasonable time period for theGVRD and its member municipalities to come up with a plan. The GVRD has been working onan update for a number of years, and the current regime will only produce the benefits it wasdesigned to produce if the region is able to agree on a plan.

The Province could also note the Ontario model, the American Planning Association proposalthat urban growth areas be required by law to accommodate a designated percentage of thegrowth expected to occur within an area, and the "minimum density bands" and "affordablehousing zones" options set out in the previous section, as default possibilities that it may pursueif the GVRD is unable to come up with a plan that sets out a viable alternative within the set timeframe.

47VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

(b) Option #2: Create incentives to arrive at a regional plan

Density and land use decisions are presumably more politically defensible if they are madecollaboratively by the region than if they are imposed by the Province or by an individualmunicipality. While the Province could certainly impose the options referred to earlier, it wouldprobably be happier if specific neighbourhood decisions were attributed to the regional plan andthe best interests of the region than to it.

In order to encourage GVRD and municipal acceptance, the Province could use both transitfunding (including as regards the Frequent Transit Network) and infrastructure renewal fundingas incentives for the policies that have been noted, particularly given that senior governmentmoney is needed to repair and replace declining water, sewer and other public infrastructure.The more clarity the Province provides as to its objectives the better, given that ideally one wantsa mechanism that brings provincial, regional and municipal interests into harmony.

(c) Option #3: Modify the prerequisites to arriving at a plan

If the GVRD and its member municipalities are unable to arrive at a plan, then the Provincecould, either in conjunction with the direct actions noted in the previous section or as analternative to them, modify some key tennis of the present regime.

One possible modification would be to reduce the requirement for consensus, as has alreadyoccurred vis a vis the Green Zone, by moving to a two-thirds voting requirement (i.e. - 66% ofmunicipalities with 66% of the population).

Another would be to remove the Regional Context Statement layer, such that the Regional Planapplies directly to local government bylaws. The Regional Context Statement layer allowsdetailed municipality by municipality consideration of how to best achieve the regional plan, andenables subtleties to be introduced regarding how the regional plan will be implemented. Thatflexibility should increase the willingness of municipalities to agree to a regional plan. That hasnot proven to be the case to date however, and the Regional Context Statement layer adds delayand wooliness to a regime that is already slow and wooly. A tighter regional plan that focusesrelatively narrowly on the key items might well suffice.

4. Possible contents of the next regional plan.

The concerns that have been raised could be addressed through mechanisms in a RegionalGrowth Strategy. For example:

urban containment has livability, environmental protection, sprawl reduction, greenhousegas reduction and other benefits;

at the same time, urban containment is only sustainable if growth is focused. Given the"many relatively small municipalities" structure and its impact on NIMBY pressures,mechanisms of the kinds that have been discussed (i.e. – required densities, affordablehousing zones, etc.) need to be established to ensure that the remaining urban land is

48VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

developed to a sufficient intensity, and with a focus on optimal locations (in conjunctionwith transit, etc);

it is unlikely that the desired levels of affordability can be dealt with by way of regulatoryinstruments such as housing agreements that do not affect the fundamentals of theamount of housing provided and the cost it takes to produce it. Again, there need to bemandatory provisions dealing with both the supply of units and the cost of providingthem;

- economic factors also need to be considered in setting industrial and office policies, forexample to ensure sufficient appropriately located industrial land for the Gateway andport economy, and to ensure that there is a fit between commercial land availability andthe nature of the BC market; and

- an industrial land reserve is probably a flawed option, given the difficulties in definingwhat constitutes a transportation or distribution related business. A provision that achange to the zoning status of industrially zoned land requires majority Regional Boardapproval may suffice to slow the further conversion of industrial land, but even then theprovision would need to be drafted in a way that respects the needs of those in theindustry to be able to evolve their business on an on-going basis as the industrial marketevolves. Such an approach would also need to be done in conjunction with an analysis ofoverall quantity, location and servicing considerations.

5. Other changes that could be made

(a) The Agricultural Land Reserve

(i) Encroachment

Nothing in the present analysis suggests the need for significant changes as regards the ALR.The only issue that has arisen that suggests a possible exclusion based on a competing"community need" relates to the quantum and locational adequacy of the industrial land supply.

