GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Regular Meeting · Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District ... Staff

AGENDA

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

Regular Meeting

Friday, March 28, 2008 9:00 a.m.

2nd Floor Boardroom

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Please advise Kelly Weilbacher at (604) 432-6250 if you are unable to attend.

Chair Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Kim Capri, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West VancouverDirector Linda Hepner, Surrey Director David Hocking, Bowen Island

Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay

This page left blank intentionally

March 19, 2008

NOTICE TO THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS You are requested to attend a Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. March 28, 2008 Regular Meeting Agenda

Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 28, 2008 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. February 22, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its special meeting held February 22, 2008 as circulated.

2. February 29, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held February 29, 2008 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

No items presented.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA

Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item.

Section A 1

RD-1

1. PARKS REPORTS

1.1 Joint Project Proposal – “Fraser Trails Legacy” Initiative and Joint 2008 Special Event

Parks Committee Recommendations: That the Boards direct staffs to develop: a) options and test feasibility of a “Fraser Trails Legacy” initiative to

create interconnecting “discovery” loops in the Fraser Valley between Coquitlam and Hope connecting and encompassing the Trans Canada Trail, as a collaborative effort among Metro Vancouver Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, Trails BC, local jurisdictions, provincial and federal government, BC Tourism, and First Nations; and to seek support and grants from senior levels of government and other funding sources; and

b) an event jointly delivered by Metro Vancouver Regional District and the Fraser Valley Regional District with the participation of Trails BC, focusing on initiatives arising from approved options in recommendation (a) above.

2. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION REPORTS

2.1 Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process

on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Land Use and Transportation Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated February 26, 2008, titled “Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy“.

3. ABORIGINAL RELATIONS REPORTS

3.1 Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations

Aboriginal Relations Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated February 19, 2008, titled “Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations”, for information.

4. ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

4.1 International Eco-Municipality Conference

Environment Committee Recommendation: That the Board authorize the conference registration fee for Director Richard Walton to attend the International Eco-Municipality Conference in Sweden in May 2008, and request Director Walton to report on the conference results to the Environment Committee.

4.2 Climate Change Visioning in Metropolitan Vancouver

Environment Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) Approve partnership with the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape

Planning at the University of British Columbia in support of improving regional climate change visualisations and outcomes; and

b) Approve a grant in the amount of $25,000 in 2008, with similar grants to be brought forward for consideration in the 2009 and 2010 budgets,

RD-2

to the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of British Columbia in support of improving regional climate change visualisations and outcomes.

5. PORT CITIES REPORTS 5.1 Funding for Staffing Resources for the Committee

Report to be provided at a later date. 6. FINANCE REPORTS 6.1 System Furniture and Tenant Improvement Reserve Funding

Finance Committee Recommendation: That the Board approve the use of $925,000 from reserves to fund system furniture upgrades and tenant improvements within 4330 Kingsway and the neighboring building to the east, 5945 Kathleen Avenue, Burnaby, BC.

7. HOUSING REPORTS 7.1 Name Change to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Board: That the GVRD Board, on behalf of the sole shareholder of the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, resolve to change the name of the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” by approving and authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”), or Deputy CAO, to execute the Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Shareholder of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (the “Company”) (attachment to the report dated March 18, 2008 and titled Name Change to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation).

7.2 Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008

Housing Committee Recommendation: That the Board write to the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, Vancouver Foundation, and United Way to thank them for undertaking the count of homeless people, and to the Social Planning Research Council for engaging 670 volunteers in the process, in support of the Board’s objective to eliminate homelessness, and forward a copy of the letter to the Federal and Provincial ministers responsible for housing, and Metro Vancouver member municipalities.

8. SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE REPORTS 8.1 Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and

Outreach/Engagement Strategy Sustainable Region Initiative Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated March 13, 2008, titled ‘Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and Outreach/Engagement Strategy’ for information.

RD-3

9. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORTS 9.1 British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing

Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) Advise the Ministry of Economic Development and the Vancouver

Economic Development Commission that Metro Vancouver will choose not to directly participate in the BC Canada Beijing Pavilion;

b) Approve the use of “Metro Vancouver” by the Taskforce on Regional Economic Development Opportunities (TREDO) for the purposes of the June 2008 mission to the BC Canada Beijing Pavilion and direct staff to work with TREDO on that mission; and

c) Direct staff to develop a policy on the use of “Metro Vancouver”. 10. STAFF REPORTS 10.1 Board Goals and Priorities – Committee Input Summary

Report to be provided at a later date. F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT

AGENDA

1. Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park – GVRD Bylaw No. 1075, 2008 Parks Committee Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) Give leave to introduce “Greater Vancouver Regional District

Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park Bylaw No. 1075, 2008” (the “Bylaw”) and that it be read a first, second and third time;

b) Direct staff to implement an alternative approval process to obtain elector approval for the Bylaw pursuant section 797.5 of the Local Government Act;

c) Establish the deadline for receiving elector responses as May 16, 2008;

d) Establish elector response forms in the form attached; e) Determine that the total number of electors of the area to which the

approval process applies is 1,551,515; and f) Direct staff to report the results of the alternative elector approval

process to the Board and if approval has been obtained, bring the Bylaw forward for final reading and adoption by the Board.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

1. World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement

That the Board endorse the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement launched at the United Nations Climate Change Conference on December 12, 2007.

