Regional Planning Committee Agenda

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Friday, February 12, 2016 9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 12, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 12, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 November 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 6, 2015 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan Designated Speaker: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning Committee endorse the work plan contained in the January 21, 2016 report titled “2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

RPL - 1 Regional Planning Committee Regular Agenda February 12, 2016 Agenda Page 2 of 3

5.2 Reconciling the GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundary with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary Designated Speaker: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated, January 13, 2016, titled, Reconciling the GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundary with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary.

5.3 Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam Designated Speaker: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam, for the area as shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

5.4 GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey Designated Speaker: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

5.5 Regional Context Statement Amendment – City of Langley Designated Speaker: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the GVRD Board accept the City of Langley Regional Context Statement as proposed in the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953”.

5.6 Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver Designated Speaker: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated January 19, 2016, titled “Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver”.

RPL - 2 Regional Planning Committee Regular Agenda February 12, 2016 Agenda Page 3 of 3

5.7 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated January 21, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Correspondence dated November 24, 2015 from the City of Richmond re: City of Richmond's Comments in Relation to Discussion Paper and Proposed Minister's Bylaw Standards Related to Regulating Agri‐Tourism and Farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve

6.2 Memorandum of Understanding between the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and the Corporation of the Township of Langley

7. OTHER BUSINESS

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Regional Planning Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of February 12, 2016.

Membership: Stewart, Richard (C) – Coquitlam Mussatto, Darrell – North Vancouver Reimer, Andrea – Vancouver Coté, Jonathan (VC) – New Westminster City Smith, Michael – West Vancouver Corrigan, Derek – Burnaby Paton, Ian – Delta Steele, Barbara – Surrey Dilworth, Diana – Port Moody Penner, Darrell – Port Coquitlam Steves, Harold – Richmond Froese, Jack – Langley Township Read, Nicole – Maple Ridge

RPL - 3

2.1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Regional Planning Committee held at 9:03 a.m. on Friday, November 6, 2015 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Richard Walton, North Vancouver District (departed at 9:14 a.m.) Vice Chair, Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (arrived at 9:04 a.m.) Mayor Jack Froese, Langley Township Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Ian Paton, Delta Councillor Darrell Penner, Port Coquitlam Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver (arrived at 9:03 a.m.) Mayor Michael Smith, West Vancouver (arrived at 9:08 a.m.) Councillor Barbara Steele, Surrey (arrived at 9:10 a.m.) Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond (arrived at 9:15 a.m.) Mayor Richard Stewart, Coquitlam

MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nicole Read, Maple Ridge

STAFF PRESENT: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 November 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 6, 2015 by varying the order of the agenda to consider the portion of Item 5.8 pertaining to the Rail‐Volution Conference presentation prior to Section 4; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 1 of 6 RPL - 4

9:03 a.m. Councillor Reimer arrived at the meeting.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 October 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 2, 2015 as circulated. CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.

Agenda Varied Pursuant to Item 1.1, the order of the agenda was varied to consider a portion of Item 5.8 at this point.

5.8 Manager’s Report Mayor Jonathan Coté, Vice Chair, Regional Planning Committee, provided members with a presentation about the Rail‐Volution Conference he attended in Dallas, Texas, noting that a common theme throughout the conference was innovation and integration in relation to transportation systems.

9:08 a.m. Mayor Smith arrived at the meeting. 9:10 a.m. Mayor Steele arrived at the meeting.

Presentation titled “Rail‐Volution” is retained with the November 6, 2015 Regional Planning Committee meeting agenda.

9:14 a.m. Mayor Walton departed the meeting and Vice Chair Mayor Coté assumed the chair.

Agenda Order Resumed The order of the agenda resumed.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Andy Yan, BTA Works Andy Yan, BTA Works, provided members with a presentation on housing and demographics highlighting commuting patterns, income levels, household incomes and housing values, property assessment value increases by land use category, and the cost of homes factoring in transportation costs.

9:15 a.m. Councillor Steves arrived at the meeting.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 2 of 6 RPL - 5

Discussion ensued on linking housing and transportation costs, impact of property values on rental rates and the wage differential between and among major Canadian cities.

Presentation titled “BTAworks Regional Housing Research Initiatives: Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee Draft Findings” is retained with the November 6, 2015 Regional Planning Committee meeting agenda.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Regional Housing Policy Update Report dated October 19, 2015 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an update to the Regional Planning Committee on regional housing policy initiatives.

Discussion ensued on the roles of the provincial and federal governments in affordable housing and the lack of tools available to municipal governments to address affordable housing issues.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated October 19, 2015, titled “Regional Housing Policy Update”. CARRIED

5.2 Restoring the Mandatory Long Form Census in 2016 Report dated October 26, 2015 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, informing about the intent of the new federal government to restore the mandatory long form census and recommending that the GVRD Board take action to ensure it is restored in time for the 2016 census year.

Members discussed the recent announcement from the federal government confirming that the mandatory long form census would be restored for the 2016 census year.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board write to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to express appreciation for restoring the mandatory long form census for the 2016 census year. CARRIED

5.3 Township of Langley Request for Sewerage Area Extension Report dated October 27, 2015 from Jason Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider whether the Township of Langley’s request to include three properties

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 3 of 6 RPL - 6

in the Fraser Sewerage Area is consistent with Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the following properties is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future: i. 637 200th Street (Lot 6, Sec.3, Township 7, NWD, Plan NWP21259); ii. 1381 200th Street (N ½ Lot 1, Sec. 10, Township 7, NWD, Ex Plan 13509); iii. 5277 224 Street (Lot 9, Sec. 6, Township 11, NWD, Plan NWP40747); and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area expansion application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration. CARRIED

5.4 Regional Planning Monthly Data Update Report dated October 14, 2015 from Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the Regional Planning Committee with an opportunity to review regional planning indicators that are tracked monthly and that are related to topical regional issues.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated October 14, 2015, titled “Regional Planning Monthly Data Update”. CARRIED

5.5 Draft Regional Food System Action Plan Report dated October 15, 2015 from Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the draft Regional Food System Action Plan, and seeking authorization to convey the draft plan to member municipalities for review and comment.

Discussion ensued on:  local food processing capacity on agricultural land  municipal policies on locally produced products sold at farmers’ markets

On‐table replacement for Attachment 2 is retained with the November 6, 2015 Regional Planning Committee agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) receive for information the report dated October 15, 2015, titled “Draft Regional Food System Action Plan”; and b) convey the draft Regional Food System Action Plan to member municipalities for review and comment. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 4 of 6 RPL - 7

5.6 Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines – How to Achieve Better Utilization Report dated October 26, 2015 from Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, conveying draft Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines to the GVRD Board and providing an opportunity for the Board to consider how to effectively and broadly disseminate them to interested stakeholders and jurisdictions.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board direct staff to convey the report dated October 26, 2015, titled “Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines – How to Achieve Better Utilization” to municipal Agricultural Advisory Committees accompanied with an invitation that Metro Vancouver attend and speak to the attached guidelines. CARRIED

5.7 Performance Measures Review Project – Update Report dated October 19, 2015 from Lauren Klose, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing the Regional Planning Committee with an update on the Metro 2040 Performance Measures Review project that commenced in July 2015.

Members were provided with a presentation on the Metro 2040 Performance Measures review project highlighting the background of the project, the initial findings and next steps.

Presentation titled “Metro 2040 Performance Measures Review” is retained with the November 6, 2015 Regional Planning Committee meeting agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated October 19, 2015, titled “Performance Measures Review Project ‐ Update”. CARRIED

5.8 Manager’s Report Report dated October 14, 2015 from Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating the Regional Planning Committee on the Committee’s 2015 Work Program and reporting on the 2015 events attended by Committee members.

Mayor Jack Froese provided members with a presentation about the American Planning Association Conference he attended in Seattle, Washington, noting a key theme was public engagement through the use of interactive technology tools.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated October 14, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report”. CARRIED

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 5 of 6 RPL - 8

6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented.

7. OTHER BUSINESS Members discussed the recent appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer to the Agricultural Land Commission and the role of Metro Vancouver regional farms in providing agricultural education opportunities.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to extend an invitation to Kim Grout, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Agricultural Land Commission, to present to the Committee in 2016. CARRIED

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to report back to the Committee with options for the Committee members to attend a tour of a Metro Vancouver regional farm area in 2016. CARRIED

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.

9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee conclude its regular meeting of November 6, 2015. CARRIED (Time: 11:00 a.m.)

______Deanna Manojlovic, Jonathan Coté, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees

12137528 FINAL

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, November 6, 2015 Page 6 of 6 RPL - 9 5.1

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 21, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: 2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan

RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee endorse the work plan contained in the January 21, 2016 report titled “2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan”.

PURPOSE To provide the Regional Planning Committee with the opportunity to consider priorities and work plan for the year 2016.

BACKGROUND At its October 2, 2015 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee endorsed the 2016 Business Plan and Budget for the Regional Planning function, which was used as the basis for the 2016 Budget approved by the Board on October 21, 2015. The Business Plan and Budget were used to develop the priorities in the Regional Planning Committee’s work plan presented in this report and attached with approximate timelines (see Attachment 1). The work plan presented in this report is consistent with the Regional Planning Committee’s terms of reference and the Board Strategic Plan.

2016 Work Plan The Regional Planning Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on regional planning, agriculture, and transportation plans, policies, programs, budgets and issues related to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Planning service.

Key actions in the 2016 work plan for the Committee are described below, listed according to the Committee’s responsibilities as outlined in its Terms of Reference.

Regional Planning  Metro 2040 sewerage and implementation guidelines, and boundary modification amendment  Industrial Lands Initiative  Metro 2040 Performance Monitoring measures review  Metro 2040 five‐year review  Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals  Quality of Life survey  Social connectedness project  Long‐range projections modelling  Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors analysis

17234891 RPL - 10 2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 2

Agriculture  Regional Food System Strategy Action Plan  Agricultural Awareness Grants  Farm Property Tax Review  Metro Vancouver / ALC Implementation Agreement  Illegal Fill pilot project

Transportation  Triple‐bottom line assessment of Alternative Goods Movement Network Scenarios  Transit‐Oriented Mixed Income Housing Viability Study  Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors analysis

The 2016 work plan for the Regional Planning Committee is provided in Attachment 1, including the anticipated time frame for reports to this Committee. The Committee will be updated on the status of the actions and projects in the work plan on a monthly basis per the Committee’s schedule.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Regional Planning Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report titled “2016 Regional Planning Committee Priorities and Work Plan”. 2. That the Regional Planning Committee provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The priorities in the 2016 work plan of the Regional Planning Committee are consistent with the 2016 Budget approved by the Board on October 21, 2015, as well as the key actions included in the associated Business Plan.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The work plan presented in this report conveys the priorities for the Regional Planning Committee in 2016 and is consistent with its terms of reference and the 2016 Budget approved by the Board. Staff recommend that Alternative 1 be adopted.

Attachments 1. Regional Planning Committee 2016 Work Plan 2. Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference 3. Regional Planning Committee Meeting Dates

RPL - 11 5.1 Attachment 1 Regional Planning Committee 2016 Work Plan

Priorities 1st Quarter Status Consider Metro 2040 sewerage and implementation guidelines, and boundary Pending modification amendment Provide input to workplan for Industrial Lands Initiative Pending Provide input to Metro 2040 Performance Monitoring measures review Pending Review workplan and process for legislated Metro 2040 five‐year review Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Pending Consider endorsing Office Development Facts in Focus publication Pending 2nd Quarter Provide input to project to undertake Quality of Life survey Pending Review results of 2015 Industrial Land Inventory update Pending Consider endorsing Regional Food System Strategy Action Plan Pending Receive update on Alternative Goods Movement Network Scenarios Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Pending Provide input to Transit‐Oriented Mixed Income Housing Viability Study Pending Consider endorsing recommended recipients of Agricultural Awareness Grants Pending 3rd Quarter Review Metro Vancouver / ALC Implementation Agreement Pending Consider results from Illegal Fill pilot project Pending Endorse 2015 Progress Toward Shaping our Future annual report and website Pending Participate in Industrial Lands Initiative event Pending Review update on Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors analysis Pending Review results from Farm Property Tax Review Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Pending 4th Quarter Review preliminary results from Quality of Life survey Pending Receive update on Metro 2040 five‐year review Pending Consider Metro 2040 amendment for Performance Monitoring Program Pending Provide input to social connectedness project Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Pending Consider results from long range projections modelling Pending Review outputs from Industrial Land Initiative Pending

RPL - 12 5.1 Attachment 2

Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference

The Regional Planning Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on regional planning, agriculture and transportation plans, policies, programs, budgets and issues related to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Planning service.

Committee Responsibilities Within the scope of the Board Strategic Plan, Metro 2040: Shaping Our Future, and Metro Vancouver Financial Plan, the Committee provides guidance and oversight to staff on the implementation of the annual work plans and business plans that govern the Regional Planning service. Specific Committee responsibilities include the following:

 Regional Planning  The Committee guides the implementation of Metro 2040: rShaping Ou Future, provides an annual report on progress made in achieving the goals of Metro 2040, and guides the process of reviewing and updating Metro 2040. The Committee reviews regional context statements submitted to the Board by member municipalities, and reviews all requested amendments to Metro 2040.

 Agriculture  The Committee guides policy analysis that is undertaken to develop strategies and actions aimed at protecting and enhancing agricultural lands throughout the region. The Committee oversees the implementation and updating of the Regional Food System Strategy, and considers input provided by the Board’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (which reports to the Regional Planning Committee).

 Transportation  The Committee initiates and facilitates coordination and dialogue between Metro Vancouver and agencies within the region that develop transportation plans and policies, and that make investments in the broader transportation network. Transportation plans, policies, investments and actions made or taken by other agencies must be carefully coordinated with the regional growth strategy in order to ensure the efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods throughout the region.

Committee Membership and Meetings The Chair, Vice Chair and members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board. The Committee meets monthly, except for August and December, and holds special meetings as required. A quorum of 50% plus one of the Committee membership is required to conduct Committee business.

Committee Management The Committee Chair, or in the absence of the Chair the Vice‐Chair, is the chief spokesperson on matters of public interest within the Committee’s purview. For high profile issues the role of spokesperson rests with the Metro Vancouver Board Chair or Vice Chair. On technical matters or in cases where an initiative is still at the staff proposal level, the Chief Administrative Officer or a senior staff member is the appropriate chief spokesperson. Where necessary and practical, the Board Chair,

10595499 January 7, 2015 RPL - 13

Committee Chair and Chief Administrative Officer confer to determine the most appropriate representative to speak.

The Chief Administrative Officer assigns a General Manager as Committee Manager for the Committee. The Committee Manager is responsible for coordinating agendas and serves as the principal point of contact for Committee members.

RPL - 14 5.1 Attachment 3

2016 Regional Planning Committee

Meeting Dates

Friday, February 12 9:00 am

Friday, March 11 9:00 am

Friday, April 15 9:00 am

Friday, May 6 9:00 am

Friday, June 10 9:00 am

Friday, July 15 9:00 am

Friday, September 9 9:00 am

Friday, October 14 9:00 am

Friday, November 4 1:00 pm

RPL - 15 5.2

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: Reconciling the GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundary with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary

RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated, January 13, 2016, titled, Reconciling the GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundary with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary.

PURPOSE This report provides the Regional Planning Committee with an update on Metro Vancouver’s initiative to work with member municipalities in aligning GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary.

BACKGROUND Section 6.8 of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy, includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.

GVS&DD regional sewerage services are provided to municipalities within legally defined GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries. These boundaries were drawn prior to adoption of Metro 2040, and, in many areas, prior to the creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Consequently, there are many locations where the Sewerage Area boundary extends outside of the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) into areas with a regional Agricultural and Rural land use designation; conversely, there are also many locations where the Sewerage Area boundary does not include lands within the Urban Containment Boundary.

The current inconsistency between the existing Sewerage Area boundaries and the Metro 2040 designations/policies creates some confusion regarding access to sewerage services within these boundaries.

Sewerage Area boundaries that currently extend outside of the Urban Containment Boundary to include only the existing GVS&DD approved connection sites.

Reconciling Metro Vancouver’s Urban Containment Boundary and Sewerage Area Boundaries Metro Vancouver Regional Planning staff has had discussions with Metro Vancouver Utilities staff and with municipal planning and engineering staff in five of the most affected municipalities to identify potential realignment locations and procedures for amending those boundaries. Although there has been general agreement in principle on boundary reconciliation, municipal staff has expressed concern over the potential sensitivities of affected property owners and the effect on existing municipal land use plans.

Discussions related to the alignment of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries with the regional Urban Containment Boundary relate to two conditions:

The first condition reflects where the Sewerage Area boundary extends outside of the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) into areas with a regional Conservation and Recreation, Agricultural or Rural land use designation. All GVS&DD approved sewerage connections that existed when Metro 2040 was adopted in 2011, and that were within the existing GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries, were incorporated into Metro 2040 mapping and regional land use designations. Included in Metro 2040 were also policies however, that preclude new connections to regional sewerage services for areas that are within the GVS&DD sewerage boundaries and that are within lands with a Metro 2040 Rural, Agricultural, Conservation and Recreation designations – specifically, those lands that are generally outside of the Urban Containment Boundary.

For those un‐serviced properties in areas with an Agricultural or Rural land use designation outside the Urban Containment Boundary, but within the Sewerage Area boundary, there is a general perception that being within the Sewerage Area is an asset to the property value. However, current Metro 2040 policy inhibits connection to sewer services for those properties unless there are demonstrated septic contamination risks affecting public health or the environment. Nevertheless, it has been proposed that municipalities will proceed with amendments for properties outside of the Urban Containment Boundary on a case‐by‐case basis, submitting Sewerage Area connection or boundary amendment applications to Metro Vancouver only when a servicing occurs on a particular site.