If the recommendations in this paper as regards minimum densities for residential developmentand the need for adequate well located land for industry are not met however, one can expectsubstantial negative implications for the ALR. Future generations are unlikely to accept thecompromising of their own economic needs, and the Green Zone and the ALR will only beviable in the long term if the urban land that remains is utilized in a sustainable fashion.

(ii) The "community need" test

The test established by the ALC in connection with "community need" provides that"community need" arguments must come from local government, and be supported by rigoroustechnical analysis. The assumption is that if relevant "community needs" exist, they are actively

49ADO DOGS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORM4T

being balanced at the regional level, and if they are not, then sustainability is best achieved bykeeping the land in the ALR.

It would seem to be better if sustainability was addressed based on sustainability considerations,rather than on who raises the sustainability considerations. If the development of the newregional plan continues to be stalled, and this test is not modified, then the Province shouldpresumably step in to respond to applications that involve core "community need"considerations. The most obvious example would be a major application relating to the supplyof industrial land.

(h) First Nations treaties

Further clarity would be useful as regards the interplay between treaty lands and the growthmanagement system, particularly noting that treaties are constitutionally protected and notunilaterally amendable.

6. The private sector

(a) Individual businesses

The level of undeveloped urban land in Metro Vancouver is rapidly depleting. As a result, theregion is going to need to increase its focus on what it does well from an economic perspective,and be increasingly rigorous with its land use decisions. Those forces will be accompanied bythe increasing role of sustainability considerations. The days of being able to afford theextensive level of influence that neighbourhoods presently have over their future is inevitablygoing to decline, and new mechanisms are going to have to be developed to sensibly blend ineconomic and sustainability factors.

As I noted at the start of this paper, these changes are going to create significant opportunities forthe private sector. If you understand how a regime is structured, the objectives it is seeking toachieve, the policies it has in place, and other ways of approaching things, and you put thattogether with your own organization's objectives and skills, the particulars of the opportunitieswill emerge. It takes a fair amount of thought, but that is just the nature of the game in anincreasingly complex world.

Provincial legislation is also increasingly allowing exceptions and exemptions, to allow localgovernment to be ever more flexible and subtle in response to private initiatives. Even "fixed"parts of the system are not unyielding. Bill 11, the phased development agreement provisions,required new legislation to come to fruition, and the whole process, from initial submission toenactment, took less than a year. You have to suggest changes that work, and you have topresent them sensitively and inclusively, but there is no reason for a win-win result not tosucceed once people understand that it is win-win.

Feel free to call if you are looking for advice.

50VDODOCS #1681794 v. 1 RGEFORMAT

(b) Business collectively

The Union of BC Municipalities is a strong, responsible and active force in the land use field. Ithas a very substantial influence over the legislative agenda. Its perspective, however, is that oflocal government, and its submissions tend to support the expansion of open-ended regulatorypowers. As this paper has noted, the "many small municipalities with broad powers" modelcreates a level of responsiveness to voter pressures that combines with broad powers in a waythat can cause significant problems. It also arguably biases decisions broadly speaking in favourof the social element of sustainability, when sustainability requires a careful balancing of social,environmental (referencing scientific analysis as to effects, rather than voter appeal) andeconomic considerations.

As the world gets smaller, private sector organizations and coalitions have become increasinglyactive. The stakes of the types of decisions we have been talking about arc high, and the privatesector would be well served to continue to increase its understanding of the system and theimpact of particular options. Just as the input of environmental organizations is critical on theenvironmental front, the input of business coalitions is actively needed to ensure that economicimplications are fully canvassed.

Thank you.

F. APPENDICES

1. Development densities across the GVRD (2006) (source: TransLink)

2. Tables on housing affordability from the Fourth Annual Demographia InternationalHousing Affordability Survey (2008)

3. Schedules from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006)

This paper is not intended as legal advice applicable to any specific circumstances, and is not tobe relied upon as such.