RD-4

2. Support for the Rapid Transit Link from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre That the Board of Directors confirms support for the rapid transit link from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre via Port Moody as part of the transportation corridor outlined in the growth strategy of the Liveable Region Strategic Plan.

I. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented. J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board 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.

Staff Recommendation: That the regular meeting of the GVRD Board scheduled for March 28, 2008 be closed pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (c) and 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject

matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (c) labour relations or other employee relations; and

90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following:

(b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

K. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of March 28, 2008.

RD-5


RD-6

MINUTES

RD-7


RD-8

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 22, 2008 Page 1 of 6

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 10:06 a.m. on Friday, February 22, 2008 at the Shadbolt Centre Studio 102, 6450 Deer Lake Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver (departed at 1:38 p.m.) Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver (departed at 1:38 p.m.) Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver (departed at 1:38 p.m.) Alternate Director Bob Bose, Surrey, for Dianne Watts Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Kim Capri, Vancouver (departed at 1:38 p.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby (arrived at 10:10 a.m., departed at 12:00 p.m.) Alternate Director Calvin Donnelly, New Westminster, for Wayne Wright Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra (arrived at 10:10 a.m., departed at 1:14 p.m.) Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford∗ Director Judy Forster, White Rock (arrived at 10:12 a.m.) Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A

Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver (arrived at 10:10 a.m. departed at 1:25 p.m.) Director Linda Hepner, Surrey (departed at 12:02 p.m.) Director David Hocking, Bowen Island Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby (arrived at 10:10 a.m.) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Barbara Steele, Surrey Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore (arrived at 10:10 a.m.) Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge

Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver

STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Chris Plagnol, Deputy Corporate Secretary Corporate Secretary’s Department

Klara Kutakova Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department

∗ For Parks purposes.

Section B 1

RD-9


A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. February 22, 2008 Special Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for

February 22, 2008 by adding item 2 Sustainable Schools Project; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED

B. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF Agenda Order Varied The order of the agenda varied to consider item 2 prior to item 1.

2. Sustainable Schools Project On-table report dated February 22, 2008 from the Intergovernmental Committee, together with on-table report dated February 21, 2008 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and Bruce Ford, Communication and Education Coordinator, Corporate Relations Department, informing about a Vancouver School Board (VSB) funding proposal for consideration by the Vancouver Foundation for a school-based sustainability project targeted at Vancouver students (K-12). As part of the proposal, the VSB has requested that Metro Vancouver submit a letter of support for the program and commit an in-kind contribution estimated at $11,000 over the 3-year term of the project.

10:10 a.m. Directors Dhaliwal, Drew, Goldsmith-Jones, Jordan, and Weinberg arrived at the meeting.

10:12 a.m. Director Forster arrived at the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board support a partnership between Metro Vancouver and the Vancouver School Board to establish a sustainability coordinator position and supply a letter of support for the Vancouver School Board’s Sustainable Schools Program funding application to the Vancouver Foundation as a pilot project.

CARRIED

Agenda Order Resumed The order of the agenda resumed.

1. 2008 Board Priorities

Report dated February 13, 2008 from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, proposing an agenda and format for discussion for the Board workshop on 2008 priorities.

RD-10


Chair Jackson provided an outline to the workshop material, schedule, and expected outcomes. Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, defined the regional vision, mission, role, values and sustainability principles, and outlined priority goals. Presentation material was provided at the meeting and is retained with the January 22, 2008 Board agenda package. It was agreed that the priority goals discussion be followed by a discussion on the Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plan section of the 2008 Priorities Timetable. The Board provided the following comments on the priority goals: • an economic strategy needs to be included in the plan • costs must be quantified but not duplicated with other levels of

government; other organizations’ plans, such as TransLink’s plan, also need to be taken into consideration

• replace the “reduction of bottled water use” under the “drinking water goal” with “reduction of per-capita water use”

• consider an increased share of tax revenue as a prioritized goal under the “finance goal”

• consider a Zero Liquid Waste Challenge Members were advised that the long-term financial strategy will be discussed at a Finance Committee workshop in March. The Board provided the following comments on the 2008 Priorities timetable: • the plans will succeed providing municipal staff can deliver on and be

stewards of the goals • financial impacts are not included, the table should be therefore called a

“draft timetable” • concerns were expressed that the plan will diminish if rushing through the

process • timetable cannot be met by the City of Vancouver as it is not able to

comply with the timing around the Vancouver Landfill • the timetable is not realistic

12:00 p.m. Director Dhaliwal departed the meeting.