The second condition reflects locations where the Sewerage Area boundary excludes lands that lie within the Urban Containment Boundary. For those areas that are not within the GVS&DD Sewerage Area, but that are within areas with a Metro 2040 General Urban, Industrial, or Mixed Employment land use designations, within the Urban Containment Boundary, within the Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Area, or within the Metro 2040 Rural within the Sewerage Area, Metro 2040 does not inhibit the extension of sewerage services where the form of development is consistent with the respective regional land use designation.

For areas within the Urban Containment Boundary, but outside of the Sewerage Area boundary, municipalities have had two concerns. First, as municipalities must receive Metro Vancouver Board approval for each separate sewerage boundary extension, there was agreement that one global amendment to shift the Sewerage Area boundary out to the Urban Containment Boundary would be beneficial. However, municipalities with phasing plans for future development within the Urban

RPL - 17 Reconciling the GVS&DD Sewerage Area Boundary with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 3

Containment Boundary, have expressed concerns that shifting the Sewerage Area boundary might affect development phasing. Therefore, it has been proposed that each municipality should prepare boundary amendments to coordinate with their local development plans.

In summary, while there is general agreement on the intent of boundary reconciliation, the staff‐to‐ staff discussions have concluded that the best approach is for each municipality, in consultation with Metro Vancouver staff, to determine appropriate timing in preparing a package of proposed Sewerage Area boundary amendments.

ALTERNATIVES This report is provided for information only. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Section 6.8 of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy, includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Conservation and Recreation, Agricultural or Rural land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.

To minimize confusion and to better align regional utility and growth management plans, Metro Vancouver staff have initiated discussions with member municipalities to review the potential for amendments to the GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to allow for alignment with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary. To date, discussions have been held with municipal planning and engineering staff in five of the most affected municipalities to identify potential realignment locations and procedures for amending those boundaries. Although there has been general agreement in principle on boundary reconciliation, municipal staff has expressed concern over the potential sensitivities of affected property owners and the effect on existing municipal land use plans. Staff‐to‐staff discussions have concluded that the best approach is for each municipality, in consultation with Metro Vancouver staff, to determine appropriate timing in preparing a package of proposed Sewerage Area boundary amendments.

RPL - 18 5.3

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planning, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2015

Subject: Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam, for the area as shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider whether the City of Coquitlam’s request to extend the GVS&DD Sewerage Area within the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) General Urban designation is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions.

BACKGROUND On October 26, 2015, Metro Vancouver received a request from the City of Coquitlam to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to include of number of properties in Northeast Coquitlam (attachment). Metro 2040 requires that all requests to amend the sewerage area boundaries first be considered by the GVRD Board to determine consistency with the regional growth strategy.

Section 6.8 of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy, includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.

GVS&DD regional sewerage services have historically been provided within legally defined GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries. Any change in that boundary requires municipal Councils to request boundary amendment approval from the GVS&DD Board. Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 states that works and service provision to sites within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, including land with a regional General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment land use designation are generally acceptable for the extension of sewerage services, provided that the form of development complies, in the judgment of the GVRD Board, with the applicable Metro 2040 policies under those regional land use designations.

17195303 RPL - 19 Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5

Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, therefore, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

Implementation of Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions The implementation of Metro 2040 has included a number of initiatives to achieve consistency between Metro 2040 policies and GVS&DD service provision. One of the initiatives addresses the boundary inconsistencies between the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and regional land use designations, and the GVS&DD Sewerage Service Boundaries.

There are many areas throughout the region where these boundaries are inconsistent. In some areas, the sewerage area boundaries do not include large areas of lands with a regional General Urban land use designation within the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB). In many locations, the sewerage area boundaries extend outside of the Urban Containment Boundary into lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural and Conservation and Recreation land use designation.

The discrepancies between the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and the GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries create some confusion regarding access to services within those areas. If a particular development site is outside of the existing sewerage area, the municipality must apply to Metro Vancouver both to confirm that the proposed development is consistent with Metro 2040 and to extend the sewerage area boundary. For planned development within the UCB, this boundary discrepancy creates unnecessary Metro Vancouver application and approval processes for member municipalities.

Metro Vancouver staff have been working in collaboration with municipal staff to resolve boundary and administrative inconsistencies. For areas within the Metro 2040 UCB, municipalities were asked to identify planned urban development areas outside of the sewerage area boundary, and to submit a comprehensive sewerage area extension application package to Metro Vancouver. A comprehensive boundary extension would then avoid the need for numerous individual site‐by‐site boundary extension applications in the future. While affected municipalities are currently considering this comprehensive amendment option, some interim amendment applications may be required.

City of Coquitlam Sewerage Area Amendment Request At its October 19, 2015 Council meeting, the City of Coquitlam adopted a resolution to request that the GVS&DD Board extend the Fraser Sewerage Area to include a number of properties in Northeast Coquitlam. The application proposes to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary (see Map).

The subject area is contained within the Northeast Coquitlam Area Plan. This Plan includes Council‐ approved component Neighbourhood Plans for Smiling Creek and Partington Creek. Both areas are currently developing and are likely to be fully built out over the next ten to twenty years. The remainder of the subject area includes Northwest Burke, which is currently in the early stages of development of a land use concept, and the easterly portion of the northeast Coquitlam plan area, which is anticipated for a future neighbourhood planning process. The land use plans for the RPL - 20 Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Northeast Coquitlam area include a range of housing types with supporting commercial, institutional, parks and recreational uses.

Metro 2040 Assessment Metro 2040 General Urban areas are intended for residential neighbourhoods supported by shopping, services, institutions, recreation facilities and parks. The planned development as conveyed in the Northeast Coquitlam plans is within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and has a regional General Urban land use designation; it is therefore generally consistent with applicable Metro 2040 policies.

If the proposed Sewerage Area extension is determined by the GVRD Board to be consistent with Metro 2040, the application will then proceed to the Utilities Committee and GVS&DD Board for assessment of technical capacity and servicing implications. If the GVS&DD Board then approves the proposed Sewerage Area extension, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with the City of Coquitlam to monitor future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems.

Map: Proposed Sewerage Area Extension

RPL - 21 Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5

ALTERNATIVES That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services in the City of Coquitlam, for the area as shown on Map 1, is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro 2040 acceptance of the proposed sewerage area extension would have no direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver. However, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with Coquitlam in monitoring future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems. Any potential upgrades required to the regional system will be identified and assessed as development proceeds through the area.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro 2040 Section 6.8 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards.

Implementation of Metro 2040 has included a number of initiatives to achieve consistency between Metro 2040 policies and GVS&DD service provision. One of the initiatives addresses boundary inconsistencies between Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary / land use designations and the GVS&DD Sewerage Service Boundaries. Metro staff have been working in collaboration with municipal staff to resolve such boundary and administrative inconsistencies. This work is ongoing. While affected municipalities are currently considering this comprehensive amendment option, some interim amendment applications may be required. This report relates to one such amendment.

On October 19, 2015 the City of Coquitlam Council adopted a resolution to submit a comprehensive sewerage area amendment for Northeast Coquitlam (attachment). The application proposes to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 states that works and service provision to sites within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, including land with a regional General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment land use designation are generally acceptable for the extension of sewerage services, provided that the form of development complies, in the judgment of the GVRD Board, with the applicable Metro 2040 policies under those regional land use designations.

RPL - 22 Metro 2040 Consistency of a GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Coquitlam Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 5 of 5

The City of Coquitlam land use plans for future development in the subject area are generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies for the applicable Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation. Therefore, staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board accept the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area extension within the City of Coquitlam as being consistent with Metro 2040.

Attachment: Letter from City of Coquitlam dated October 26, 2015 re: Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary Amendment for Northeast Coquitlam.

RPL - 23 5.3 Attachment

RPL - 24 5.4

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider whether the City of Surrey’s request to extend the GVS&DD Sewerage Area within the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) General Urban designation is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions.

BACKGROUND On December 3, 2015, Metro Vancouver received a request from the City of Surrey to include a property in the Fraser Sewerage Area (attachment). The proposed development at 15005 36th Avenue is for 57 townhouse units. Metro 2040 requires that all requests to amend the sewerage area boundaries first be considered by the GVRD Board to determine consistency with the regional growth strategy.

Metro 2040 Section 6.8 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD Boards. The intent is to ensure that all works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment and the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation.

17197126 RPL - 25 GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5

City of Surrey Request At its November 30, 2015 Council meeting, the City of Surrey passed a resolution requesting that the GVS&DD Board extend the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue. The application proposed to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 UCB. The proposed sewerage area extension would allow development of a 57‐unit townhouse complex within Surrey’s existing West Rosemary Heights neighbourhood. Table 1 provides site characteristics and Map 1 shows the location of the proposed sewerage extension site.

RPL - 26 GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5

Table 1 – Site Characteristics of the Subject Property Address Metro 2040 Designation ALR Municipal OCP and Zoning 15005  Within the Urban No  OCP Urban Designation 36 Avenue Containment Boundary  Zoning Proposed ‐ Comprehensive  General Urban Development (Townhousing)

The City of Surrey assessment states there are no anticipated negative impacts to the City’s sewer system or the GVS&DD’s sewer system.

Metro 2040 Assessment Metro 2040 General Urban areas are intended for residential neighbourhoods supported by shopping, services, institutions, recreation facilities and parks. The proposed development is located within the new, but largely developed, West Rosemary Heights neighbourhood. The proposed land use development of a 57‐unit townhouse complex is consistent with the existing development in the area, and is consistent with the intent of the Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation.

Map 1. City of Surrey Proposed Sewerage Area Amendment

RPL - 27 GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5

ALTERNATIVES That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to 15005 36th Avenue in the City of Surrey is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area extension application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Metro 2040 acceptance of the proposed sewerage area extension would have no direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver. However, Metro Vancouver will coordinate with the City of Surrey in monitoring future sewerage connections to ensure there is adequate capacity in regional systems.

On November 30, 2015 the City of Surrey Council adopted a resolution to submit a sewerage area amendment to include the property located at 15005 36 Avenue (attachment). The application proposed to extend the existing GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area boundaries to coincide with the Metro 2040 UCB.

Prior to consideration of a sewerage extension request by the GVS&DD Board, any request for the extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Area boundaries to areas that are within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary and that have a regional General Urban land use designation first requires GVRD Board review and assessment to confirm compliance with the applicable Metro 2040 policies.

The City of Surrey land use plans and proposed development of a 57‐unit townhouse complex in the subject area are generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies for the applicable Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation.

RPL - 28 GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension – City of Surrey Regional Parks Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 5 of 5

Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board resolve that the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area extension within the City of Surrey is generally consistent with Metro 2040 policies.

Attachment: Letter dated December 3, 2015 re: 15005 ‐ 36 Avenue in Surrey, BC – Application to include Property in Fraser Sewerage Area

RPL - 29 5.4 Attachment

RPL - 30 5.5

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 13, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: Regional Context Statement Amendment – City of Langley

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board accept the City of Langley Regional Context Statement as proposed in the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953”.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider proposed amendments to the City of Langley’s Regional Context Statement (RCS).

BACKGROUND Following the adoption of Metro 2040 in 2011, the City of Langley’s current Regional Context Statement was accepted by the GVRD Board on June 26, 2013.

On November 9, 2015, Langley City Council gave gave third reading to the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953”. The proposed OCP amendment triggers corresponding amendments to the City’s Regional Context Statement, which is contained within the OCP. Given these amendments, and consistent with Section 866 of the Local Government Act,, on November 9, 2015, Langley City Council also passed a resolution requesting that the GVRD Board consider acceptance of the amended Regional Context Statement (Attachment 1).

CITY OF LANGLEY REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the City of Langley’s Regional Context Statement (RCS) reflect modifications to the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) in order to incorporate key recommendations from a recently completed Master Transportation Plan and Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan.

In addition to minor text/reference revisions, the amended RCS replaces previous general references to pending Transportation and Parks and Recreation Plans with specific references to OCP amendments incorporating revised policies from the now‐completed plans. Significant enhancements to the RCS stemming from those amendments include:

 Under Metro 2040 Strategy 1.2 Focus Growth in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, the amended RCS provides reference to OCP Policy 10.2.2 (c) which outlines support for key transit strategy measures, and reference to OCP Schedule “C” which illustrates the future transit network.

 Under Metro 2040 Strategy 3.3 Encourage land use and transportation infrastructure that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality, the 17193097 RPL - 31 Regional Context Statement Amendment – City of Langley Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 2

amended RCS includes reference to Schedule “D” ‐ Parks & Open Space Map which includes a Long Term Bicycle Network.

 Under Metro 2040 5.2 Coordinate land use and transportation to support the safe and efficient movement of vehicles for passengers, goods and services, the amended RCS includes the revision and enhancement of the goods and service vehicle movement network identified in the Regional Context map.

The proposed amendments to the RCS build upon the existing GVRD Board approved RCS in providing more specific and detailed references linking the City’s OCP and Metro 2040. As such, the City’s proposed amended RCS is generally consistent with Metro 2040.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board accept the City of Langley Regional Context Statement as proposed in the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953”.

2. That the GVRD Board not accept the City of Langley Regional Context Statement as proposed in the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953”, and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The amendments to the City of Langley Regional Context Statement as proposed in the “City of Langley Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2005, No.2600, Amendment No.7, 2015, No. 2953” will not have financial implications for Metro Vancouver.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The City of Langley submitted proposed Regional Context Statement (RCS) amendments to the GVRD Board for acceptance in accordance with Section 866 of the Local Government Act. The proposed amendments to the City’s RCS are triggered by corresponding amendments to the city’s Official Community Plan to incorporate key recommendations from a recently complete Master Transportation Plan and Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan. In addition to minor text/reference revisions, the amended RCS replaces previous general references to pending Transportation and Parks & Recreation Plans with specific references to OCP amendments incorporating those completed plans.

The additional RCS references provide increased clarity and detail in linking the City’s OCP and Metro 2040. Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board accept the City of Langley’s amended Regional Context Statement.

Attachment: Letter from City of Langley dated November 13, 2015 re: City of Langley – Regional Context Statement (Orbit Doc #17213782)

RPL - 32 Attachments: Yours City Deputy Paula Vancouver Amendment 604.514.2817. Attn: 866(4)(a) amendments resolution 4330 On If reading Re: Metro Burnaby, November you November of City Terry Kingsway Kusack truly, Vancouver Langley Corporate require to of BC to of CITY

PHONE: CITY Hoff, 13, Board’s Langley the that No. V5H (2) the to 2015 9, HALL any Senior effect “City 6U4-514—28Bt) 7, the 2015 Officer Local 4G8 — consideration — 2015, further Regional 2fl3’)Q Regional for of the Regional Government information Langley No. City

DOUGLAS OF information Context 2953”. FAX: of Context Planner of Langley Official 6fl4—53D—4371 acceptance. CRESCENT. purposes. Act, RPL - 33

As LANGLEY Statement please Statement, the I Council Community have OCP LANGLEY. feel www.city.langlev.bc.ca attached Please held amendment and free a Plan BC. public also in to Bylaw accordance Bylaw, (1ANADA contact find hearing triggers 2953 attached 2005, Roy V3A and for corresponding with 4133 Beddow No. the a gave certified Section Metro 2600, third at CITY OF pN EXPLANATORYMEMO

OFFICIAL COMMU1’[ITYPLAN BYLAW, 2005, No. 2600 AMENDMENT No. 7,2015, BYLAWNo. 2953

The purpose of Bylaw No. 2953 is to amend the Official Community Plan in order to incorporate key recommendations from the recently completed Master Transportation Plan and Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan. The recommendations manifest themselves in the following amendments:

• 8.0 Parks & Recreation — revised policies reflecting the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan • 10.0 Transportation — revised policies reflecting the Master Transportation Plan • Schedule “B” - Road Network Map — revised to reflect the Master Transportation Plan • Schedule “C” — Future Transit Network Map - new map schedule reflecting the Master Transportation Plan as well as the Langley Transit Exchange Plans and Surrey Rapid Transit Study (by TransLink in partnership with the City of Langley, Township of Langley, City of Surrey and Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure) • Schedule “D” — Parks & Open Space Map - revised to reflect the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan

In addition, Bylaw No. 2953 also includes consequential amendments to the Regional Context Statement:

• Appendix I — Regional Context Table - revised to refer to the new Parks & Recreation and Transportation policies noted above • Appendix II — Regional Context Map — revised to show amended truck routes from the Master Transportation Plan

Finally, Bylaw No. 2953 includes minor changes to the descriptive text in Section 12.3 Education. The revised wording was requested by School District No. 35 during consultations on a previous OCP amendment (Bylaw No. 2915).

RPL - 34

2005,

Contents

Bylaw,

hereby

2600.

2600

Table

No.

Plan

No.

73 75 19

72 17

25 41

24 29

22 43

2600

new

follows:

Page

2005,

No.

with

Community

Bylaw,

2005,

enacts

No.7

2953

BYLAW,

Plan

Guidelines

Official

Bylaw,

PLAN

replacing

assembled,

Areas

Area

Plan

and

BYLAW

AMENDMENT

Langley

Community 2953”.

RPL - 35

Protection

Permit

meeting Contents

Services

Development

No.

Services

Development

COMMUNITY

Designations

Contents

Development

Context

“City

Official

Recreation

open

Management

Community

Planning

2015,

Use

the

Table

Langley

OFFIcIAL

Section

No.