51VDO DOGS #I681794 v. RGEFORMAT

Metro VancouverResidential Density, 2006 Legend

Persons Per Hectare

I= 100 and Over

30-100

an-so

40-60

20-40

10 - 20

'Y . SkyTrain Line

st Coast Express

SeaBus

Canada Line (Under Construction)

- Evergreen Line (Future)

Industrial

Green Zone

I I

LAND US• Residential areas h

denser; many placesupportive densities

• Areas remain where walkinand transit are not viable

• Need to support densitywith appropriate design,connectivity, and mix ouses

Transport

Source: Statistics Canada,2006 Census

Little Land RationingLa Land Rationing

Affordable Housing MarketSoverel Unaffordable

Housing Affordability & Land RationingLARGER INTERNATIONAL MARKETS

Los AngelesSan Francisco

San DiegoSan Jose

SydneyVancouver

LondonPerth

M a lbo urneiami

New YorkBrisbaneBostonSeattle

Las VegasSacramento

LeedsWashingtonBirmingham

OrlandoManchester

PortlandVa. Beach

TorontoTampa-StP

P hoenlxChicago

MilwaukeeDenver

P hiiadelphiaCharlotteM ontreal

M pls-StP aulGreensboroSan Antonio

AustinNashvilleHoustonAtlanta

C olumbusKansas City

St LouisPittsburghCincinnatiCleveland

Dallas-Ft WorthDetroit

Indianapolis

0 6

9

12Median Multiple Figure

It Nation Market Median NationMultiple

Market MedianMultiple

1 United States Los Angeles, CA 11.5 25 United States Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 7.12 United States Salinas, CA 10.9 25 United States Santa Barbara, CA 7.13 United States San Francisco, CA 10.8 28 Australia Bundaberg 7.04 United States Honolulu, HI 10.3 28 United States New York, NY-NJ,-CT-PA 7,05 United States San Diego, CA 10.0 28 Australia Wollongong 7,06 Australia Mandurah 9.5 31 New Zealand Auckland 6.97 United States San Jose, CA 9.3 31 United Kingdom Bristol-Bath 6.97 Australia Sunshine Coast 9.3 33 Australia Bunbury 6.79 United Kingdom Bournemouth & Dorset 8.9 34 New Zealand Christchurch 6.610 United Kingdom Belfast 8.8 35 Australia Adelaide 6.511 Australia Gold Coast 8.6 36 Australia Brisbane 6.411 Australia Sydney 8.6 36 Australia Cairns 6.413 Canada Kelowna 8.5 36 United States Stockton, CA 6.413 United States Santa Rosa, CA 8.5 36 United States Vallejo, CA 6.415 Canada Vancouver 8,4 40 Australia Geelong 6.316 United Kingdom Exeter & Devon 8.2 40 New Zealand Hamilton 6.316 United States Ventura County, CA 8.2 40 Australia Hobart 6.318 United Kingdom London (GLA) 7,7 40 Australia Newcastle 6.319 Australia Perth 7.6 40 United Kingdom Northampton 6.320 New Zealand Tauranga 7.5 45 Australia Townsville 6.221 United Kingdom London Exurbs 7.4 46 United States Boston, MA-NH 6.122 Australia Melbourne 7.3 46 United States Fresno, CA 6.122 Canada Victoria 7.3 46 Australia Mackay 6.124 Australia Rockingham 7.2 46 United Kingdom Newport 6.125 United States Miami-West Palm Beach F 7.1 46 New Zealand Wellington 6.1

4th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordabiltiy Survey

(!) bntark)

(.4IIOVY

.•

rett'L

SCHEDULE 2

Places to Grow Concept

-rattitnfirollormrN. tok to ono fid*W•er••• •+•••••••••borow OA ettotalk si .in

4.06•011.0simmkOttri latg•ONSPit.e. ROMP*/ IF fAff.;*

00.0.4,0d""e

SCHEDULE

Distribution of Population 8,i Ernproymentfor the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2001-2031lat.:tsar;

T) Ontario_AcEs TO GRON

1st; rtu,".lart art Lair;raymer/ for the Greater GD laaa lia3s.evarte 213E1-2231 i; 3 MI.!

Pl3PLITAI TOR

2101T 1111 2F171 2133 21D1 7 H 21T21 2031

5D 5D '

&E0 1.175 '5131 i3C 4.140 4,.330

710 32-71.