12:02 p.m. Director Hepner departed the meeting.

Recess The Board recessed from 12:06 p.m. to 12:44 p.m.

In reference to the January 25, 2008 Board resolution, the Chair established a Task Force to work towards a possible agreement on an immediate use of the Vancouver Landfill, comprising Chief Administrative Officers from Delta and Vancouver, Metro Vancouver Board Chair and Vice Chair, New

RD-11


Westminster Director, Chair of the Waste Management Committee, regional staff and municipal engineers. The Chair asked that the Task Force commence its meetings at the earliest possible time. Discussion progressed on the priority goals and the following comments were made: • performance measures need to be formulated, periodic reviews and

evaluations should be carried out • SRI Committee will report back on how communication and relations with

municipal administrators could be formalized • only the long-term financial planning is sustainable financial planning • Metro Vancouver needs to cooperate with senior governments, learn

what their priorities are and where they are prepared to commit to financial contribution

• achieving the 60% self-sufficiency in food production is unrealistic • urban agriculture is the only solution to Metro Vancouver’s long-term food

supply needs • the region needs to develop a regional economic strategy • consider greenhouse gas reduction as an overall goal of the Regional

Growth Strategy • articulate how Metro Vancouver will work on inter-municipal level relations • engage business sector in SRI • where practical, assign actions on the goals to (a) committee(s)

The Board provided the following comments on the language used in the document: • review the use of the term “densification” (is it a target or only a tool to

achieve the economic and ecological targets?) • consider replacing the word “development” in the phrase “livable

development” • differentiate between Metro Vancouver corporate goals and regional

goals • abbreviate the vision of regional culture to “vibrant and inclusive regional

culture”

The Board provided further comments on the 2008 Priorities timetable as follows: • change the deadline for the preparation of the regional cultural strategy to

2009 or the end of 2008 • consider using short-, mid-, and long-term goals rather than using specific

dates

The following was also noted: • importance of a long-term vision • concerns about the disconnect between regional planning and

transportation • RGS, SWMP and LWMP final drafts as a topic of a Council of Councils

meeting in the fall, prior to municipal ratification of the plans

RD-12


1:14 p.m. Director Drew departed the meeting.

1:25 p.m. Director Goldsmith-Jones departed the meeting.

1:34 p.m.

Board Meeting Extension Members were advised that the meeting of the Board had been in session for four hours from the time the meeting was convened, and it is deemed adjourned unless the board resolves to extend the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board extend its February 22, 2008 meeting beyond four hours pursuant to the GVRD Procedure Bylaw 1009, 2005.

CARRIED

1:38 p.m. Directors Anton, Ball, Capri and Ladner departed the meeting.

The Board suggested that the environmental aspect be taken into consideration during the capital projects and transportation planning process.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board direct the Environment Committee to review the major capital projects in the priority goals and transportation plans to ascertain the environmental impact of each project to assist the board in prioritizing these projects.

CARRIED

Staff suggested that the goals and the priorities timetable be approved in principle, that the goals and timetable be revisited at March committee meetings and workshops, and a revised report be brought back to the March Board meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: • approve in principle the plan and timetable as presented at the

February 22, 2008 Board meeting; and • direct staff to incorporate feedback received from the Board at its

February 22, 2008 meeting in the report, forward the revised report to standing committees and a Finance and Environment Committee workshop for further refinements, and bring the refined report back to the March Board meeting for consideration.

CARRIED 2. Sustainable Schools Project

The item was previously considered.

RD-13


C. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its special meeting of February 22, 2008.

CARRIED (Time: 1:49 p.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Chris Plagnol, Deputy Corporate Secretary

Lois E. Jackson, Chair

e-RIM 004596900 FINAL

RD-14

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 1 of 13

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 10:22 a.m. on Friday, February 29, 2008 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township (departed at 12:35 p.m.) Director Suzanne Anton, Vancouver (departed at 11:39 a.m.) Director Elizabeth Ball, Vancouver Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Kim Capri, Vancouver Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby (departed at 11:36 a.m.) Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Judy Dueck, Maple Ridge (departed at 12:19 p.m.) Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford∗ (departed at 11:54 a.m.) Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* (departed at 11:54 a.m.) Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver (departed at 12:17 p.m.) Director Linda Hepner, Surrey (departed at 12:35 p.m.) Director David Hocking, Bowen Island Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey (departed at 12:05 p.m.) Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby

Alternate Director B.C. Lee, Vancouver, for Sam Sullivan, Vancouver (arrived at 10:26 a.m., departed at 11:49 a.m.) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City (departed at 12:19 p.m.) Alternate Director Stewart Peddemors, White Rock, for Judy Forster (departed at 11:36 a.m.) Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Barbara Steele, Surrey (departed at 10:53 a.m.) Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond (departed at 11:54 a.m.) Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Alternate Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey, for Dianne Watts Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District (arrived at 10:26 a.m., departed at 12:33 p.m.) Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Michael Wright, Port Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay

STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department

Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department

∗ For Parks purposes.