Transportation

Community Sustainability

Growth Neighbourhoods Social Land Development

Objectives Commercial Development

Residential Industrial Parks Engineering

Environmental

Introduction Regional

Official

the

cited

Langley,

7.0 7.0

6.0

5.0 8.0

9.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

15.0 17.3

City 74.0 77.0

76.0

77.0

70.0 13.0

72.0

Langley

shall

City

deleting

Amendment

amend

follows:

the by

to of

bylaw

City

2600

(a)

amended:

The

This No.

CITY

Bylaw

Council

(2)

(1) Amendment

A Title

LpNGLEy

2. The Map Schedules

“A Land Use Designation Map 62 Road Network Map 63 “C,, Future Transit Network Map 64 Ufl Parks & Open Space Map 65 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map 66 Water Distribution System Map 67 “C” Sanitary Sewer System Map 68 t.y Storm Drainage System Map 69

Regional Context Statement

Appendix I — Regional Context Table Appendix!!— Regional Context Map

(b) by deleting Section 1.2 Background and replacing it with a new Section 1.2 Background as follows:

1.2 Background

This plan replaces Official Community Plan Bylaw, 1999, No. 2280 which was adopted on November 1, 1999. The basic land use plan and policy framework of the previous The Cityof Langley’s three year bylaw, however, are maintained with updates reflecting corporate strategic plan expressed a major studies and in set of core values based on the plans completed recent years acronym, P.R.I.D.E. including:

• People • Neighbourhood Profiles (2001, 2004, 2009, 2014) • Respect • Community Survey(2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013) • Integrity • Watercourse Mapping Update (2002) • Dynamics • Industrial Land Use Study (2004) • Expectations • Nature Trail Network Plan (2005) • Downtown Master Plan (2007-2009) • Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (2011) • Economic Development Strategy (2012) • Master Transportation Plan (2014) • Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2014)

This plan also reflects the core values articulated in the 2013-2017 Corporate Strategic Plan.

RPL - 36 8.0 PARKS & RECREATION

8.1 Background

Parks and recreation play a crucial role in creating quality of life for city residents. The City of Langley has been creating park land and recreational facilities since its incorporation in 1955. Today the City features 25 parks on 128 hectares (316 acres) of land as well as a 1 recreation centre, a community centre, a seniors centre, jij_, an outdoor swimming pool, twin ice rinks, several playgrounds and 11 kilometres of nature trails. City residents also share in the use of a major athletic park with Township of Langley residents. Douglas Park The City of Langley completed a Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan in 2014 in order “to prepare a comprehensive and clear 10-year.. .plan that will provide direction to City staff and Council....” This plan embraces the major recommendations of the PRC Master Plan. 8.2 Policies

Policy 8.2.1

Maintain, enhance and expand the open space system shown in the Parks and Open Space Map (Schedule “D”).

Policy 8.2.2 Support and implement the recommendations of the 2014 Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, including the following:

(a) Trails, Paths and Sidewalks Expand the trail system to provide greater connectivity; Cityof Langley Parks Collaborate with Kwantlen Polytechnic University on the development of a trail along Logan Creek through the campus; Design and build infrastructure (such as benches, lighting, waste bins, bike racks, public art) to support the trail system; Install wayfinding signage in the trail system.

RPL - 37 (b) Park Land Acquisition Acquire parkiand to serve the growing neighbourhoods north of the Nicomekl River Acquire road frontage for existing parks internalized within city blocks.

(c) Park Design & Development Consider universal design and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in all park 2014 Parks, Recreation and Culture planning and design; Master Plan by Catherine Berris Develop comprehensive parks master Associates, et. al plans for City Park and Sendall Gardens; Improve existing sports fields.

(d) Indoor Recreation Facilities

Complete the Timms Community Centre Renewal; Support the development of a performing arts and cultural centre with Langley partners.

Policy 82.3

Connect trails, bike routes and greenways to the regional greenway system and cooperate with Metro Vancouver on the development of regional greenways for recreation including the Nicomekl River corridor.

(d) by deleting the phrase “(Schedule “D”)” from Policy 9.2.1 and replacing it with the phrase, “(Schedule “E”)”:

(e) by deleting Section 10.0 Transportation and replacing it with a new Section 10.0 Transportation as follows:

RPL - 38 10.0 TRANSPORTATION

10.1 Background

Transportation has provided the basis for the City of Langley’s development from a small settlement at the intersection of Yale Road and “Smuggler’s Trail” to a major urban centre today. Water, road and rail transport have all played significant roles in the City’s history. To a large degree, the City’s success within the Metro Vancouver region will continue to be determined by the quality of its transportation linkages.

In 2012 the City launched a comprehensive review of its transportation system culminating in the 2014 adoption of the Master Transportation Plan prepared by Urban Systems Ltd. This plan incorporates the major recommendations of the Master Transportation Plan. 10.2 Policies 2014 Master Transportation Plan Policy 10.2.1

Develop and maintain a hierarchical road network in accordance with the Road Network Map (Schedule “B”).

Policy 10.2.2 Support and implement the recommendations of the 2014 Master Transportation Plan including:

(a) Pedestrian Plan

Enhance sidewalk coverage in areas with the highest pedestrian demand and potential; Incorporate supportive pedestrian facilities to provide a more walkable and attractive environment for pedestrians; Enhance pedestrian safety, accessibility and visibility at crossings in the downtown core, employment areas, around schools and bus stops; Improve the network of trails and pathways identified in the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan;

RPL - 39 (b) Bicycle Plan

Develop and maintain a network of bicycle routes in accordance with the Long Term Bicycle Network (Schedule “D”); Incorporate high quality bicycle facility standards in infrastructure planning; Improve crossings for cyclist safety and comfort; Provide safe and secure bicycle parking 208 Street Reconstruction facilities at key locations.

Work with TransLink and other partners to build a long term transit network in accordance with Schedule “C”; Work with TransLink and other partners to relocate the existing transit exchange in accordance with the Downtown Langley Transit Exchange Plan; Support the extension of rapid transit service from Surrey City Centre to Downtown Langley along the Fraser Highway corridor in accordance with the Surrey Rapid Transit Study (SRTAA).

(U) Road Network Plan Complete road network improvements as follows: • 200 Street (Langley Bypass to Fraser Hwy.) - add southbound lane; • Langley Bypass (200 St. to Fraser Hwy.) - widen to 6 lanes; • 50 AvelGrade CrJ200 St. - intersection improvement or realignment; • 62 Avenue (Willowbrook Dr. to Mufford Cr.) — widen to 4 lanes. Consider the use of roundabouts for future intersection improvements.

(f) by deleting the phrase “(Schedule “E”)” from Policy 11.2.1 and replacing it with the phrase, “(Schedule “F”)”.

(g) by deleting the phrase, “(Schedule “G”)”, from Section 11.4 Storm Drainage and replacing it with the phrase, “(Schedule “H”)”.

RPL - 40 (h) by deleting the first paragraph of Section 12.3 Education and replacing it with the following:

Elementary, middle and secondary school education are provided to City residents by School District No. 35 (SD35). There are six elementary schools and one middle school located within the City of Langley. SD35 also offers English Language Learners tELL) education, special education, fine arts, athletic and adult education.

(1) by deleting the phrase “Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan Update” from Policy 16.10.3 and replacing it with the phrase, “Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan”

(j) by deleting the phrase “(Schedule “D”)” from the marginal caption in Section 17.9 Environmentally Sensitive Areas and replacing it with the phrase, “(Schedule “E”)”.

RPL - 41 (k) by deleting Schedule “B” — Road Network Map and replacing it with a new Schedule “B” — Road Network Map as follows:

CITY OF LANGLEY OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW, 2005, NO. 2600 SCHEDULE “B” - ROAD NETWORK MAP

Legend

,_t* a,-—-——---.2015 PI0d 54.Swo.k Tln.bk) 1:4000 — Aden.I--

RPL - 42 i’ new

a A ,J1NGI

with / it Lj 7 1:4,000 I 7F 2600 MAP -

TTTT]J ii 7/ I,’ I i replacing

NO. it

and i -, _ ;‘r I I I 2005,

Map ii i follows: )%,1J NETWORK C095955 __;I as Ih-—1 /____l Space riL -A95s303095 S —] __ ___ £951anQe z Map Ii’I --%

& ___ LANGLEY

Legend I Network PLAN RPL - 43 “ OF Parks I BIJI SNaO

— _ ri’ FUTURE

1[I’’ I Transit CITY Cisef,0oqnI C220S,315057 - “C” fl I i I . —

eFmosOTmMO ___ “C” ______

future

EWIILZI 1i — COMMUNITY Schedule 2013 /I “C” ______2953.— ‘ B,N deleting IIsI, SCHEDULE OFFICIAL Schedule Md.dW

by 1ft

(1)

___ LIII. (m) by inserting a new Schedule “D” — Parks & Open Space Map as follows:

CITY OF LANGLEY OFFICIAL COMMUNITYPLAN BYLAW, 2005, NO. 2600 SCHEDULE “D” - PARKS & OPEN SPACE MAP

9 Lfj 7 j

Legend ?9S 25 — 1r°

RPL - 44 (n) by renumbering the remaining map schedules accordingly:

(o) by deleting from Appendix I — Regional Context Table the text in the “RCS Policy Response” colunm for the table cells in the sections indicated below and replacing it with the following:

Strategy Local Government Actions RCSPolicy Response

1.2 Focus Growth in Urban 1.2.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which: Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas f) for Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas and General Urban Areas, include policies which:

ii) encourage safe and efficient transit, • Safe and efficient transportation modes cycling and walking; are provided for in Policies under Section 10.2; . 2014 Master Transportation Plan includes detailed policies addressing safe and efficient transportation modes iii) implement transit priority measures, • Policy 10.2.2 (c) outlines support for key where appropriate; transit strategy measures; . Schedule “C” illustrates future transit network • 2014 Master Transportation Plan includes detailed transit strategy . Transit strategy reflects City’s participation in Surrey Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis (SRTAA)and Langley Transit Exchange Plan projects

3.2 Protect and enhance 3.2.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which • Ecologically important areas and natural natural features and their include policies and/or maps that indicate features identified in Map 10 of the connectivity how ecologically important areas and natural Regional Growth Strategy are generally features will be managed (as conceptually protected and managed as shown on Map 10) (e.g. steep slopes and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) ravines, intertidal areas and other natural • ESA’sare shown in Schedule “E” - features not addressed in Strategy 3.1). Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map and policies for these areas are set out in Section 9.2 • Development Permit Area Guidelines for ESA’sare included in Section 17.9. 3.2.5 In collaboration with other agencies, develop • Policy 8.2.3 and manage municipal components of the Metro Vancouver Regional Recreation Greenway Network and connect community trails, bikeways and greenways to the Regional Recreation Greenway Network where appropriate.

3.3 Encourage land use and 3.3.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which: transportation infrastructure that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality

RPL - 45 b) identify policies and/or programs that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality from land use and transportation infrastructure, such as: • community design and facility provision that • Policy 10.2.2, Policy 16.5.1, Policy 16.5.5 cycling walking encourages transit, and (e.g. • Schedule “C” — Future Transit Network direct and safe and cycling linkages pedestrian Map to the transit system); • Schedule ‘D - Parks & Open Space Map including Long Term Bicycle Network . Downtown Master Plan and Public Realm Plan • 2014 Master Transportation Plan

4.2 Develop healthy and 4.2.4 Include policies within municipal plans or complete communities with strategies, that may be referenced in the access to a range of services Regional Context Statements, which: and amenities

d) support active living through the provision • 8.2 Parks & Recreation of recreation facilities, parks, trails, and safe • Schedule “D” - Parks & Open Space Map and inviting pedestrian and cycling including Long Term Bicycle Network environments; • 2014 Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan

5.1 Coordinate land use and 5.1.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which: transportation to encourage transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking

a) identify land use and transportation policies • Policy 10.2.2 (a) (b) (c); Policy 16.5.1 and actions, and describe how they are • Policy 16.5.5 - Downtown Master Plan coordinated, to encourage a greater share of • Schedule “A” - Land Use Designation trips made by transit, multiple-occupancy Map concentrates density in and around vehicles, cycling and walking, and to support Langley Regional City Centre supporting TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network; the Frequent Transit Network

• Schedule “C” — Future Transit Network Map • Schedule ‘D” - Parks & Open Space Map including Long Term Bicycle Network • Wayfinding Strategy being implemented to improve legibility of transportation network • 2014 Master Transportation Plan b) identify policies and actions that support • Policy 10.2 Transportation the development and implementation of • Schedule “B” Road Network Map

municipal and regional transportation system • Schedule “C” — Future Transit Network and demand management strategies, such as Map parking pricing and supply measures, transit • 2014 Master Transportation Plan priority measures, ridesharing, and car-sharing programs; c) identify policies and actions to manage and • Policy 10.2.2 (a)(b)(c) enhance municipal infrastructure to Support • Schedule “C” - Future Transit Network transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling Map and walking. • Schedule ‘D’ - Parks & Open Space Map including Long Term Bicycle Network • 2014 Master Transportation Plan includes detailed pedestrian plan, bicycle plan and transit strategy

RPL - 46 5.2 Coordinate land use and 5.2.3 Adopt Regional Context Statements which transportation to support the safe and efficient movement of vehicles for passengers, goods and services a) identify routes on a map for the safe and • Routes for goods and service vehicle efficient movement of goods and service movement identified in Appendix II - vehicles to, from, and within Urban Centres, Regional Context Map Frequent Transit Development Areas, • 2014 Master Transportation Plan Industrial, Mixed Employment and Agricultural includes Designated Truck Route Map areas, Special Employment Areas, ports, airports, and international border crossings; b) identify land use and related policies and • Policy 10.2.1, 10.2.2(d); actions that support optimizing the efficient • Land use policies (Section 16.0 Land Use

movement of vehicles for passengers, Special Designations, Schedule “B” — Land Use Employment Areas, goods and services on the Designation Map) concentrate trip Major Road Network, provincial highways, and . . . -. . generating uses in l..angleyRegional City federal transportation facilities; . . Centre to optimize the efficiency of vehicle movements

c) support the development of local and • The City is a partner in Roberts Bank Rail regional transportation system management Corridor Railway Crossing Information strategies, such as the provision of System (RCIS) information to operators of goods and service vehicles for efficient travel decisions, management of traffic flow using transit priority measures, coordinated traffic signalization, and lane management; d) identify policies and actions which support • The City participated in the Roberts Bank the protection of rail rights-of-way and access RailCorridor project - contributing $8.5 points to navigable waterways in order to million reserve the potential for goods movement, in • 2014 Master Transportation Plan consideration of the potential impacts on air identifies potential future rail overpass quality, habitat and communities. locations

RPL - 47 (p) by deleting Appendix II—Regional Context Map and replacing it with a new Appendix II — Regional Context Map as follows:

CITY OF LANGLEY OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW,2005, NO. 2600 APPENDIX II - REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP

Legend —— — 0 — - ————I——fl — .an — a :.aa.-. ;..

RPL - 48 READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME this fifth day of October, 2015.

A PUBLIC HEARING, pursuant to Section 890 of the “Local Government Act” was held this ninth day of November, 2015.

READ A THIRD TIME ninth day of November, 2015.

ACCEPTANCE Of REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT BY THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT this day of , 2015.

FINALLY ADOPTED this day of , 2015.

MA YOR

CORPORATE OFFICER

RPL - 49 CITY Of NGLEy CITY OF LANGLEY “ThePlace to Be!”

CERTIFIED RESOLUTION

The City of Langley Council adopted the following resolution at their November 9, 2015 Regular Council Meeting:

THATthe proposed Regional Context Statement amendments contained in “City of Langley Official CommunityPlan Bylaw, 2005, No. 2600, Amendment No. 7, 2015, No. 2953” be submitted to the Metro VancouverBoard for acceptance in accordance with Section 866(4)(b) of the Local Government Act.

Paula Kusack Deputy Corporate Officer City of Langley

RPL - 50 5.6

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Dept.

Date: January 19, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated January 19, 2016, titled “Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver”.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to convey to the GVRD Board the Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver, the sixth in a series of policy backgrounders related to regional planning matters.

BACKGROUND On May 9, 2014, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee received a report on the Metro Vancouver “Facts in Focus” series. The Facts in Focus policy backgrounders are designed to promote a broad understanding of the key issues and opportunities that frame implementation of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy.

On April 24, 2015, the Regional Planning Committee received for information a report titled “Office Development in Metro Vancouver’s Urban Centres Report: An Update”. At the meeting, Committee members raised questions about office development patterns relative to Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Network locations in the region, as well as general development patterns for office buildings over time. Questions were asked about the variation across the region in the office market and building sizes, office characteristics in terms of supply and demand by location, and how office development patterns relative to sub-regional locations have evolved over time.

The attached Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver (Office Development Facts in Focus) addresses the Committee’s questions through synthesizing information about the office development market and highlighting specific policy issues based on the Office Inventory (with inventory data up to the end of 2014). This Office Development Facts in Focus publication is the sixth in a series that is intended to advance dialogue and policy development related to regional planning matters.

17210659 RPL - 51 Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 4

METRO 2040 POLICY CONTEXT While Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, includes policies that strive to support locating office developments in Urban Centres, two issues have emerged that demonstrate the need for further consideration. First, Metro 2040 does not recognize or describe different office types or how those differences are reflected in different types of Urban Centres; therefore, it is not clear what types of office tenants locate in the different types of Urban Centre or how best to align the two.