17

45

KB I

• lin 2 nil 2..1t0 e r E 1.111 1 L2411

JJ1LL GGH"

7.7.93 9193 4333i) 51.10 3,230 L GU' 5.1 1E 5

DowntownBarrie

NewmarketCentre

Richmond Hill / Markham Downtown Oshawa

Langstaff Gateway CentreDovintown Pickering

DowntownPeterborough

Vaughan NorthCorporate yak. pibwough Centre

Centre yonge.. CentreEglintonCentre Downtown Toronto

Etobicohe CentreMississaJga Cry Centre

Midtown OakvilleUptownWaterloo

DowntownGuelph

DowntownKitchener

DowntownBrampton

DowntownMilton

Downtov.,Cambridge Down town Burlington

Downtown Hamilton

Downtown DowntownBrantford St.Catharmes

Legend

Urban Growth Centres

Built-Up Area - Conceptual Greenbelt Area"

Designated Greenfield Area Greater Golden- Horseshoe GrowthConcep tual Plan Area."

Sources: Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Ministry ofNatural Resources arid Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.'Ontario Regulation 59/05"Ontario Regulation 410/05

20 10 0 20 40 KmI I I r i I

Ontario SCHEDULE 4

Add tit Ink.41Vt1,1 1 El h4

PLACES TO GROW Urban Growth Centres

Not The information displayed on this map is net to scale, does not accurately reflect approved land use and tinq boundaries, and may be out of date For more, information on precise boundaries,the appropriate municipality should Ibe consulted For more information on Greenbelt Area boundaries. the Gieentielt Plan 2005 should 1w consulted The Province of Ontario assumes no responsibility orliability for any consequo ices of any use made of this map

Note: The information displayed on this map is not to ',rah!. does not accurately reflect approved land-use and planning boundaries, and may be out of date For more information on precise boundaries,the appropriate municipality should be consulted For more intonation on Greenbelt Area boundaries, the Greenbelt Plan 2005 should be consulted. The Province of Ontario assumes nu responsibility orliability for any COMANUellCeS of arty use made of this map.

1,4 t∎ Ji I rr Orr'tr•italt 1 tar. tit N 10441511Ht

SCHEDULE 5

Moving People - Transit

cis and Pla,stry ofRenewal, Maesny or

Transportation, Mirehrry of Natural ;tesour•tun.cipal :Naas and I lousmo.

'Ontar:o Reg,:lanon 59/05"Ontario Rev:Ian:at •11hI05

urban Groath Centres

Irkmanuoal A tomes

Arn•Car

Gate ,tidy E:To-,orrro Zone

Buds-L.r: -

Designated Greenr:ed Ales- (.■:,i,(00!11:11

• L: ,es Jr0 conceit ire not. toaligned tvah inn astrutJute or munropal

Improved ltgher alterTransit •Plc:posed Higher Onlottranet to 2031 •torp. oveir Inter-Kerponalrran,A to 1.03 I •

Gateway PconemieCentre

Greenbelt

Greater Gehreo1 .10,er:et:Orr GlowthPlan Area"

Scale. They are nototrodartes.

Sources: Miruscry or Punk. !Oast:m.0re

Or g an Grc,,,th

Bordor Crosstng5(140fl

* ,■1.11 Flicilovays* • interiliodal Hubs

K,LIrlray Vxtt:ns■oro, Mpo..ts

Prcurttd :t!tt>orr

rAayn. Volts

v),c

E,OrM,.iC Zone EcerCentre

8trit-Vp Area • Coft,chtttItt,-,1 Greunbelt Alva.

tireatof Goldcr,Dos!ynafod Grtrenf AreaualConcopl horseshoe Grooln Plan ',too"

htirtS Shown ana, r.onceplual ard to scale. Thrty dru nuttt l:unu,t w th infrastructt.re Or innrecipal boundant.S.

•••-•• —„„„SoU,L,S Minittity ol inhastInctUre Renewal, Dts...hy uftraosprt fatten, Ministry of rfazufal ReSQUICeS and MinistryMttnicfpolltffutt, and hou,tng.

re. the information displayed on this map is not to scale. does not acculately titled approved land-use dlld planning baronial les, and may bit out of date Pot more information on pease boundaries,the appropriate municipality should he consulted, For more onto matom Oh Greenbelt Area boundaries, the Greenbelt Platt 20t should be consulted the Nome of (Maim assumes no responsibility orliability for any consequences of any use made of this map.