Second, the Metro 2040 policies regarding directing office development to Urban Centres were founded in response to a history of office development locating in suburban office parks, the resultant job dispersal, and associated challenges created for achieving growth management goals. However, the current policies are not reflecting current office development trends in which the market preferences prioritize locating offices close to rapid transit station locations irrespective of whether they are in Urban Centres or not. Further, one of Metro 2040’s growth management tools, the Frequent Transit Development Area (FTDA), is neither embedded in the regional policies for office development, nor is it clearly linked to the tendency for office buildings to locate close to the Frequent Transit Network.

Policy questions that arise from these two issues include if there is a need for additional Metro 2040 tools to support a better linkage between different types of office development and types of Urban Centres, as well as what work could be undertaken to explore the relationship amongst office development, market trends, and locational considerations by Urban Centre type, FTDA or rapid transit station areas.

Variety of Office Tenants and Accommodations Interest was expressed in being able to reach a better understanding how different types of office tenants impact on office development patterns throughout the region, including whether and how Urban Centres and other areas attempting to draw office development are in fact competing. There are a wide variety of office tenants and accommodation needs in the region. For example, while the attributes of the downtown Vancouver and Central Broadway areas draw certain tenants and needs, other tenants flourish in a local community or neighbourhood, and still others prefer business park campus environments. The Office Development Facts in Focus explores the relationship between, and characteristics of, the different types of Urban Centres, the types of office development these characteristics draw, and issues associated with construction and absorption of larger, high-rise office buildings.

Office Growth Relative to Urban Centres and the Frequent Transit Network Interest was also expressed in learning more about the impact of office development at SkyTrain station locations and how this trend is impacting efforts to encourage offices to locate in Urban Centres and the relationship to Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs). Office tenants are increasingly prioritizing accessibility to rapid transit as a key requirement, and developers are responding accordingly. Between 1990 and 2014, approximately 61% of new office space development was located within 800 metres (10 minute walk) of rapid transit, and 22% within 400 metres (5 minute walk) of bus Frequent Transit Network (FTN). However, despite some years with a higher proportion of development in FTN locations, there is not yet a clear trend towards a consistently larger proportion of development occurring near frequent transit.

RPL - 52 Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 4

Range of Office Building Sizes Finally, Committee members expressed a concern that smaller scale office spaces, prevalent in smaller Urban Centres, were not captured in the updated Office Inventory. While the previous Inventory was limited to buildings 20,000 sq. ft. and larger, the 2015 Inventory was expanded to include buildings with office components of 10,000 sq. ft. and larger, in part to gain a better understanding of the office developments that are locating in smaller Urban Centres and along the Frequent Transit Network. The updated Inventory includes 369 buildings in the region in the 10,000- 19,999 sq. ft. range, with a total office space of approximately 5.2 million sq. ft.

The characteristics associated with smaller office developments vary considerably in Municipal Town Centres, from small two-level office buildings, some on sites with redevelopment potential, to office components in larger mixed-use projects in newer areas, with buildings ranging in age and value. Although these buildings may be small compared to the large buildings in Metro Core and Regional City Centres, they are an important part of the local market. This variety of office spaces illustrates the diversity of office development forms, market characteristics, and tenant needs.

Next Steps Metro Vancouver is working on a number of regional planning initiatives that have a strong relationship to office development, including a review of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs), the development of Regional City Centre profiles (including commercial and employment data), and a preliminary exploration of regional economic prosperity initiatives that would be generally supportive of economic and employment growth, in turn helping to drive office space demand.

The attached Office Development Facts in Focus is intended to highlight specific policy issues that emerge from an analysis of data from the 2015 Office Development in Urban Centres Inventory. Future research will explore further the relationship between office development in FTDAs and rapid transit stations, and the implications on regional planning of locating significant office growth at rapid transit stations outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.

ALTERNATIVES This report is provided for information only. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Metro Vancouver “Facts in Focus” policy backgrounder series is designed to offer information that can promote a broad understanding of the key issues and opportunities that frame implementation of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy. The 2015 Office Development in Metro Vancouver’s Urban Centres report was prepared to inform the implementation of Metro 2040 by monitoring and advancing office development in the region’s Urban Centres. The Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver has been prepared to support ongoing dialogue about the relationship between office development and locational considerations. It will be distributed to member municipalities, other agencies, and posted on the Metro Vancouver website.

RPL - 53 Metro Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder: Office Development in Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 4

Attachment: Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder - Office Development in Metro Vancouver’s Urban Centres (Doc. #17210660)

References: - Metro Vancouver Urban Centres Website - Metro Vancouver Regional Economy Website - HQ Vancouver Office Initiative Website - Avison Young Metro Vancouver Office Market - Mid-Year 2015

RPL - 54 Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder Of ce Development in Metro Vancouver’s Urban Centres

RPL - 55

Importance of encouraging offices to locate in urban centres Encouraging offices to locate in Urban Centres, areas intended to Exploring the factors that influence be the region’s focal points for concentrated growth and locations where offices locate well served by transit, is a key element of Metro Vancouver’s This Facts in Focus Policy Backgrounder explores the factors that regional growth strategy – Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our influence decisions about where to locate office development of Future (Metro 2040). In 2014, the region had 74 million sq. ft. different types. It describes how office development patterns vary of office space in 1,332 buildings that were 10,000 sq. ft. or by the type of office space and by the type of location across the larger. Regional policy direction in Metro 2040, adopted in 2011, region, specifically exploring the needs of office tenants and the responds to the significant number of office projects that were kinds of office accommodations that are offered. historically developed outside of Urban Centre locations, such as in suburban office parks. The Metro Vancouver Facts in Focus series is designed to promote a broad understanding of the key issues and Benefits of well-located office development opportunities that frame Metro Vancouver’s implementation Office development can include office components in stand-alone of the regional growth strategy and its mandate for delivering office buildings or within larger mixed-use buildings. Locating services and solutions for a livable region. office development in Urban Centres provides a critical mass and Metro Vancouver is a political body and corporate entity mix of urban activities to support other complementary uses and operating under provincial legislation as a ‘regional district’ amenities, including locating housing and employment in proximity and ‘greater boards’ that deliver regional services, policy and to one another. Focusing office development in Urban Centres political leadership on behalf of 23 local authorities. These benefits livability and the regional transportation system in a local authorities comprise 21 municipalities, one electoral number of ways: area, and one Treaty First Nation. Providing timely research • enhancing accessibility of services and amenities and analysis of regional issues is an important service offered • supporting the development of complete communities by Metro Vancouver. • reducing vehicle commutes and employee transportation costs • protecting land for other uses • complementing commercial and residential land uses • increasing the vibrancy and success of Urban Centres

RPL - 56 2 Office Development

Contents

A. Regional planning context and goals ...... 4

B. Factors that influence office development ...... 6

C. Metro Vancouver’s office building inventory...... 9

D. Towards a regional dialogue...... 19

RPL - 57 Office Development 3

A. Regional planning context and goals

Metro 2040: Shaping Our Future, (Metro 2040), the • Better access to, and use of, transit regional growth strategy, advocates for commercial • Less reliance on vehicles for commuting, resulting and employment growth, including office development, in less congestion to be located in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit • Support for surrounding retail, residential, and Development Areas (FTDAs). institutional uses • Better access to a range of amenities for office Urban Centres are intended to be the region’s primary workers, such as area shops and services focal points for concentrated growth, employment and • Improved ability to attract and retain workers services, higher density housing, commercial, cultural, • Improved vibrancy and success of Urban Centres entertainment, institutional and mixed uses, supported • Contribution to complete communities by frequent transit service. Metro 2040 identifies 26 Urban Centres of varying scales and characteristics, These benefits can be grouped into three categories: distributed throughout the region, including the Environmental, through reduced land, resource and Metro Core (downtown Vancouver and the Broadway energy consumption, and lower greenhouse gas Corridor), Surrey Metro Core, 7 Regional City Centres, emissions associated with higher density development and 17 Municipal Town Centres. located in transit accessible places; Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs) Social, by providing accommodations for office are additional priority locations to accommodate employment in Urban Centres at locations accessible concentrated growth, designed to complement the to the region’s workforce; and network of Urban Centres. FTDAs are located along TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network (FTN), where Economic, by facilitating business growth in transit service runs at least every 15 minutes in both office accommodations that reflect the economic directions most of the day, every day of the week. shift towards a growing office employment profile (professional, commercial, services). There are a number of benefits to locating office space and associated employment in these locations, including: Photo by Rod Nevison

RPL - 58 4 Office Development

Metro Vancouver Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Network

Lower Capilano Lonsdale Lynn Marine Valley Ambleside Marine Dr. Lower East Lynn 3rd Ave Coquitlam Vancouver Inlet Metro Core Brentwood Burquitlam

UBC Lougheed Port Coquitlam Cambie Oakridge Metrotown FTDAs Edmonds New Pitt Maple Westminster Meadows Ridge 104th Ave Surrey Guilford Richmond Metro Centre Fleetwood West Fleetwood

Willoughby

Newton East Clayton

Cloverdale Langley

Ladner

Aldergorve

Semiahmoo N

Regional City Centres Municipal Town Centres Frequent Transit Network Rapid Transit Lines and Stations (exisitng and under construction) Frequent Transit Urban Containment Boundary Sea Bus West Coast Express Development Areas

RPL - 59 Office Development 5

B. Factors that influence office development

Office development has a number of qualitative Demand in the Metro Vancouver office market is characteristics related to both tenant needs and generally due to the growth of existing tenants, not different locations, including: building features, due to an economic boom or because the region is proximity to amenities and transit, and urban form able to attract head offices from elsewhere. Law firms, and density. These attributes influence where tenants financial, and professional offices have the greatest choose to locate, and the kind of office development propensity to locate in larger Urban Centres. different locations can attract. Different types of office tenants have Although the Metro Vancouver office market functions different needs and priorities as one regional economy, and is impacted by The size, design, features, price, and location of macro-level factors, there are distinct geographic offices vary throughout the region to meet the variety sub-regions. Each one has its own characteristics and of tenant needs. Conversely, decisions about where unique offerings. This diversity of types and locations to situate offices varies by the type of office tenant of office development addresses the space needs and by location features. Compared to other North of a variety of office tenants in the region. Although American markets, Metro Vancouver has fewer large the office market is dominated by Vancouver, other head offices, and many smaller sized office tenants. smaller markets serve other roles and needs, with each market offering its own set of opportunities and Tenants seek different types of office accommodations challenges. to meet their particular business needs. Some of the criteria considered by tenants when selecting office There is a wide range of office tenants with different accommodations include: needs who situate themselves in the region in ways to best meet their needs. This variety ranges from • Cost (e.g. lease rate, building management, corporate headquarters or legal offices that want property taxes) and tenant inducements premium space in downtown Vancouver, to regional • Accessibility of transit, roads, and parking serving branch offices in Regional City Centres, • Current space needs and the potential for to local servicing businesses, such as medical, future expansion dental, and accounting that need to be readily • Space availability and timing accessible to the public. Photo by Rod Nevison

RPL - 60 6 Short Sea Shipping in Metro Vancouver 6 Office Development

• Office space and building design features – additional 22% was located within 400 metres (5 efficient and large floorplate design minute walk) of bus service on the Frequent Transit • Requirement for non-office components (e.g. Network (FTN). Most of the new office buildings warehouse, storage, flex space) in downtown Vancouver have direct access to a • Surrounding land uses number of rapid transit lines, with other major office • Area features and amenities projects in the region locating adjacent to rapid • Desire for prestigious locations and client transit (some in Urban Centres, some not), such accessibility as Metrotower III in Metrotown, Broadway Tech at Renfrew Skytrain station, the Brewery District • Proximity to an airport at Sapperton Skytrain station, and Anvil Centre in • Proximity to employees, customers, suppliers, downtown New Westminster. competitors, and other corporate operations • Quality of property management service Between 1990 and 2014, 3.8 million sq. ft. of • Green building design features/LEED Certification office space was built within 800 metres of rapid • Visibility and prominence transit stations, but outside of Urban Centres, with notable areas being Willingdon Park in Burnaby, While developers construct office buildings that they Broadway Tech in Vancouver, and the Brewery believe will be well-received by the office tenant District in New Westminster. Although the locations market, they also have their own set of investment at SkyTrain stations offer the benefit of access to criteria, which include land price and availability, land rapid transit, they may not yet have the full range of use plans and policies, cost and time of development complementary urban amenities offered by Urban approval processes, and risk levels. Centres. It is as yet unclear how offices locating in these locations are impacting the regional goal of Tenants are increasingly prioritizing office creating complete communities. space located near rapid transit The implications of office buildings being developed Office tenants are increasingly prioritizing accessibility outside of Urban Centres include a potential increase of rapid transit and developers are responding in car dependency, resulting in increased congestion accordingly. Between 1990 and 2014, approximately and GHG emissions, and the potential reduction in 61% of new office space was located within 800 the vibrancy of Urban Centres by dispersing jobs and metres (10 minute walk) of rapid transit, and an other amenities. Photo by Jeff Stvan, Flickr Creative Commons Photo by Jeff Stvan, Flickr Creative

RPL - 61 Office Development 7

However, despite some years with a higher can offer larger sites, allowing for more development proportion of office development along the FTN, there options, lower costs, better access to the highway is not yet a clear trend towards consistent preference network, ample parking, and other features desired for locating near frequent transit. Some office by certain types of office developers and tenants. parks outside of Urban Centres with poor transit Further, office occupants continue to seek increased connectivity continue to be built. This mixed pattern efficiencies of reduced floor space per worker, will likely continue, reflecting the varied location which may have transportation impacts in terms of and building preferences for different types of office increasing the amount of required on-site parking for tenants and existing zoning. the office building, transit demand, building floorplate While most Urban Centres offer a richer variety of design and the provision of on-site amenities. features and amenities, non-Urban Centre locations

GROWTH IN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN CENTRES AND BY FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE (1990-2014) 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 FLOOR AREA SQ. FT. 1,000,000

500,000 0 2001 2011 1991 2012 1990 2014 2004 2007 1994 2010 1993 2005 1995 2003 2009 1992 2002 2013 1999 1996 2006 2008 2000 1998 1997

Metro Core Surrey City Centre NUC* Not Near FTN Service NUC* Within 800m Regional City Centre Municipal NUC* Within 400m of Rapid Transit Station Town Centre of FTN Bus Service Only *NUC = Not in Urban Centres Photo: Port Metro Vancouver Vancouver Photo: Port Metro

RPL - 62 8 Short Sea Shipping in Metro Vancouver 8 Office Development

Office Distribution by Sub-Region (2014) C. Metro Vancouver’s office building inventory

North Shore

Northeast In 2014, the region had 74 million sq. ft. of office space in Sector 1 Ridge 1,332 buildings that were 10,000 sq. ft. or larger. Burnaby / Vancouver/UBC Meadows New West. Office building distribution throughout the region

Richmond To give a sense of relative size and scale, the following figures Surrey / White Rock show the distribution of the office space within each sub- Delta Langleys region. Half of the office space is located in Vancouver (37.7 million sq. ft.), with the Burnaby/New Westminster 37% (14.5 million sq. ft.), Surrey (7.2 million sq. ft.), and Richmond (6.6 million sq. ft.) subregions also having a Delta Northeast significant amount of office space. Ridge 1% Sector Meadows 2% <1% Langleys The following map illustrates where office buildings ear 3% clustered in the region, particularly in the Metro Core and North Shore other Urban Centres. Larger and greater numbers of symbols 5% Richmond indicate office building groupings. 9%

Surrey/ Vancouver/UBC White Rock 51% 10%

1 Brokerage firm publications typically use the higher threshold size, and only track Burnaby/New Westminster market office buildings, excluding non-market / institutional type space omfr their 20% inventories. The result is a more comprehensive inventory for Metro Vancouver’s report, which better illustrates the diverse office supply and demand in the region, particularly outside of large Urban Centres.

RPL - 63 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 9 Office Development 9

Metro Vancouver office inventory 2014

WEST NORTH Metro Core VANCOUVER NORTH VANCOUVER VANCOUVER CITY DISTRICT

PORT MOODY BURNABY

COQUITLAM UBC/ PORT PITT UEL MEADOWS VANCOUVER COQUITLAM

NEW WESTMINSTER MAPLE RIDGE

SURREY

RICHMOND LANGLEY TOWNSHIP

DELTA LANGLEY CITY

WHITE ROCK Of ce Size 400m from FTN 10,000 - 50,000 sq. ft. 150,000 - 300,000 sq. ft. Urban Centres Frequent Transit Network bus or 800m 50,000 - 150,000 sq. ft. 300,000 sq. ft. or more Urban Containment Boundary Rapid transit lines and stations from rapid transit (existing and under construction) station

RPL - 64 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 10 10 Office Development

Inventory focused in larger Urban Centres and at rapid transit stations

Of the total office building inventory in the region, City Centres is within 800 metres of SkyTrain stations. 66%, or 49 million sq. ft., is located in Urban Centres. In contrast, in Municipal Town Centres only 40% of Most of this inventory (60%) is located in the Metro the office space is near rapid transit. Core and other Regional City Centres. Only 6% is Of the office space that is not located in Urban located in Municipal Town Centres; the 17 Municipal Centres (about 25 million sq. ft.), 61% is close to Town Centres contain an average of 250,000 sq. ft. of the Frequent Transit Network. Only about 13% of office space each. the region’s total office inventory is neither in an About 44 million sq. ft. (60%) of office space is Urban Centre nor near the FTN, and is typically located within 800 metres (about a ten minute walk) represented by suburban-type business parks that of a rapid transit station, and 18 million sq. ft. (24%) is are auto-oriented, or smaller office buildings serving located within 400 metres (about a five minute walk) local areas. of frequent bus service. The vast majority (84%) of the inventory in the Metro Core and the other Regional OFFICE DISTRIBUTION IN URBAN CENTRES AND BY FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE (2014)

office distribution in urban centres and by Frequent Transit Service (2014)

40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000

Floor Area Sq. Ft. 10,000,000 5,000,000 — Metro Core Regional City Centre Municipal Town Not in Urban Centre Centre Within 800m of Rapid Transit Station Within 400m of FTN Bus Service Only Not Near FTN Service Photo by ©2010 Hubert Figuière, Flickr Creative Commons Flickr Creative Photo by ©2010 Hubert Figuière,

RPL - 65 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 11 Office Development 11

But not all growth is in Urban Centres

Although there are a number of large, high- growth of inventory in urban centres (1990-2014) profile office projects coming to market Not in in the larger Urban Urban Metro Core Centre Metro Core Centres, there are also Regional City Centre 17,790,532 22,303,731 a significant number Municipal 37% 46% Municipal Town Centre of small and mid-sized Town Centre 2,202,924 office buildings under Not in Urban Centre 5% development.2 These smaller buildings serve Regional City Centre local markets, are 5,978,838 scattered throughout 12% the region, and are not necessarily in Urban Centres or near the Frequent Transit Network. Although, demand is limited in smaller Urban Centres with lower accessibility and levels of transit service, there is still demand for local office space. These spaces are generally occupied by businesses that serve local needs.