SCHEDULE 6

Moving Goods640mIti P.M! r08

ft ' r.,t4.1.$1.4t(t4).111St ',hop (rilt■

Re: Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy Reviowuitation Proararn

t.) -ty: nate r

11 I ‘VC4r14..4!. ,a;

p*:- tt

rkt..t,k1,ts

• rtiock)5Car‘33..3

rwIr;v reg

Mc et-7

Re; chal Detieoc...-tinert 3or

PC! , CY t“,) Departfrlerl

Mt:Ito V...7Jr

4 fl0

Frtaby. B CVt:ti 4GEI

irar r>.^.V.1

r`'.-1 1 3 ejJ nc P art4,1 GO'ic:^rr rrie- -

'Ciu of

rera cr,„,c10.-„,,e■ Metro \-.13f):20t.:*1:! at>0.7‘..!!, 4rtir U'r,‘+,tt. rede-t(d.4-Jcartri-ent. r"; lc) SCIV4C74 14) C fCtk!..'Lte

Vaic.,~,u,..cr as v.e:: ;es! e' tr'e PiCivinze f- (OM Pr(4.4I'',

°it()

,ci‘e

svc:,,Jut.",!ve v..,ctetkti I (...i4t'er t'(tt 4and ac:1". the deAry o cttl:erl-f':',>r

41 COM'''. 7, 1ZS fcr your cci.dera"..K:n

fitl,ponip o Quaraionnaire:

rtiort? ft.:*-0tV3i Cr7 >,„o

o'uitr'f !r=t) C(.;,;1(1!:!rtiS ici,)ted (oled tdp„, -,,oh MO1 (cvp",1) ln !h1.1;

Wkirl . 600 nt,;:' 1600 - ec."3

0,-1!

Canada VC2 2V i C

2Ve C

d. we continue to minimize the environmental impact and improve theenvironmental sustainability of our real property assets and operations;

e. To promote, a coordinated strategy between various levels of government,similar to the "Vancouver Agreement", would help promote and supportsustainable economic, social and community development in MetroVancouver and the broader region.

2. Does the vision for Metro Vancouver (on page 11) match your vision for 2031? If not,how does your vision differ?

We support the vision of a livable and sustainable Metro Vancouver as a region ofwell-designed, connected and diverse communities where people of all ages, incomes,and origins can live, work and play in safety and comfort; where the conservation ofland, water and energy resources drives regional-decision making and valuablefarmland and natural areas are protected and enhanced; serviced by an affordableand efficient transportation system which supports economic prosperity, healthy livingand community well-being.

3. Would you add anything to the five goals (listed on page 11) for managing growth inthe region?

Goal 1 ("Accommodate growth in a sustainable and compact metropolitan structure")states that " urban growth will be concentrated in compact communities withaccess to a range of housing choices and close to employment and service centres.".On page 4, it is recognized that "the strategy will need to address the tension betweendensity and livability by ensuring communities are enhanced rather than degraded bygrowth." For additional clarity and focus, consideration should be given to articulatinga common meaning or understanding of "sustainability" in the context of this Goal."Sustainability" could, for example, include the requirement to ensure that physicalinfrastructure capacity (water, sewer, waste collection and treatment, etc.) required tosupport densification must grow in 'lock-step' with social service capacity( includingfire, police, security, and health care services) to enhance livability.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to participate in this valuable review. I would bepleased to discuss these items in further detail if required.

Yours sincerely,

Attach.: Questionnaire – Page3

Choosing a Sustainable Futurefor Metro Vancouver

Options for Metro Vancouver's Growth Management Strategy

A livable andsustainable region

METROVANCOUVER

Please provide your input and ideas.

Tell us what you think the choices for the region should be.Send this completed questionnaire to us

by email, mail or fax:

Email: growthstrategy@metrovancouver.org

If you would like to be added to our mailing listso that you can receive updates on the process,please check the applicable box:

q Please add me to your mailing list so thatI can receive updates or feedback results.

Write: Choosing Our Sustainable FutureMetro Vancouver

loth Floor, 4330 KingswayVancouver, B.C. V5H 4G8

I prefer to be contacted by: 121 mail q email

Fax: 604-436-6970

Note: You can fill out and submit this questionnaire online.Visit: www.metrovancouver.org/growthistrategy-review.htm

The deadline for written comments isJanuary 31, 2008.