2 During the 1990-2014 period, 52% of new buildings were under 50,000 sq ft, however these represented only 19% of the new office stock.

RPL - 66 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 12 12 Short Sea Shipping in Metro Vancouver 12 Office Development

Significant new supply of large office buildings Much of this new supply of large office buildings is in downtown Between 1990 and 2014, there was a total of 48 million sq. ft. Vancouver or near rapid transit stations, (e.g. Metrotower III in of office space developed in 670 buildings in the region, which Metrotown, Broadway Tech at Renfrew station, the Brewery is an average of about 2 million sq. ft. added per year. Additions District at Sapperton station, and the Anvil Centre in downtown to the inventory can vary greatly from year-to-year in terms of New Westminster). size, location, and proximity to transit. The region experienced Large high-rise office buildings tend to be constructed and leased significant office development in the 1990s to the early 2000s, all at once, as compared to smaller, low-rise buildings that can be much of which was in the City of Vancouver, and to a lesser phased to meet demand over time. As a result, it is expected that extent in Burnaby / New Westminster. This period was followed vacancy rates will increase in the short term, and lease rates will by a lower level of development in the late 2000s and early 2010s, flatten or decline. Given that 2 million sq. ft. of new office space which has resulted in declining vacancy rates and increasing is anticipated, there may be another gap in the development of lease rates. large office buildings, thereby providing the necessary time for the In response, a number of major office development ojectspr significant new supply to be absorbed. have advanced more recently, with completions between New office development over the past five years is shown on the 2014 and 2016. following map.

RPL - 67 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 13 Office Development 13

New office development over the past five years (2010-2014)

10,000 - 50,000 sq. ft. 50,000 - 150,000 sq. ft. 150,000 - 300,000 sq. ft. 300,000 sq. ft. or more

Rapid transit lines and stations (existing and under construction) Urban Centres

Metro Core

RPL - 68 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 14 14 Office Development

Office development by municipality and by type of Urban Centre

Each of the Metro Vancouver office development Many of the businesses located in the Metro Core sub-regions is characterized by distinct features and serve national and provincial markets. As such, industry perceptions as described below: the competition for this market is often Calgary, Toronto, or Seattle, not other Urban Centres in Metro Vancouver Metro Core and Central Vancouver. Most of the few corporate headquarters Business District in the region are located in the downtown Vancouver Vancouver, and specifically the Central Business Central Business District. The Metro Core has a much District in the downtown area, holds 51% of the higher percentage of jobs in the professional and regional office market. It is the business centre for the commercial service sectors, and a lower percentage region and the province. This area is known as the of jobs in retail, in comparison to the rest of the City of Metro Core in Metro 2040, and contains about 33 Vancouver and the region. million sq. ft., or 68% of the total office space in Urban Outside of downtown Vancouver, but within the City Centres in the region. High-rise office buildings offer of Vancouver, there is a strong office market along high-quality accommodations for tenants that demand the Broadway corridor, both in the central Broadway premium space at prime locations. area, and at Broadway Tech (located at the Renfrew Although the downtown Vancouver market SkyTrain station in east Vancouver). The new experienced a low vacancy rate over the past decade, Broadway Tech campus meets the needs of tenants the steady supply of major new office buildings is that want large building floorplates and accessibility; causing vacancy rates to rise. Tenants of the new it has both rapid transit service to downtown buildings are largely expected to be those already in Vancouver and is easily accessible to Highway 1. downtown Vancouver that either want to expand or desire newer office premises.

RPL - 69 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 15 Office Development 15

Regional City Centres: well-located with access to nearby features/amenities

The Regional City Centres (Surrey Metro Centre, New Westminster Regional City Centre is a relatively Burnaby’s Metrotown, Richmond City Centre, small market, although it is experiencing significant new Langley, Coquitlam, New Westminster, North office supply including the new Anvil Centre. Generally, Vancouver’s Lonsdale, and Maple Ridge) offer a the established New Westminster downtown offers variety of accommodation types. These areas include potential for different types of office development some larger office buildings of different ages and (e.g. upgrade of historic buildings) compared to other qualities, along with a significant inventory of smaller locations in the municipality (i.e. Braid and Sapperton and older buildings. These types of locations and SkyTrain stations), which offer large sites that can accommodations may attract tenants that want a well- accommodate comprehensive development plans. located space with access to surrounding features/ Surrey has 10% of the regional office market, with a amenities, but not necessarily at the higher prices of a variety of office building types distributed throughout downtown Vancouver location. the municipality. The Surrey City Centre area has Burnaby/New Westminster is the second largest sub- about 2.1 million sq. ft. of office space, but contains regional office market, with 20% of theegional r market. few large, modern office buildings. However, the 2014 A considerable amount of office space is located in the relocation of City Hall to this area is expected to spur Metrotown area (about 3 million sq. ft.). Tenants value further development. Burnaby because of its central location, accessibility of Richmond City Centre also has 2.1 million sq. ft. of amenities and transit service. Metrotown is viewed as a office space, much of which is located outside of its good office location due to its rapid transit service. downtown core. Richmond is considered a ‘gateway to the region’, given its proximity to the YVR airport. Suburban office space along the Knight Street corridor/ Crestwood area accommodates tenants that have a regional or intra-regional focus. Photo by Rod Nevison

RPL - 70 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 16 16 Office Development

Municipal Town Centres: smaller, local-serving office development

Municipal Town Centres typically have a smaller scale of be smaller than the large office buildings in the Metro Core and development with more local-serving office functions. Collectively, Regional City Centres, they are an important part of the local and they house about 6% of the regional office development. The regional markets. characteristics of Municipal Town Centres vary considerably, Smaller Urban Centres accommodate tenants such as health, with only some located on the rapid transit network, which plays education, financial, and government offices that serve local a significant role in the type of office development they attract. businesses and residents, and that complement, rather than For example, in Burnaby, Brentwood is viewed as a good office compete, with office space in larger Urban Centres. Local-serving location due in part to its rapid transit service. office space growth typically mirrors local population growth Smaller office accommodations vary considerably in Municipal rates, and provides increased opportunity for employment closer Town Centres, ranging from small, two-level office buildings, to where the population lives. Again, this variety of office space (some on sites with redevelopment potential), to office illustrates the diversity of office development forms, market components in larger mixed-use projects in newer areas (with characteristics, and tenant needs. buildings ranging in age and value). Although these buildings may

RPL - 71 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 17 Office Development 17

Location of smaller office buildings, 2014

10,000 - 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 - 30,000 sq. ft. 30,000 - 40,000 sq. ft. 40,000 - 50,000 sq. ft.

Rapid transit lines and stations (existing and under construction) Urban Centres

Metro Core

RPL - 72 Farming in Metropolitan Vancouver 18 18 Office Development

D. Towards a regional dialogue

Locating office development in appropriate locations in the region requires efforts by all stakeholders, including Metro Vancouver, municipalities, developers and other organizations. Plans to encourage office development in Urban Centres must recognize market realities and office tenant and developer needs, but also must help advance regional goals. Issue #1: Ensuring linkages The ongoing integration of land use and transportation There are various other provincial and federal planning provides a greater ability to spur the desired initiatives that relate to the economy, directly and form of office development at the optimum locations. indirectly. Municipalities also have their own economic development plans and initiatives. The key question Metro Vancouver, the regional district, is working on is how can these efforts and initiatives be strategically a number of regional planning initiatives that have a linked: strong relationship to office development, including a review of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit 1. How best to coordinate Metro Vancouver office Development Areas (FTDAs), the development of development policies with provincial and federal Regional City Centre profiles (including commercial initiatives? and employment data), and a preliminary exploration 2. How best to coordinate Metro Vancouver office of regional economic initiatives that are supportive of development policies with municipal economic economic and employment growth (in turn helping to development plans and initiatives? drive office space demand). The ongoing integration of land use and transportation planning provides 3. How can public sector objectives and private a greater ability to spur the desired form of office sector interests be best integrated? development at the optimum locations. 4. How can public and private sector relationships be In addition to Metro Vancouver’s efforts, the ‘HQ enhanced to advance common office objectives? Vancouver’ initiative was established in 2015 through a partnership and funding agreement between the Business Council of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the Province of British Columbia.

RPL - 73 Office Development 19

Issue #2: Exploring implications

More work is required to explore the implications 4. What policy work could be undertaken to explore of office development occurring in Frequent Transit the relationship amongst office development, Development Areas (FTDAs) and at rapid transit policy levers, market trends, and locational stations outside of Urban Centres: considerations (such as Urban Centre type, FTDA, or rapid transit station areas)? 1. What is the relationship between location, built form, and tenant types when it comes to office 5. How can Metro Vancouver support municipalities development? in attracting appropriate types of office activities that the sub-markets can best serve? 2. What is the implication of offices locating in Frequent Transit Development Areas and at rapid 6. How can local governments collaborate with transit stations outside of Urban Centres? the development industry to explore options for integrated office space in mixed-use 3. What are the positive and negative implications/ developments? outcomes of promoting major office developments at rapid transit stations outside of Urban Centres and FTDAs?

RPL - 74 20 Office Development

Issue #3: Minimizing major trip generators outside of Urban Centres

Metro 2040 seeks to minimize or prevent non-residential 1. How is a major trip generator defined, particularly for office major trip-generating uses from locating outside of Urban development (i.e. number of employees, floor area, Centres and FTDAs: number of trips)?

2. How can Metro Vancouver and member municipalities more forcefully prevent / limit office development outside of Urban Centres and FTDAs?

RPL - 75 Office Development 21

Issue #4: Clarifying and enhancing office development policies

Although Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, includes policies directing office growth to Urban Centres, there are areas that could be clarified and enhanced:

1. How can Metro 2040 recognize or describe different office types and how they relate to different Urban Centres?

2. How can regional policies better reflect changing and evolving office development trends?

3. How can existing regional office policies be made more effective?

4. What sort of new regional office policies may be appropriate or should be further explored?

RPL - 76 22 Office Development 5.7

To: Regional Planning Committee

From: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: January 21, 2016 Meeting Date: February 12, 2016

Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated January 21, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”.

North Shore Integrated Land Use and Transportation Study Metro Vancouver and TransLink are working together with three municipal partners and the Squamish First Nation to explore integrated land use and transportation connections along a North Shore corridor spanning from Dundarave to Maplewood Village. The study will explore, in a highly collaborative way, future transit vision scenarios (short, medium, and long term) along the Frequent Transit Network to develop a shared understanding of the requirements for achieving/ accommodating the vision reflected in Metro 2040 (the regional growth strategy), the Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS), the Mayors’ Council Transportation and Transit Plan, and the North Shore Area Transit Plan.

While Metro Vancouver and TransLink staff are working closely to co‐manage and co‐facilitate the process, all partners are participating to design a process for the study that clarifies regional/municipal objectives, roles/responsibilities for all partners, and confirms inputs/outputs, as well as how Councils will be engaged throughout the process. A kickoff meeting for the study was hosted by the District of West Vancouver the week of January 18, 2016 and general parameters were confirmed. Metro Vancouver and TransLink staff are currently developing the next steps and project partners will continue to work together as the study evolves through spring 2016. Greater detail will be conveyed to the Regional Planning Committee and municipal Councils as the work progresses.

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project In response to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s request for input on its Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Metro Vancouver staff submitted comments based on Metro Vancouver interests and services. The comments will considered by the Intergovernment and Finance Committee at its February 17, 2016, meeting, and then will be provided to the Regional Planning Committee for information. On February 5, 2016, Metro Vancouver will be hosting a meeting of various stakeholders, including municipal and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, to discuss potential land use impacts of the project.

17241076 RPL - 77 Manager’s Report Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2

Illegal Fill Pilot Project The first meeting for the Illegal Fill Pilot Project was held on January 27, 2016 with municipal and provincial representatives to confirm how municipal staff would like to address the unauthorized disposal of excavated soil (fill) that moves across municipal boundaries. All participants were very supportive of proceeding with the web‐based permit registry and tracking system, but also recognized the importance of constraining the scope of the project in order to ensure participation, and enable adequate testing of the registry to share information and support bylaw enforcement. Municipal staff were asked to send Metro Vancouver a list of the information that is currently collected from the building and soil permits, as well as to confirm whether a staff person is available to add selected information to the web registry. Metro Vancouver staff will investigate software services available for the registry, prepare background communications materials about the pilot project, and prepare protocols and guidelines for review and comment by municipalities. Staff will provide the Regional Planning Committee with an assessment of process and results as the project moves forward.

Metro Vancouver Event Representation In October 2015, the GVRD Board approved the annual budget for general government services which includes funds set aside for committee member attendance and remuneration at events in 2016. Events are defined under the Remuneration Bylaw as “courses or similar education or research activities, conventions, seminars, workshops and conferences”. The annual budget is developed based on events that are relevant and have value to individual Standing Committee mandates and where there is a benefit to have representation from Metro Vancouver Directors or Committee members at those events. The proposed events align with the provisions of the Board’s policy titled Metro Vancouver Leadership and Engagement Policy.

The following events have been submitted for representation by Regional Planning Committee members:

Planning Institute of BC 2016 Annual Conference  Place and Date: Kelowna, British Columbia, May 10‐13, 2016  Number of attendee(s): 2  The Planning Institute of BC Annual Conference is the annual professional development and networking event of the Institute. It will give delegates the opportunity to take advantage of the learning and networking possibilities presented by the PIBC event. City Age 2016 Conference  Place and Date: Los Angeles, California, November 10‐11, 2016  Number of attendee(s): 1  CityAge is an international network of more than 4,500 decision makers and thought leaders who are building our urban economy and society. The 2016 conference will focus on the design, finance, business, government and research in the business of city building.

Committee members interested in attending these eevents ar asked to submit their interest to the Regional Planning Committee Chair for Board Chair approval.

RPL - 78 6.1

City of Malcolm D Brodie ayor

Richmond No 3 Road, Pichrnord, BC V6Y2C1 teIepne 604-176-4123 Fi ‘jo 604-276-4332 .ft’/’JVv.tich iiioncl a

November 24, 2015

The Honourable Norm Letnick Minister of Agriculture P0 BOX 9043 SIN PROV GOVT Victoria, BC V$W 9E2

Dear Flonourable Letnick:

Re: City of Richmond’s Comments in Relation to Discussion Paper and Proposed Minister’s Bylaw Standards Related to Regulating Agri-Tourism and Farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve

At its Regular Council meeting held on Monday, November 23, 2015, Richmond City Council considered the above matter and adopted the foLlowingresolution: (1) That regarding the proposed Ministry of Agriculture Bylaw Standards for Agri-tourism and farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), the Minister ofAgricutture be requested to: (a) specify how agri-tourism is to be subordinate to the principal active farm operation and only augment a farmer’s regular farm income, not exceed or replace it; (b) provide sped/ic guidelines to determine the appropriate amount to be considered “small-scale (agri-tourism)” based on the size of the farm operation; (c) provide more detailed criteria to determine the appropriate size and siting of agri-tourism structures (e.g., the maximum building area and site coverage); (d) provide ctarfication on what types of uses can be permitted in an agri-tourism structure; (e) provide sped/ic guidance on the adequate amount of parking necessary for farm retail sales, to avoid excessive paving and minimize negative impacts onfarmland; (2) That regarding ALR wineries, the Minister ofAgriculture be requested to: (a) amend the Agricultural Land Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, to enable Richmond and other municipalities:

4814700 ichrnond

RPL - 79 -2-

(I) to allow only Type 1 Wineries which grow at least 50% of the farm product used to make the wine on the farm where the winery is located; and (II) to not allow Type 2 Wineries which are industrial-scaled operations with limited ALl?farming activity; (b) monitor all ALl?farm-based wineries, to ensure that they comply with the 50% on site grow rule and enforce all related Ministry and ALR regulations; (c) where specjfic winery operators are already approved to enter into three year contracts with offsite BC farmers, allow them to enter into year to year contracts; not only the current Provincially required three year contracts, toprovide more flexibility; and (3) That regarding ALR regulation monitoring and enforcement, the Minister of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission, as the case may be, be requested: (a) to monitor and enforce all Ministry and ALR regulations and requirements, as municipalities have limited resources; and (b) to more frequently review the ALl? regulations and requirements, in consultation with municipalities, for their effectiveness, practicality and ease of enforceability; and (4) That the above recommendations and this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission for a response, as well as Metro Vancouver and RichntondMLAs.