Name:

Address:

E-mail:

Did you attend a public meeting on theRegional Growth Strategy? q yes

If "yes," please tell us themunicipality event you attended:

This information helps us to relate your comments toothers from your area. Your personal information will notbe disclosed.

no

uestionnaire Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver

Now that you've read the guide and thought about what it will take to make the region livable and sustainable,please provide us with your input and ideas.

Looking at the issues facing the region into 2031 (beginning on page 3), what are your top three concerns?Would you add any others?

2. Does the vision for Metro Vancouver (on page 11) match your vision for 2031? If not, how does your vision differ?

3. Would you add anything to the five goals (listed on page 11) for managing growth in the region?

PAGE 2

uestionnaire Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver

Please check one option under each strategy that you believe will make the region livable and sustainable:

4. Strategy 1: Focus regional growth in centres and along transit corridors. Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State general goals for municipalities to focus development in centres and along transit corridors.q B. Identify all the centres and transit corridor locations on a regional map and provide guidelines for

realizing the plan.C. Designate regional and municipal town centres and transit corridor locations on a regional map and

provide targets and guidelines for realizing the plan.

5. Strategy 2: Establish defined areas for urban growth. Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State general goals for developing a compact metropolitan region.

Designate urban and green zone land uses on a regional map.C. Designate urban, rural and green zone land uses on a regional map.

6. Strategy 3: Increase housing supply and diversity, including the supply of housing forlow and moderate income households. Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State general goals to increase the total supply of housing and affordable housing units.

B. Establish sub-regional targets for housing supply and for affordable housing andrequire municipalities to prepare their own action plans to realize those targets.

q C. Establish region-wide requirements for housing supply and affordable housing andprovide direction on initiatives to stimulate the production of affordable housing.

7. Strategy 4: Maintain an adequate supply of industrial lands to meet the needs of the regional economy.Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goat of protecting industrial lands in the region.q B. Identify the significant industrial lands on a regional map.q C. Designate industrial land as a regional land use category with specific guidelines on permitted uses.

8. Strategy 5: Facilitate the location of major commercial (retail, office and entertainment) activities in centreslocated in each subregion. Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal of attracting and accommodating major commercial activities in identified major

commercial centres on a regional map.U"B. Designate the major commercial centres on a regional map and identify general development objectives

for each location.q C. Designate the major commercial centres on a regional map and establish policies to encourage major

commercial development in these locations as well as policies to discourage this kind of developmentelsewhere.

9. Strategy 6: Maintain the agricultural land base through supportive land use and development policies.Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal of protecting agricultural land.Lle' B. Designate agricultural lands on a regional map.q C. Designate agricultural lands on a regional map and require municipalities

to define policies to address the agricultural/urban interface.

10. Strategy 7: Ensure the tong-term protection of critical habitat areas, drinking watersheds, riparian areas, parks,recreation corridors, forests and agricultural lands. Should the regional growth strategy:q Designate these components of a Green Zone on a regional map.L-1,K B. Designate these components of a Green Zone on a regional map and

provide a schedule of permitted uses for these lands.

PAGE 3

We thank you for your participation and feedback.

Please return this form by January 31, 2oo8,using the contact information on the front page.

uestionnaire Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver

Strategy 8: Ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological and recreational connectivity across the region.Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal of integrating ecological values into land use development processes

through the provision of ecological and recreational greenways in the region.q B. Provide guidelines for integrating ecological values into land use development processes

and identify the ecological and recreational greenways on a regional map.

12. Strategy 9: Increase transit supply throughout the region and promote walking and cycling.Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal of increasing transit use throughout the region.q B. Identify the transit network that provide frequent service on a regional map and set targets for increasing

the percent of trips made by transit.q C. Identify the transit network that provides frequent service on a regional map and set targets for each

subregion for increasing transit ridership and trips made by cycling and walking.

13. Strategy so: Advance a regional network of roads and highways that prioritizes goods movement, transitoperations and high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal to prioritize the movement of goods, transit and HOVs in the regional network of

roads and highways.q B. Identify the regional roads and highways network on a regional map and state a general plan for prioritizing users.q C. Identify the regional roads and highways network on a regional map as well as provide guidelines for

prioritizing users.

14. Strategy 21: Manage transportation demand. Should the regional growth strategy:q A. State the general goal of managing demand on the regional transportation network.q B. Identify specific strategies for managing demand on the regional transportation network.

15. There is a list of indicators on page 23 that could be used to measure our progress toward creating a livable andsustainable region. Would you add anything else to this list?

16. Do you have any other comments?

Vancouver FraserPort Authority

February 4, 2008

BY MAIL Et EMAIL

Metro VancouverPolicy Et Planning Department4330 KingswayBurnaby, B.C.V5H 4G8

Attention: Christina DeMarcoDivision Manager, Regional Development

Dear Ms. DeMarco,

Re: Comments from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority - Options forMetro Vancouver's Growth Management Strategy, November 2007

Thank you for meeting with Vancouver Fraser Port Authority ("VFPA")representatives on January 21, 2008 to discuss Metro Vancouver's RegionalGrowth Strategy update and the Options report. The following comments reflectthe VFPA's priority interest in industrial land preservation and expansion, andgoods movement.

Goal 3: A strong diverse regional economy

The VFPA supports Metro Vancouver in its efforts to identify the region'ssignificant industrial lands and the concept of industrial land designations. TheMetro Vancouver region is an international gateway for Canadian trade andrequires a regional land base and transportation network to support it into thefuture as the economy grows. A port gateway region relies on a hierarchy ofindustrial lands from traditional port industry (e.g. bulk and container cargo) tolight industrial "production, distribution, and repair" (PDR) type industries, withconnection to regional transport systems.

VFPA commends Metro Vancouver's vision for a sustainable region that includes astrong economy and the need for industrial land preservation. Market forces

Canadt! vfpa.ca

0 New Westminster400-625 Agnes StreetNew Westminster, BC

Canada V3M 5Y4Office: 604-665-9500

Fax: 1-866-284-4271

Richmond7911 Grauer Road

Richmond, BCCanada V7B 1N4

Office: 604-665-9600Fax: 1-866-284-4271

II(Vancouver100 The Pointe

999 Canada PlaceVancouver, BC

Canada V6C 3T4Office: 604-665-9000

Fax:1-866-284-4271

Metro VancouverAttention: Ms. DeMarcoPage 2 of 3February 4, 2008

favouring mixed-use commercial/residential developments have resulted in theloss of prime industrial land throughout the region - land that is ideally situatedclose to existing major transportation corridors, sometimes with waterwayand/or rail access. This trend of inner-city industrial land loss, and theestablishment of industrial lands at the edges of the region, seriously threatensMetro Vancouver's long-term ability to compete as a port city with other ports inthe US Pacific North West. Furthermore, the current development and municipaltaxation structure not only encourages the conversion of industrial lands to otheruses it fails to account for the full costs of this change of use in terms ofmunicipal and regional services.

The VFPA suggests that there needs to be a strategy developed regarding howindustrial lands, including foreshore lands for industrial uses, can best beprotected for the future and that this requires the involvement and leadership ofboth the provincial and regional governments. VFPA encourages that a dialogueon this important issue begin immediately and include the participation of keyindustry stakeholders. We also believe that the focus of the Growth ManagementStrategy should be placed on the identification of additional industrial lands andthat Metro Vancouver could play a key role both in encouraging municipalities toidentify future industrial land requirements and to provide an important regionalperspective in this initiative.

Goal 4: Protect and enhance the region's natural assets

VFPA supports this important goal to protect the biodiversity of the regionincluding the protection of habitat areas, watersheds, riparian areas, recreationcorridors, and forests and agricultural areas. We note that the Green Zonemapping appears to identify some land areas that are under VFPA jurisdiction,for example the Maplewood Conservation Area in North Vancouver, the RobertsBank causeway at Deltaport, and the Sapperton Bar area in the Fraser River.Metro Vancouver's Green Zone strategies to guide or regulate permitted useswould not apply to VFPA federal property that is governed under the CanadaMarine Act for port operations use. However, any development in these areaswould be guided by sound environmental principles and subject to all federal andprovincial regulations. We would respectfully request the removal of these VFPAproperties and any other VFPA properties from the Green Zone. VFPA contributesto the regional green space through a variety of publicly accessible land andwater recreational opportunities on Port lands, such as parks leased toneighbouring municipalities.