A copy of the staff report titled “Richmond Comments: Proposed Ministry of Agriculture Bylaw Standards for Agri-tourism and farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and Related Matters (ALR Wineries, Monitoring and Enforcement)” is enclosed for your information.

Thank you in advance for your review and consideration of the above City of Richmond’s requests. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, at 604-276-4139.

truly,

Mayor

Ait. I pc: Agricultural Land Commission John Yap, MLA — Richmond-Steveston Teresa Wat, MLA — Richmond Centre Linda Reid, MLA — Richmond East Metro Vancouver

4814700

RPL - 80 City of Report to Committee Richmond

To: General Purposes Committee Date: October 27, 2015 From: Joe Erceg, MCIP File: 05-4430-03-07/2015- General Manager, Planning and Development Vol01 Re: Richmond Comments: Proposed Ministry of Agriculture Bylaw Standards for Agri-tounsm and Farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and Related Matters (ALRWineries, Monitoring and Enforcement)

Staff Recommendation

1. That regarding the proposed Ministry of Agriculture Bylaw Standards for Agri-tourism and Farm Retail Salesin the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), the Minister of Agriculture be requested to:

a) specify how agri-tourism is to be subordinate to the principal active farm operation and only augment a farmer’s regular farm income, notexceed or replace it;

b) provide specific guidelines to determine the appropriate amount to be considered “small scale (agri-tourism)” based on the sizeof the farm operation;

c) provide more detailed criteria to determine the appropriate size and siting of agri-tourism structures (e.g., themaximum building area and site coverage);

d) provide clarification on what types of uses can be permitted in an agri-tourism structure;

e) provide specific guidance on the adequate amount of parking necessary for farmretail sales, to avoid excessive paving and minimize negative impacts on farmland;

2. That regarding ALR wineries, the Minister of Agriculture be requested to:

a) amend the Agricultural Land Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, to enable Richmond and other municipalities:

i) to allow only Type 1 Wineries which grow at Least50% of the farm product used to make the wine on the farm where the winery is located, and

ii) to not alLowType 2 Wineries which are industrial-scaled operations with limited ALR farming activity.

b) monitor all ALR farm-based wineries, to ensure that they comply with the 50% on site grow rule and enforce all related Ministry and ALR regulations;

4768773 CNCL-86

RPL - 81

and INITIALS

with

the

and

Agriculture

contracts

only

Agriculture

year

not

consultation

MANAGER

flexibility;

three

Ministry

enforceability.

into

the

contracts;

requirements,

Minister

more CONCURRENCE

REPORT

GENERAL

the

and

SUBCOMMITrEE

year

entcr

requested:

ease

STAFF

provide

requirements,

REPORT

and

year

be,

REVIEW

forwarded

and

regulations

into

approved

enforcement,

may

response.

ALR

contracts,

and

REVIEWED

AGENDA

AP7DBY

CONCURRENCE

enter

-2-

case report

and practicality

RPL - 82

for

already

regulations

and

the

CNCL-8Z

year

this

are

them

ALR

and

three

monitoring

resources,

the

Ministry

Development

allow

effectiveness,

all

Commission

operators

and

required

limited

review

their

Commission,

regulation

Land

farmers,

for

enforce

winery

have

Land

recommendations

ALR

Vlanning

and

frequently

Provincially

specific

above

ofisite

2015

Agricultural

MCIP

monitor

the

regarding

Manager,

27,

the

municipalities,

municipalities

current Agricultural

with

where

Erceg,

That

and

the

That

476B773

General

Joe

3. October October 27, 2015 - 3 -

Staff Report

Origin

The Ministry of Agriculture has prepared a Discussion Paper that contains a draft set of criteria to assist focal governments when they prepare bylaws regardingagri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) (Attachment 1).

The Deputy Minister of Agriculture sent the Discussion Paper to the Mayor and Councillors by email on October 6, 2015 and requested feedback on all sections of the paper, specifically the proposed criteria, by November 30, 2015.

Findings of Fact

Context

The Discussion Paper was prepared following the Ministry of Agriculture’s consultation, conducted from July22 to August 22, 2014, on potential changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation of the Agricultural Land CommissionAct. One of the consultation questions asked during the consultation process was:

Should greater clarity beprovided on what constitutes an agri-tourism activity that is allowable in theALRwithout an application, and f so, what parameters should be established?

The Ministry received strong support from local governments to provide clearer parametersand guidelines for permitted agri-tourism activities in the ALR.

The purpose of the Ministry’s Discussion Paper is to provide greaterclarity on what constitutes agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales, andprovide guidance for local governments to address issues related to agri-tourism and farmretail sales in their community.

Once approved, these clearer standards will be incorporated into the Ministry’s Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas, to assist municipalities when preparing and amending bylaws affecting farming areas. Analysis

Agri-Tourism, Agri-Tourism Accommodation and Retail Sales in the ALR

Agri-tourism is permitted to allow farmers to increase the economic viability of the farms. It must be accessory to land classified as a farmunder the AssessmentAct, must be temporary and seasonal, and promote or market farm products grown,raised or processed on the farm.

Agri-toutism and retail sales are defined as farmuses by the Agricultural Land ReserveUse, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation of the Agricultural Land CommissionAct. As these uses are designated farm uses, they can be reguLatedbut cannot be prohibited.

4768773 CNCL-88

RPL - 83 October 27, 2015 - 4 -

On the other hand, agri-tourismaccommodation is considered a non-farm use that is permitted in the ALR and can be either regulated and/or prohibited by local governments.

The City of Richmond’s Zoning Bylaw permits all three uses in the “Agriculture (AG1)”zone.

Discussion Paper

The Discussion Paper provides more detailed definitions and a set of criteria to help guide local governments in managing agri-touiism and farm retail sales.

Part 3 of the Discussion Paper introduces a set of criteria which local governments will be encouraged to consider when preparing or amending their own bylaws. The proposed set of criteria includes:

— New definitions of various terms, specifically definitions of “accessory”, “temporary” and “seasonal”, to clarify what constitutes agri-tourism activities

— Examples of permitted agri-tourism activities and those activities that require ALC’s non-farm use approval

— A set of recommended standards for agri-tourism accommodation (e.g., the total developable area for agri-tourism accommodation buildings)

— Standards for parking and loading areas associated with agri-tourism

— Criteria for signage, lighting and noise

— Clarification on howareas (both indoors and outdoors) of farm retail sales should be calculated

Richmond Ari-Tourism Comments

Staff have reviewed the Discussion Paper and have the followingcomments focusing on the proposed set of criteria and definitions.

1. “Accessory (Agri-Tourism)” Definition

The proposed definition of “accessory (agri-tourism)” is as follows:

“Accessory”means that the agri-tourismis subordinate to the activefarm operationon the same lot. Agri-tourismusesand activitiesonlyaugmentafarmer’s regularfarm income,not exceedor replace it.

The City of Richmond requests that the Ministry and ALC, as the case may be, monitor and enforce the requirement that agri-tourism is subordinate to the active farm operation and only augments a farmer’s regular farm income, not exceed or replace it.

2. “Small-Scale (Agri-Tourism)” Definition

The proposed definition of “small-scale (agri-tourism)” is as follows:

“Small-scale(agri-tourism)”meansto be minor,or timitedin size,scopeor extent(local governmentscouldspecifyamounts).

CNCL - 89

RPL - 84 October 27, 2015 - 5 -

The City of Richmond requests that the Ministry provide specific uidelines, to determine the appropriate amount to be considered “small-scale” based on the size of the farm operation.

3. Agri-Tourism Structure

The Discussion Paper notes that site coverage and setbacks for agri-tourism structures must follow the standards for farm structures provided in Part 2 of the “Guide for Bylaw Development in farming Areas”. It also notes that agri-tourism facilitiesshould be located to minimize the coverage of farm land and minimize disturbance to the present and potential future operation of the farm, neighbouring farms and nearby urban uses (e.g., be close to the road, andlor clustered with other farm structures).

It is requested that more detailed criteria be provided to determine the appropriate size and siting of agri-tourism structures (e.g., the maximum building area and site coverage) and to clarify what types of uses can be permitted in an agri-tourism structure (e.g., administration office).

4. Parking for Retail Sales Area

The City of Richmond requests the Ministry to provide specificguidance on the amount of parking necessary for farm retail sales to avoid excessivepaving and minimize potential impact on farmland.

5. Monitoring and Enforcement

The City of Richmond requests that the Ministry and / or ALC, as the case maybe, monitor and enforce the proposed agri-tourism and farm retailsales regulations and requirements, as municipalities have limited resources.

Richmond Additional Comments

In responding to the Ministry’s consultation on agri-tourism and farm retail sales, staff suggest that Council take this opportunity to share its concerns regarding the ALR farm-based wineries, breweries, distilleries, cideries and meaderies, as they also affect farming in the ALR.

1. Clarifying The 50%Requirement for ALR Breweries, Wineriesand Distilleries

On September 28, 2015, Richmond Council made the following referral:

ThatStaff investigatethe requirementsfor microbreweries,wineriesand distillerieson farmland in Richmondto determinewhetherthe Citycan require that theybe required to produce at least 50% of theirproduct in Richmond. (Note that in the ALR regulations “microbreweries” arejust called “breweries”).

4768713 CNCL — 90

RPL - 85 October27, 2015 -6-

Staff advise that, in the ALR, breweries, distilleries and meaderies (honey) are designated farm uses, if at least 50%of the farm product used to make the beer, spirits,or mead produced each year is grown on the farm on which the brewery, distillery or meadery is located. Thus, they are required to produce at least 50% of their product in Richmond.

2. Encouraging Only Certain Wineriesin the ALR

On October 20, 2015, Richmond Planning Committee requested staff to advise the Ministry of Agriculture that Richmond would like ALR wineries and distilleries to provide a minimum of 50% of agricultural product on the site. As stated above, distilleries must meet the 50% requirement.

Currently, two types of fanu-based wineries are permitted in the ALR:

— Type 1 Wineries: at least 50% of the farm product used to make the wine produced each year is grown on the farm on which the winery is located.

— Type 2 Wineries: thefarm on which the wineryis located is more than 2 ha in area and at least 50% of the farmproduct used to make the wine producedeach year is grown:

a) on the farm, or

b) both on the farm and another farm located in British Columbia that provides that farm product to the winery under a contract having a term of at least three years.

Richmond City Council has expressed that they prefer Type 1 Wineries as they promote the best farming. Council doesnot wish to consider additional Type 2 Wineries, as their operations are often on an industrial scale.

On October 21, 2015, staff attended a Professional Development Session organized by the Ministry of Agriculture with ALC staff in attendance at the Metro Vancouver office, to state that:

— the City of Richmond would like to allow only Type I wineries whereat least 50% of the farm product used to make the wine be produced on the farm where the winery is located, and

— as the City has limited resources, the Ministry and ALC should monitor and enforce Provincial ALR guidelines and requirements (e.g., the amountof winery farm products provided under contracts, and whether the contracts are properly renewed). Other municipalities attending the Session agreed with this approach.

3. ALR Wineries, ALR Monitoring and Enforcement Recommendations

As staff could not address all of Richmond’s concerns at the Session, it is recommended that Council make the following requests to the Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC):

4768773 CNCL-91

RPL - 86 October 27, 2015 -7-

1. That the City of Richmond have:

(a) the authority to allow only Type 1 Wineries which grow at least 50% of the farm product used to make the wine on the farm where the winery is located, and

(b) the authority to not allow Type 2 Wineries which are industrial-scaled operations with limited ALR farming activity.

2. That, as some current ALR winery operators have indicated that off site farm wine product growers are willing to provide only a year to year supply contract, rather than the Provincially required three year minimum, one year contracts be allowed.

3. That the Ministry and / or ALC staff:

(a) monitor and enforce all Provincial ALR Ministry and ALC regulations, and requirements, as municipalities have limited resources, and

(b) review Provincial ALR Ministry and ALC regulations more frequently in consultation with municipalities to determine their effectiveness, practicality and ease of enforceability.

Financial Impact

None. Conclusion

The Ministry of Agriculture has prepared a Discussion Paper to assist local government in preparing agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales bylawamendments, and has requested that comments be provided by November 30, 2015.

Staff recommend that the Ministry and ALC be requested to make changes to the proposed ALR agri-tourism and farm retails sales criteria, clarif’ ALR winery requirements and take the lead role in ALR regulation monitoring and enforcement, as municipalities have limited resources.

‘t’erry-Growe Minhee Park

Manager, Policy Planning Planner 1 (604-276-4139) (604-276-418$)

MP:cas

Attachment 1: Discussion Paper and Proposed Minister’s Bylaw Standards

3768773 CNCL-92

RPL - 87 ATTACHMENTI

BRITISH Ministry of COLUMBIA Agriculture

Regulating Agri-tourism and farm Retail Sales in the Agricultural Land Reserve

DISCUSSION PAPER AND PROPOSED MINISTER’S BYLAW STANDARDS

September 14, 2015

Prepared by: Strengthening Farming Program Innovation and Adaptation Services Branch

CNCL-93

RPL - 88 Executive Summary

This discussion paper (‘whitepaper’) has been prepared by the B.C.Ministry ofAgriculture (AGRI)Strengthening Farming Program, Innovation and Adaptation Branch for input on the establishment of a Minister’s BylawStandard to assist local government bylawdevelopment regarding agn-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales.

Its preparation followsthe 2014 AGRI’sconsultation on the AgriculturalLand Reserve (ALR) Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation (AIR US? Regulation) in which local governments expressed strong support for AGRIto provide greater clarity in guidance to local government bylaws on agri-tourism.

The proposed Minister’s BylawStandard criteria, set out in Part 3.0, result from input contributed by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC),local governments and the agricultural sector. While the proposed Minister’s BylawStandard provisions applyto land in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR),local governments may alsowish to adopt for all agriculturally zoned property.

AGRI invites local governments to review the proposed Minister’s BylawStandard and provide feedback to the contact listed on page 13 by November 30, 2015. Feedback receivedwillbe analysed by AGRI staff, with updates and improvements made to the proposed Minister’s Bylaw Standard in preparation for the Minister of Agriculture’s(Minister) consideration.

CNCL-94

RPL - 89 1 5 7 7 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 9 $ 8 8 2 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 10 activities ALR the in agri-tourism RPL - 90 use Process

CNCL-95 Parking Activities fees Regulation required seasonal and Establishment and and Criteria and of 2015) Areas marketing Development Set Criteria approval Agri-tourism Permits Standard and Process for activity Legislation (August information ALC Loading Weddings temporary Accommodation the Criteria Goals Restaurants sales Bylaw of and farm Proposed Definitions

Contents The Policy, Layout — Background and and for Status contact - — retail Agri-tourism Class Government

of Summary Steps Lights Site Signage Noise Off-street two three one Commercial Bistros Current Farm Farm Local Stakeholders Objectives Permitted Key Accessory Agri-tourism Agri-tourism Context Other Context Proposed Current Purpose 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 Part Part Ministry Part 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 i.6 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.11 3.8 3.10 3.9 1.0 Table Executive Introduction 3.0 2.0 4.0 Introduction

This paper outlines draft criteria to assist localgovernments in regulatingtheir agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodationand farm retail sales bylaws,aimingto encouragefurther discussion on the matter with localgovernments, the ALC and the farm sector. It is important that the bylaw standard criteria effectivelyguide localgovernment land use regulations within the context, and intents, of the Agricut tarot Land Commission, farm Practices Protections (Right to Farm), and Local Government and Community Charter Acts and their regulations. The draft criteria reflectanalysisundertaken byAGRIstaff,previous consultationswith local governments, the ALC,industry, and the Ministry of Community,Sport and Cultural Development (CSCD).

1.0 Part one — The Criteria Development Process

This paper explores and proposes land use regulation and policyguidancefor localgovernments to address agri-tourism and farm retail sales issues in their communities,whilerecognizing these uses are permitted (with exceptions)within the ALR.

Followingconsultation with stakeholders and approvalby the Minister,the bylawcriteria will become a Minister’sBylawStandard and incorporated within the “Guidefor BylawDevelopment in farming Areas” (Bylaw Guide).’ 1.1 Purpose and Goals

The purposes of establishingland use regulation criteria to address localgovernment concerns regarding agri-tourism and farm retail sales are to:

i. Establish a Minister’sBylawStandard that providesflexibilityfor localgovernments to shape agri-tourism activityin their community whileensuring that agriculture in the ALRcontinues as a priority use; 2. Address the needs of the agriculture sector/industry to supplement farming income; 3. Minimizethe impact of agri-tourism and retail sales on farm practices and farming potential in farming areas; 4. Minimizeloss and/or fragmentation of farmland due to agri-tourism and retail sales uses; 5. Reduce the financial imbalancethat results from large scalecommercialoperations locating inexpensivelyin the ALR and outcompetingthose that have locatedin appropriate commercialzones; and 6. Minimizethe risk of agri-tourism and farm retail sales buildingsand structures being used for non-farm purposes. 1.2 Stakeholders

Stakeholders involvedin developingthese BylawStandard criteria include:

‘Under the Locat Government Act (Part 26, Division8, Section 916),the Minister responsible forthe farm Practices Protection(Right tofarm)Actcan developbylawstandards toguidethe developmentofwning and farmbylaws. Developmentof provincialstandardsis intended to promote consistencyin the regulationof,and planningfor, farming. However, provisionhas been made under Section gt6() to allowthestandardsto differ,if necessary,to respondto BCs diverse farmingindustry and land base.