VANCOUVER FRASER PO AUTHORITY

S rleen SuszezwiezSenior Planner

Metro VancouverAttention: Ms. DeMarcoPage 3 of 3February 4, 2008

Goal 5: A sustainable regional transportation system

Major transportation corridors are important to accommodate efficient andeffective goods movement throughout the region and are critical to theeconomic sustainability of port-related industries. The VFPA supports MetroVancouver's transportation system strategies to prioritize goods movement,including the provision of more specific lane/corridor management guidelines atcritical locations. The VFPA will also continue to work closely with all levels ofgovernmenfto ensure that the infrastructure required for the movement ofgoods and commercial vehicles is fully integrated into a regional transportationsystem.

We look forward to continued involvement in the review of the Regional GrowthStrategy. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, pleasecontact me at 604-665-9129 or sharleen.suszezwiez@portvancouver.corn.

Sincerely,

cc: Captain Allen Domass, Chief Sustainability OfficerCaptain Tom Corsie, Vice-President, Infrastructure DevelopmentMr. Patrick McLaughlin, Director, Planning Et DevelopmentMr. Darrell Desjardin, Director, Environmental ProgramsMr. Rob Fitzgerald, Director, Property TaxationMr. Mark Griggs, Manager, Planning U DevelopmentMr. Mark Erdman, Senior Manager, Government Relations

From: Ron Antalek [mailto:rantalek©telus.net]Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:33 PMTo: Johnny CarlineSubject: Maple Ridge Regional Growth Strategy Review

Mr CarlineChief Administrative OfficerMetro Vancouver

Dear Mr Carline,

The intent of this letter is to express the concerns of many residences of Maple Ridge for thefuture planning and recogintion of the Thornhill Urban Reserve.Please insure that the RegionalGrowth Strategy recognises and plans for Thornhill's future.We have recently brought the sanitarysewer and all other services to 248 St and 102 Ave. the edge of the Urban Reserve.The glacialformation of Thornhill, and the fact that it is not a water shed makes it ideal for residentialdevelopment for low impact on the enviroment.The proximity to the rail line, Fraser River, theLougheed Hwy makes this an ideal location for transit and close to employment lands.Pleaseinsure that your new plan involves Thornhill now.

Your truly,

Ron Antalek#1 Realtor in B.C. *www.ronantalek.com Cell: 604-351-3261Office: 604-466-2838 Fax: 604-466-2868Remax Ridge Meadows Realty

* Based on Remax Western Canada transactions

Excerpt of Minutes — Metro Vancouver Agricultural Awareness CommitteeNovember 30, 2008

4.1. Regional. Growth StrategyLee-Ann Garnett gave a presentation to the members on the newRegional Growth Strategy public consultation process and the guide,"Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver: Options for MetroVancouver's Growth management Strategy." The guide was distributed attable.

Lee-Ann explained that the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a growthmanagement plan that addresses population growth, jobs, housing, landuse and transportation. The population of Metro Vancouver is anticipatedto increase 800,000 by 2031. Planning for the region started 40 yearsago. Metro Vancouver is now updating the current plan, the LiveableRegion Strategic Plan (LRSP), which is over 10 years old.

The first phase of public consultations began in November and includescommunity meetings throughout the region. The RGS website hasbackground information and a list of the meetings, including three morescheduled for January. Feedback forms can also be filled out directlythrough the website (http://www.gyrd.bc.ca/qrowthistrateciv-review.htm)

Comments from the AAC members included the following:• There is no connection with the Fraser Valley Regional District.• Somewhere include support for food and urban agriculture.• Need to see a definition of sustainability printed within the plan so

people will know exactly what it means and show how food will bea part of it.

• Each goal needs a target, important for measurement.■ What kinds of targets should be have for food?■ Will this be aligned with MAL and ALC? We do not need added

layers of regulation. Groups need to get their standards the same.• Need enabling and incentives – how does this support the

producer?• Concern that the ALR is becoming the green space land reserve

within the region. Why is it ok to cut trees in urban areas but not inthe ALR? Is the ALR a holding area for nature? Need plans forecological areas outside the ALR.

■ This is why we need to de-couple the Green Zone from the ALR.Colour the ALR brown for soil, not green.