3 CNCL-96

RPL - 91 a) Localgovernments and their Agricultural AdvisoryCommittees (AAC); b) Agriculture industry; c) ALC; d) Strengthening Farming Directors Committee, e) CSCD;and f) Ministry ofJobs, Tourism and SkillsTraining.

I .3 Objectives of the Process

The objectives of the process are to:

i. Create a set of BylawStandard criteria for stakeholder review; 2. Consult with stakeholders; and 3. Developa Minister’s BylawStandard that local governments can applyas regulation or policy. 1.4 Key Steps

The key steps in creating the Minister’sBylawStandard are:

1. Reviewrelevant literature including AGRIand ALCpolicies; 2. Reviewand compare local government regulations and policies; 3. Developdraft criteria; 4. Consult with internal and external stakeholders on the draft criteria; 5. Revisecriteria for consideration by the Minister; 6. Seek Minister’s approval; and 7. Encourage local governments to adopt and apply criteria. 1.5 Current Status (August 2015)

AGRI staff have:

• Reviewedprevious agri-tourism and farm retail sales consultations with local governments, industry, the AIC and CSCD; • Reviewedexisting ALCpolicieson agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales; and, • Prepared this draft discussion ‘whitepaper’ on agri-tourism and farm retail sales land use bylaw guidance for further local government consultations over the 2015/2016 fall and winter. 1.6 Context for Bylaw Standard Establishment

AGRIhas initiated Minister’s BylawStandards in the past for three significant agricultural issues which havebeen approved by the Minister. AGR1staff use the Minister’s BylawStandards to encourage localgovernments to adopt them into their land use bylaws. Theyare:

• Regulating Medical Marihuana Production Facilities in the ALR (2014); • Combined Heat and Power Generation at Greenhouses in the ALR (2013); and

4 CNCL-97

RPL - 92 • Siting and Sizeof ResidentialUsesin the ALR(2011).

These Minister’sBylawStandards can be found inAGIU’s“Guidefor BylawDevelopmentin Farming Areas” with additional information at: http: //www2.gov.bc,ca/gov/content/industrv/agnculture-seafood/agticultural-land-and- environment/strenthenin-farming/local-government-bvIaw-standardsand-farm-bvlaws.

2.0 Part two - Background 2.1 Context

Farmers throughout B.C.are lookingfor options to increase their economicviability,including agri-tourism and farm retail sales. Thesetwo particular issues havebecome more prominent in recent years and localgovernments are amending their agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales bylaws,sometimes causingfrustration with farmers and the public. Sometimesthere may be conflictingcommunity views on what actuallyconstitutes agri-tourism activities, and what ‘accessory’,‘seasonal’,and ‘temporary’within this context reallymean.

Whilethe AECprovidesdirection regarding agri-tourism and farm retail sales in the ALR,one of the questions asked during the Ministry’s 2014 ALRUS? Regulationconsultation process included agri-tourism, with local governmentsindicating strong support forAGRIto develop greater clarity in bylawguidancefor agri-tourism. Incorporating analysis from previous consultation, AGRIstaffanticipate strong response fromstakeholders on the subject. Ideally,developing this new Minister’sBylawStandard willassist in balancingstakeholder concerns, minimize community frustration, and providegreater certaintywhile maintaining the flexibilityrequired for localgovernment community decisionmaking and variation. The proposed Minister’s BylawStandard applies to property in the ALR. Given,however,that agricultural activity in B.C.takes place both on ALRand non-ALRproperty, localgovernments with agriculturally zoned land may also consider adopting it. 2.2 Current Policy, Legislation and Regulation

Agri-tourism and farm retail sales are defmed as farm uses bythe ALRUS? Regulation2of the Agriculture Land CommissionAct where a farm use means an occupation or use of land for farm purposes, includingfarming of land,plants and animals and any other similar activity designated as farm use by regulation, and includesa farm operation as definedin the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act:

• Agri-tourism is a tourist activity,serviceor facilityaccessoryto ALRland classifiedas a farm under theAssessment Act, ifthe use is temDorarv and seasonal, and promotes or markets farm products grown, raised or processed on the farm. • Farm retail sales if allof the farm product offeredfor sale is produced on the farm on which the retail sales are taking place, or at least 50% of the retail sales area is limitedto the sale of farm products produced on the farm on whichthe retail sales are taking place

2 B.C.Reg. 171/2002 Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Proccdure Regulation. Last rctrieved August 24, 2015 from I1ttp;//w,1v.alcov.bc.ca/alc/contenLnage?id=A6uA2uQ7Qc46oAQ8F62g78A2FE6oE3

5 CNCL-98

RPL - 93 and the total area,both indoors and outdoors, used for the retail sales of all products does not exceed300 m2.

Local governmentscannot prohibit agri-tourism activities,other than agri-tourism accommodation,or farm retail sales regulated by the AIR USP Regulationunless by a Farm Bylawdesignatedby the Ministerby Section 917 ofthe Local Government Act. The ALCalso publishes severalpolicydocuments on agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail saleswith respect to land in the ALR ‘Thepolicies of the Commission provide interpretation and ctarflcation of the regulations; outlineguidelines,strategies, rules or positions on various issues and provides clarification and courses of action consistently taken or adopted, formally or informally.”3 - ALC

These ALCpoliciesincludetheir terms of ‘seasonal’and ‘temporary’:

Temporary —meansa use or activityin a facilityor area that is established and used on a limited time basis for agri-tourism activities.If a building or structureis required for this use, temporary use ofthe building or structure means a use for agri-tourism for less than 12 months ofthe year.Thebuilding or structure may be used forother permitted uses during the course of,or for the remainder ofthe year. Seasonal - means a use or activityin a facilityor area for lessthan 12 months of the year.4

A recent 2015 B.C.Supreme Court ruling Heather HiltsFarm Societyu.Agricultural Land Commission, addressesthe subjectof agri-tourism, and in this case whether a particular golf course and sheep pasture is a permitted agri-tourism use. Interestingly, within the reasons for judgement that ultimately dismissesthe petition; the judge also referenceswhat cannot be described as reasonablytemporary, with respect to what is written in the AIR US? Regulation:

t51] TheRegulation also requires that an agri -tourism use be temporary and seasonal. A golf course requires alteration ofthe tand in theform ofparticular landscaping, sand traps, water hazards etc.Photographs that wereput into evidenceshow changes ofprecisely that kind to thepetitioners’property. Thosechanges must remain inplace as tong as operation of the golf course continuesand cannot reasonably be described as temporary.s

The intent ofthis proposed BylawStandard is to providegreater clarity on what constitutes agri tourism, agri-tourism accommodation, farm retail sales, and the definitionsoftemporary and seasonal.

3ALC. Legislation and Regulation. Last retrieved August 24, 2015 from httD;/ 4 ALC. Policy #4 Activitiesdesignated as Farm Use:Agri-tourism Activities in the ALR,2003. Last retrieved August 24, 2015 from

4 agri-tourism actMties.pdf 5 Heather Hills Farm Society v. Agricuttural LandCommission,2015 BCSCuo8

6 CNCL-99

RPL - 94 For farm retail sales,the processing/marketing of off-farmproducts may not be protected under the Farm Practices Protection Act unless there arc limits prescribed by the Ministerunder the Farm Practices Protection Act.6 This has implicationsfor farms considering those options.

30 Part three — Proposed Set of Criteria

Part three introduces a set of criteria in which localgovernments wouldbe encouragedto consider whendevelopingor amending their own bylawson agri-tourism, agri-tourism accommodation and farm retail sales.A rationale is providedfor why certain criteria provisions should be introduced and a proposed list is summarized of criteria and definitions. 3.1 Proposed Definitions

Accessory (agri- means that the agri -tourism is subordinate to the activefarm tourism) operation on the same tot. Agri-tourism uses and activitiesonly augment a farmer’sregular farm income, not exceedor replace it.

Agri-tourism is travel that combines agricultural or rural settings with products of agricultural operations — all within a tourism experiencethat is paid for byvisitors. It isa tourist activity, serviceor facilitywhich is accessory to afarm operation, as defined in the Farm Practices Protection (Right to farm) Act, wherethe land is classifiedas a farm under the AssessmentAct and, where the farm is in activeoperation eachyear.

Off-farm and non- means products that are not from thefarm unit ofwhichthe farm products subject property is part.

Regular Seasonal means the occurrence overthe same season(s), or at the same (agn-tourism) time, each year. Season (agri- means: tourism) one ofthe four periods ofthe year: spring, summer, autumn or winter; the period ofthe year when something that regularlyoccurs everyyear happens; e.g.pumpkin festivalbeforeHalloween; and/or the period(s) when most peopletake their holidays,goto visit places,or take part in an activityoutside of work.

Seasonal (agri- means: tourism) relatingto, dependant on, determined by,or characteristicof a particular season of the year; fluctuatingaccordingto the season; and/or

6 for more information, readers may wish to reviewthe September 7, 2011 BCFarm TndustryReviewBoarddecision Maddntoz-zou. Pacfic Coast Fruit Products Ltd last retrieved September 8, 2015 from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/business/ natural-resource-industres/agricukure/agriculture-documents/bc farm-indstry-review-board-docs/maddalozzo_v_pcfp_dec_sep7_n.pdf

7 CNCL-100

RPL - 95 available, or used, during one or more seasons, or at specific times of the year - for less than twelve months ofthe year.

Small-scale (agri- means to be minor or limited in size, scope, or extent. [Local tourism) governments could specifyamounts.] Temporary (agri- means having a limited duration, lasting or designed to last for tourism) only a limited time each week, month, or year. E.g. an activity occurs each year at the same time at a nearby festival, or other event, or only a maximum duration of three days at a time. 3.2 Accessory Farm Activity

Localgovernments should identify agn-tourism as a permitted accessory use in all zones where agriculture or farming is a permitted use. Accessory agri -tourism use in the ALRis subordinate and customarily incidental to the activefarm operation on the same lot. Agri-tourism uses and acth46es only augment a farmer’s regular farm income, rather than exceed or replace it.

Table 1. Examples of Agri-Tourism and Farm Incomes

ColumnA Column B Agri-tourism Income Farm Income Entryorparticipationfees,tour fees Primaryagriculturalproductionincome Feesfortours,servicesand workshopsrelatedto Value-addedoperations:processingofownfarm thefarmoperation products Retail salesof off-farm or non-farm products Retailsalesofownfarmproducts Agri-tourismaccommodationcharges

To be considered accessory, the annual income from agri -tourism [Column A] must be no more than the annual regular farm income [Column B].The ALCmay allow a larger proportion of agri-tourism activity on a farm, if the farmer applies for a non-farm use approval.

Examples include a farmer intending to regularly host special events such as commercial weddings, conferences or an annual music festival.A local government could decidewhether to support those commercial activities in its zoning if it is authorized by the ALC. 3.3 Farm Class

Income from accessory agri -tourism activities is not used to definefarm class under the AssessmentAct (Sec 23 and Farm ClassRcg. 411/95). Income for the purposes offarm classis calculated based on the farm gate amounts for qualifying agricultural products and must be generated in one of two relevant reporting periods (i.e., once every two years). 3.4 Agri-tourism Temporary and Seasonal Use in the ALR

Local governments should regard agri -tourism uses as a temporary and seasonal use. Seethe definitions for guidance on defining these terms.

CNCL-1O1

RPL - 96 3.5 Permitted and ALC approval required agri-tourism activities Table 2. Tiers of Agri-tourism Activities

Tier 1 Tier 2 Activities Pennifted Agri-tourism Activities/events that activities require ALC approval

On-farm • educationaltours — general • Non-farm-uses and commercial public, schoolchildren entertainment activitieswhich do • on-farm marketing, not have an agricultural includingU-pickaild component: pumpkin patches • e.g.,paint ball course, dirt bike • temporary corn maze or trails, all-terrain vehiclestrails, Christmastree maze mini-train parks, remote control a agricultural heritage events runways,helicopter tours, etc. • ranch or farm tours • event and facilityrentals a livestockshows • concerts,theatre or music a harvest festivals festivals a on-farm classesand/or • commercialweddings,banquets, workshops related to the celebrationsand any other farm operation commercialassembly activity a farm stays or B&B a on-farm processingfacility tours

Parking • self-contained,off-road • Off-siteoverflowparking parking that isused on a frequent • some overflowcould be on basis or that requires neighbouringfarm(s) resurfacing provided it’sfor infrequent events, no permanent alterations to the agricultural land, and no resurfacingsuch as with gravelor asphalt paving • allowfor schooland tour buses • on-road parking at the discretion ofthe local government or Ministty of Transportation in Regional Districts

AIC non-farm • No localgovernmenttemporary • ALCnon-farm use application use application use or rezoningpermits approval approval or local required,; outright use is • Localgovernment non- government permitted agriculture related activitiesor

9 CNCL-102

RPL - 97 permit • NoAIC non-farm use events may alsorequire a requirements application approval separate zoneor temporary use permit • Speciallocalgovernmentpermits - per event or per day, or both

3.6 Agri4ourism Accommodation

Section 3 ofthe AIR US? Regulationpermits accessory accommodationfor agri-tourism on a farm in the ALR, but allowsa localgovernment to regulate and/or prohibit the use.

Where accommodationfor agri-tourism is allowedby a localgovernment the following standards are recommended:

• Total developedarea for buildings, landscaping andaccessto the accommodation must be no more than 5%ofthe parcel area; • Couldinclude a maximumof ro sleeping units composedof:

• Seasonal campsites,seasonal cabins, or bed-and-breakfast (B÷B)bedrooms (ma,dmum of four) B+3 bedrooms per legalparcel is recommended); • UnlessAIC consent is received,accommodationmust not includecooking facilitiesbecause doingso may result in longterm rental housing on farm land; • The localgovernmentcould specifythe number of persons per unit; • Should an operator wishto have more than io sleeping units,he/she could apply to the localgovernment and the ALC; • On smaller lots, a localgovernment may wishto set a lower number of allowed sleeping units; • The BCBuilding Codeshould be the minimum standard applied for sleeping units such as cabins.

• Shouldbe located closeto the front ofthe lot, or an adjacent side road, and clustered withthe homeplate(s) ofthe farm residence(s). Afarmer may wishto vary this location to minimise impact on his/her farm. • Dependingon the location ofthe farm, the agri-tourism accommodationmay need to be availableduring more than one season, or its availabilitymayvary withthe seasons; e.g., horseback ridingon trails in spring, summer, and fall,and cross-countryskiing in the winter. • Occupationof a lot by agri-tourism accommodationare onlypermitted to be temporary, seasonal, and/or regular seasonal, to a maximum stayper person or per familyof 30 consecutivedays in any 12 calendar-month period. The ALCmay allow longer occupation ifthe farmer applies for a non-farm use; localzoningwould also have to allowit. • Each localgovernment whichpermits agri-tourism accommodationcoulddevelopa monitoring methodology toensure the occupationmeets the abovecriteria.

CNCL - 103

RPL - 98 3.7 Other Agri-tourism Criteria 3.7.1 Off-street Loading Areas and Parking

Off-streetloading areas may be needed to transfer fieldproducts to a market stand/shop, and to the customer’svehicle. For criteria, see Part 2 ofthe “Guidefor BylawDevelopmentin Farming Areas”.

Allvehiclesvisitingthe agri-tourism activitiesmust be parked on site, or as otherwisepermitted by the localgovernment. The parking capacitycould be based on the averagedailyvehicle numbers (recommended); local parking bylawsmay havea different measure and short term events with largenumbers of people may require different parking standards. Overflowparking occurson public roads should adhere to localbylawsincludingclearances for emergency vehiclesand farm machinery. For farm site parking overflowsituations, agri-tourisnz operators should provide alternate means of transportation, such as shuttles, bicycleparking, or horse corrals and off-sitehorse trailer parking areas.

To minimise impacting farm land, parking should be alongfield edges,adjacent to farm roads, farm yard areas near farm structures.

• The parking and loading area surfaces should maximizeinfiltration ofprecipitationto limit impacting a farm’sground and surfacewater; pavement may not be appropriate. • The depth and type of fill for agri -tourism parking and loading areas should facilitate possiblefuture removal e.g., if the agri-tourism activityceases. 3.7.2 Site Layout for Agri-tourism Activities

Site coverageand setbacksfor agri -tourism structures must followthe standards for farm structures provided in Part 2 of the “Guidefor BylawDevelopmentin Farming Areas”. Agri-tourism facilitiesshould be located to minimize coverageof farm land and minimise disturbance ofthe present and potential future operation ofthe farm, neighbouringfarms or nearbyurban uses;e.g., closeto the road, and/or clustered with other farm structures. 3.7.3 Lights

Floodlightsand spotlights for agri -tourism activitiesshouldbe directed awayand/or screened from adjacent farms and other land uses. 3.7.4 Signage

Each agri -tourism and farm retail operation, and the farm itself,should be allowedat least one sign of at least 1.0 square metre. Normally,signs are locatedat the farm entrance, but variation should be allowed fordifferent buildingand site layouts and to ensure traffic safety. Third-party signs and lightingof signs should followlocalbylaws.

CNCL-f 04

RPL - 99 3.7.5 Noise

Loudspeakersand other noise sources associatedwiththe agri-tourism activitycouidbe regulatedwith localgovernment noise bylaws. 3.8 Farm Retail Sales and Marketing

For on-farm retail marketing,farmers sell their ownfarm products, and may sellsome off-farm or non-farm products directlyfrom thefarm unit and may require a retail indoor and/or outdoor sales and displayarea.

Areas necessary for on-farm retail sales but not calculatedas part ofthe on-farm retail sales area are; • storage space for products awaiting displayand/or bulk sales; larger storage areas may be availablein a barn; • an officearea for doingsales and farm-related paperwork; • washrooms; • driveways,parking and loading areas; and • some preparation space where products are put in packagesfor displayor shipping.

Localgovernments should not limit retail sales area of a farmer’sownfarm products i.e. the directfarm marketing area. The ALRUSP Regulationdoes not state an upper limit.

Localgovernment regulations must allowfor the possibilityof a retail sales area for complementary off-farm or non-farm products. The ALRU$P Regulationrequires at least 50% of the total retail sales area be devoted to that farm’sproducts, and where bothfann products and off-farm or non-farm products being sold,the allowedupper limit of the total ofthe indoor and outdoor sales area is 300 square metres. This should be adopted by localgovernments and not reduced.

To developa larger retail sales area, or to sellless than 50% of that farm’sfarm products, a farmer must haveboth localgovernment and ALCnon-farm use application approval. 3.9 Local Government Permits and Fees

Other than the usual permits and fees required for construction, localgovernmentsshould only require permits and feesfor operations that require a non-farm applicationto the ALCand should not require the use oftemporaly (commercial)use permits.

Localgovernments should onlyrequest reimbursement of extra localgovernmentcosts generated by the event or operation; e.g., policing,fire service,road clean-up, and/or traffic management. 3.10 Commercial Weddings

The use of the ALRfor commercialweddings is considereda non-farm use whichrequires approval of the ALC.Wherea farm has receivednon-farm use approval from the ALC,the local

CNCL-105

RPL - 100 government may require a rezoning or temporary use permit. Temporary use permits are the preferred method of dealing with this use as the local government can place additional controls on the use that are not possible through zoning. These requirements could include hours of operation. 3i I Bistros and Restaurants

Bistros, cafes and restaurants are considered in most cases non-farm uses which require non- farm use approval ofthe ALC. Under specific criteria in the AIR USP Regulation, however, winery, brewery, cidecy,distillery, and meadery lounges are permitted which do not require non-farm use approval. 4.0 Ministry Contact Information

Stakeholders are welcometo provide feedback on the content of this discussion by email or letter.

Email: [email protected] Mailing Address: Ministry of Agriculture, Strengthening Farming Program 1767 Angus Campbell Road Abbotsford, B.C.Canada V3G 2M3

‘3 CNCL-106

RPL - 101 RPL - 102 6.2

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Between

The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and

The Corporation of the Township of Langley

Legislative Context

The ProvincialAgricultural Land Commission (the “ALC”),established as a corporation by legislation, operates to achieve the purposes described by the legislation including the preservation of agricultural land in British Columbia. The ALC’s purposes, as set out in the Agricultural Land Commission Act (the “Acr’), [SBC 2002], Chapter 36, are:

• to preserve agricultural land; • to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; • to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies.

The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 171/2002 (the “ALARegulation”) is the specific code, under the ALCAct, that identifies farm activities and non-farm uses, certain forms of subdivision that are permitted in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and sets out the procedures for applications made under the Act.

Under Section 46 of the Act, a local government must ensure that its bylaws and plans are consistent with the Act, the regulations and orders of the Commission. Where bylaws are deemed inconsistent, they are of no force or effect, to the extent of the inconsistency. A local government bylaw is defined as “a bylaw made by a local government that adopts a regional growth strategy, an official settlement plan, an official community plan, an official development plan or a zoning bylaw”.

Whereas the ALC and the Corporation of the Township of Langley (“ToL”)share jurisdiction over the Agricultural Land Reserve (“ALR”),including rural areas of the ToL;

Whereas it is appropriate that the bylaws, regulations, orders, policies and other instruments of the ToL be consistent with the Act where possible;

Whereas such consistency should further the interests of both the ALC and ToL without undue negative consequences to the mandate, regulations, orders, policies and instruments of either;

Memorandum of Understanding July 2015

page 1 RPL - 103 Whereas both Parties have the authority to amend their individual policies and instruments as they each deem appropriate;

Whereas the ToL has the statutory authority, pursuant to section 868 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, to enter into an agreement with the ALC and the ALC has the statutory authority, pursuant to section 38 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.E.C 2002, c. 36 to enter into an agreement with the T0L;

Whereas the Parties agree that this Memorandum of Understanding is a statement of principles which the Parties willmake best efforts to consider in the course of decision making with respect to bylaws, policies and orders, but agree that it does not implyany legally binding commitment or obligation by either Party;

Therefore, this Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is stated:

First as a set of Principles; and

Secondly as a series of objectives by both parties to consider amendments to policies and instruments within the jurisdiction of each as they deem appropriate and necessary to give effect to the Principles;

The Parties therefore recite their respective intent as follows:

Definitions:

PROFESSIONAL AGROLOGIST: A person duly registered with the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists pursuant to the provisions of the British Columbia Agrologists Act, S.E.C. 2003, c. 13, as amended from time to time.

OBJECTIVES: Acknowledgements and understandings aimed at encouraging coordinated policy frameworks with instruments, such as an Official Community Plan, containing maps with consistent boundaries and policies, bylaws and resolutions which further mutual interests.

INSTRUMENT: A document, map, chart, table or other reference material appended to an authorized enactment or policy.

OCP: Township of Langley’s Official Community Plan, including all other companion documents, such as the Rural Plan and the various neighbourhood plans and amendments thereto.

POLICY: A statement of intent related to the mandate of either party, which has been adopted through the required process and published as necessary for utilization.

RURAL: Areas without general distribution of services typically associated with urban areas, such as sanitary sewer, water or transit, where ALR lands are prevalent and farming is the predominant activity and where other land uses may include low density residential development and small scale commercial, industrial or institutional uses.

Memorandumof Understanding July 2015 page 2 RPL - 104 SUBURBAN: Areas with access or potential access to sanitary sewer and water distribution services, intended to be populated at lower densities than those permitted in Urban designated areas.

URBAN:Areas with access or potential access to services, including sanitary sewer, water, transit and recreational facilities, intended for residential uses at densities generally higher than one household per acre, commercial, industrial and institutional uses.

1. PRINCIPLES:

1.1. PROACTIVE ANDCOLLABORATIVEPLANNING

The Parties acknowledge the need to move from a reactive model of responding to issues and challenges to a proactive and more collaborative planning approach in addressing the needs of the ALR and the community. The Parties commit to on-going consultation as it relates to the Principles outlined in this Agreement.

1.2. IMPROVED AGRICULTURALCAPABILITIES

Agricultural capability of soils within the ALRshould be improved, where reasonably possible, to sustain higher agricultural productivity and help increase the suitability of land for farm use. Measures to improve soil capability should be encouraged including, but not limited to:

• Education programs regarding soil conservation and enhancement practices. • Working with other agencies, such as the Langley Sustainable Agriculture Foundation to increase agricultural productivity of lands within the ALR by improving soil capability. • Adopting practices and enforcing regulations which preserve or enhance soil capability, including restoration of poor agricultural soils through soil amendments, topsoil preservation and relocation, and activities and instruments preventing the deposit of unauthorized and unsuitable soil materials within the ALR. • Improving drainage in lowland areas, and managing surface water including storm water runoff.

1.3. INCREASED AREAS UNDERCULTIVATION

Measures to increase farm use of ALR land under cultivation should be encouraged, to include, but not be limitedto:

• Consideration of recommendations to amend regulations affecting taxation. • Consideration of “Home Plate” zoning regulations which reasonably limitsize and location of homes in the ALRand make dwelling uses secondary to agricultural uses. • Providing incentives for agricultural production, including both soil-based and non soil-based farming. • Consideration of closing superfluous road rights of way and vesting to adjoining ALR lands, where practical, in keeping with the ToL’s transportation plans.

1.4. IMPROVED MARKETSFOR LOCALAGRICULTURALPRODUCTS

Memorandumof UnderstandingJuly 2015 page 3 RPL - 105 The ToL’s Sustainability Charter suggests that measures may be implemented to encourage a wider consumption of locally produced agricultural products. These measures would include:

• Farmers Markets; • Consumer/Farmer contracts; • Cooperatives and allotment gardens; and • Regulations requiring allocation of specific areas/percentages for sale of local agricultural products in proposed commercial developments.

1.5. DEFENSIBLE AND DURABLE URBAN / ALR INTERFACE

Reference the Ministry of Agriculture Guide to Edge Planning for appropriate zoning and planning standards to establish a durable and substantive edge between Urban uses and the ALR. When the Urban side is undeveloped, provide for substantial buffers utilizing natural features and clustering of development on the Urban side, where possible, incorporating recommended setback and width requirements; and to the extent possible, register covenants to inform residents on the Urban side of potential agricultural impacts due to noise, odour, dust, sprays, emissions, lighting, unsightliness or other nuisances arising from normal farm practices. Make reasonable efforts to see that urban runoff water does not enter any farm area, and where urban runoff water already enters a farm area do what is reasonably necessary to see that any adverse impacts on farmland are remedied.

In unusual circumstances, determine a site specific solution agreeable to both parties with a view to providing mitigation measures on both sides of the edge to minimize conflict. The goal is to demarcate the transition between ALA and Urban areas with a durable, visible, well-defined, substantive and defensible boundary.

1.6. ENCOURAGING URBAN AGRICULTURE

Adopt regulations and incentives permitting and encouraging agricultural uses in select Urban areas. These include but may not be limited to:

• Consideration of permitting agricultural uses in all zones, with adequate and appropriate measures; and • Developing a regulatory and taxation framework that encourages agriculturally productive “green roofs” and agricultural structures such as greenhouses in combination with Urban structures, notably warehouses or other industrial buildings.

The goal is to accommodate substantial agricultural production in the select designated Urban areas.

1.7. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE PROPER USE OF ALR

Recognizing the resource limitations of both, the parties agree to continue to work together to ensure the agricultural use of ALR lands.

Memorandumof Understanding July 2015 page 4 RPL - 106 In consideration of bylaws and policies adopted by the ToL, such as the Soil Deposit Bylaw, and the Principles contained in this Agreement, the Township of Langley will make reasonable efforts to seek enforcement of ToL bylaws and request assistance from the ALC when necessary. With respect to ALC regulations, the ToL will,when resources permit, empower its employees to assist the ALC in ensuring compliance, monitoring and enforcement in the proper use of ALR lands.

1.8. DEVELOPING HEALTHY ANDCOMPLETE COMMUNITIES

The ToL has experienced significant growth in the last several decades. This rate of growth is anticipated to continue in the future with an estimated population of about 210,000 by 2041. The projected population is to be accommodated for the most part in Urban areas as designated in the ToL’s OCP.

The ToL willwork to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing with an appropriate mix of choices for residents at various stages of their lives and at various levels of income is critical to development of a healthy community and key to the Principles. Additionally, ensuring convenient access to amenities such as shops, personal services, social and cultural opportunities, sports and entertainment, a safe and attractive public environment and places of employment requires careful planning, collaboration and coordination.

1.9. EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY

It is essential for the ToL’s financial health to ensure there is an effective strategy in place for a sustainable infrastructure plan and for the efficient delivery of the services needed to support the ALR, sustainable agriculture and the projected growth discussed in 1.8 above.

While attempts must be made to utilize existing Urban areas, where possible, consideration should be given to accommodate economic development at the international border crossing at Aldergrove, the Langley Regional Airport, and appropriate areas of the ToL’s University District, all in collaboration, through joint planning exercises, between the ToL and the ALC.The objective is continued protection of the ALR while also ensuring continued success of each area as key economic development drivers in ToL and within the region.

Economic development of the above referenced areas and the sustainability and livabilityof the ToL’s communities of Aldergrove, Gloucester, Murrayville, Fort Langley, Walnut Grove, Willoughby, Brookswood and Fernridge as well as the Rural area of Salmon River Uplands are dependent on the ToL’s ability to deliver services efficiently, given the vast areas of ALR separating these communities. An effective transportation system, based on a connected and convenient road network is a major component of this servicing strategy, keeping in mind the fundamental principle of preserving agricultural land and encouraging farming.

1.10. FOOD SECURITY

Agricultural productivity within the ToL’s boundary should equal or exceed the production required to feed the population. ToL’s goal is to have a net surplus of food and other agricultural products when imports and exports are compared. Improved practices and

Memorandumof UnderstandingJuly 2015 page 5 RPL - 107 intensive production is necessary to position the ToL as a future net exporter of agricultural products.

1.11. IMPROVED AIR QUALITY

The Parties recognize the need for clean air, clean water and edible food. The ToL acknowledges its extensive rural areas as a significant refresher of the air-shed. An appropriate mix of passive parks, natural areas, wildlife and environmental protection areas within the Urban and Rural areas, with appropriate agricultural practices in the ALR are required to preserve and enhance the restorative capacities of nature.

1.12. HEALTHYAQUIFERS WITH SUSTAINABLE RECHARGE AREAS

Preserving the recharge capability of aquifers and associated watersheds in the Rural areas benefits all sectors, including agriculture. The ToL has a significant reliance on groundwater, has significant knowledge about this resource and is committed to a sustainable management regime.

1.13. LOWLANDDRAINAGE AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The Parties recognize the challenges faced by farmers in the low-lying areas of the Township, particularly in the Glen Valley and Salmon River lowlands, susceptible to historic flooding. Where new development is proposed, the ToL (and where such development is in the ALR, the ALC) willwork to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate drainage impacts, including post-development monitoring to assess the efficacy of measures. The Parties willengage with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and other agencies having jurisdiction, with a view to most optimized operation of existing and planned infrastructure, including pumps in consideration of farming and environmental requirements.

1.14. ENHANCED WILDLIFE HABITATAND COMMUNITYAMENITIES

Contemporary urban neighborhood plans include “green” corridors for amenity and wildlife. The Rural area is crisscrossed with natural corridors consisting of floodplains and un-farmable watercourse ravines. Escarpments, hedgerows, rotating fallow areas and park areas, particularly those designated as regional parks provide significant habitat interconnections. An agricultural pattern can protect and enhance these interconnections while benefiting agriculture by providing wind breaks and arboreal crops (e.g. tree fruits). These measures can be incorporated in the OCP.

1.15. COHESIVE URBAN AND SUBURBAN PRECINCTS

Consideration of adjustments of the ALR boundary (through the statutory application process outlined in the Act), following collaborative planning efforts between the ALC and the ToL, in accordance with the Principles outlined in this Agreement, can provide: • more rational ALR boundaries; • better means of protecting the ALA boundaries and communities with shorter, more defensible ALR/Urban edges;, • better internal traffic circulation; • reduced requirements for roads to traverse the ALR;

Memorandum of Understanding July 2015 page 6 RPL - 108 • improvements to the design of transportation corridors, benefiting agriculture; and • improved opportunities for complete, stable and sustainable communities.

1.16. STABLE RURAL SETTING

The ToL benefits from a permanent rural setting, especially as the areas designated Urban experience growth and development. Provisions which will guarantee the stability of this setting, such as the ToL’s Rural Plan, and the ALR are beneficial to both ALC and the ToL.

1.17. MITIGATION

It is recognized that adjustments to the ALR boundary may be necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this Instrument. The Parties mutually understand that it is the ToL’s intent to avoid the identification of ALR lands for other than agriculture, but where it is not possible the ToL may put forth proposals for agricultural enhancements at the time of ToL or land owner initiated applications made under the Act. Enhancements may address potential impacts on agricultural land. Opportunities to include areas into the ALR may also be considered.

Appropriate policies willbe implemented by the ToL to discourage further ALR exclusion or subdivision applications, inconsistent with the ToL’s COP and provisions of this Agreement.

2. COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION:

2.1 CREATE A DEFENSIBLE AND DURABLEURBAN I ALR EDGE:

The ToL will work towards designating appropriate land uses, and consider practices and strategic acquisition on both sides of the Urban / ALR edge to ensure provision of a distinct and permanent boundary between the affected areas. Furthermore, the Parties willwork to consider integration of plans and possible adjustments to the OCP and ALR, as necessary, to ensure creation of a well-defined permanent edge for Urban communities within a permanent rural setting.

2.2 IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY:

The Parties willwork to ensure agricultural capability of lands is improved where possible, particularly in consideration of inclusion of lands into the ALA or designation for agricultural purposes.

2.3 IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

The ToL will work towards adoption of policies and practices which encourage agricultural production and improve productivity on lands within the ALR. ToL willattempt to enact measures such as facilitating direct marketing between farmers and consumers, establishment of local produce markets, investing in lowland drainage and floodplain management, encouraging land development works and discouraging the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural uses.

Memorandum of UnderstandingJuly 2015 page 7 RPL - 109 2O% CbL 2 Y eOY

2.4 FOSTER AGRICULTUREOUTSIDE OF ALR

The ToL willwork to devise plans and policies to encourage integration of agriculture within industrial developments, with the intent to allow the agricultural industry to benefit from existing infrastructure, such as sewer, water, and roads; and explore and develop synergistic relationships with industry related to production, packaging and shipping.

2.5 IMPROVED ROAD CONNECTIVITY

The ToL willcoordinate appropriate agricultural access within the municipal transportation plans, including disposal of unused tights-of-way and surplus unopened road allowances for use as agricultural production lands by adjacent productive farms, or other practical methods, as appropriate. The Parties acknowledge and recognize the need to improve uses and access at key locations along Trans-Canada Highway No. 1, such as at 216 and 232 Streets.

2.6 CLARITY

For clarity, it is the intent of the Parties to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming while protecting the ALR and recognizing the need to maintain healthy, compact, sustainable and complete communities with efficient services and appropriate amenities.

Authorization

the Provincial For the Co7Fation of the Agricultural Land Commission Township of Langley

WENDYBAUER Deputy Township Clerk

Memorandumof UnderstandingJuly 2015 page B RPL - 110