Section B 2

RD-15


A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. February 29, 2008 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for

February 29, 2008 as follows: i. by adding item C1 Marcus Janzen, BC Greenhouse Growers’

Association, BC Agricultural Council, and United Flower Growers’ Cooperative Association;

ii. by adding item D1 Rick Searle, EKOS Communications, Climate Change;

iii. by adding item E7.3 Cover Report; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. January 11, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its special meeting held January 11, 2008 as circulated.

CARRIED

2. January 25, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held January 25, 2008 as circulated.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS

3.1 BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association

Markus Janzen spoke on behalf of BC Agricultural Council, BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association, and United Flower Growers’ Cooperative Association. The Board was requested to suspend public consultation on the proposed Amendment to the Air Quality Management Bylaw until the Province has completed its regulatory amendments concerning agricultural air emissions or to revise the proposed amendments to exempt agricultural operations prior to further consultation. Setting emission levels at 15 mg/m3 may not be guaranteed by most wood boiler manufacturers. This would prohibit the use of biomass fuel for greenhouse food production, which is in direct contradiction to initiatives of provincial and federal governments encouraging the use of biomass as a fossil fuels substitute. It would also reduce on-farm energy options leading to restriction of local food production in favor of increased food dependency on food import.

RD-16


10:26 a.m. Directors Lee and Walton arrived at the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the delegation of February 29, 2008 from Marcus Janzen, BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association, BC Agricultural Council, and United Flower Growers’ Cooperative Association.

CARRIED Directors Capri, Dhaliwal and MacLean absent at the vote.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

1. Climate Change Rick Searle, EKOS Communications, was present to introduce a project concerning climate change adaptation. The purpose of the project is to facilitate knowledge transfer among Fraser Basin Council municipalities on how to adapt municipal infrastructure to rising sea levels. The Board viewed a documentary elaborating on the impact of rising sea levels on Greater Vancouver and on the necessity to commence work on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

10:53 a.m. Director Steele departed the meeting.

Request of Staff Staff was requested to distribute a copy of the presentation to Metro Vancouver Board directors and the Fraser Valley Regional District. The Board was informed that an on-line dialogue tool for Fraser Basin communities concerning adaptation to climate change will be launched on March 5, 2008. The Board members were invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to disseminate the presentation and information about the project to all interested parties. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive for information the presentation of February 29, 2008 from Rick Searle, EKOS Communications.

CARRIED Directors Corrigan and Wilson absent at the vote.

E. CONSENT AGENDA

At the request of Directors, the following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under Section F Items Removed from Consent Agenda: 6.1 International Regions Benchmarking Consortium 3.1 Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Air Quality

Management Bylaw 3.2 Regional Greenhouse Gas Strategy Objectives 7.3 Vancouver Airport Authority Board of Directors Appointment

RD-17


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the February 29, 2008 GVRD Consent Agenda: 1.1 Pacific Spirit Regional Park – Pacific Spirit Sustainability Public Academy 1.2 Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park – GVRD Bylaw No. 1075,

2008 2.1 Charles Creek Flood Management, Electoral Area ‘A’ 2.2 Results of the Preliminary Public Consultation on the Proposed Issues, Goals

and Strategies for Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy 4.1 Renewal of mortgages held by GVRD from GVHC 4.2 Investment Policy Changes 5.1 Endorsement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities “National Action

Plan on Housing and Homelessness” 6.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Regional Economy – The

world is watching 7.1 Urban Issues Board Discussion 7.2 Name Change to Metro Vancouver 8.1 Appointment of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Board Directors 8.2 2008 Board Meeting Dates 9.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – February

CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Goldsmith-Jones, Lee, Stevenson, Walton, Weinberg, and

Wilson absent at the vote.

The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows: 1.1 Pacific Spirit Regional Park – Pacific Spirit Sustainability Public

Academy Report dated February 13, 2008 from the Parks Committee together with report dated January 13, 2008 from Mitch Sokalski, West Area Manager, Regional Parks Department, seeking approval to establish a Working Group that will develop a proposal to advance the planning for the Pacific Spirit Sustainability Public Academy as part of the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Outreach program. Recommendation: That the Board: a) Endorse the Pacific Spirit Sustainability Public Academy project as a

key component of the Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework; b) Approve the establishment of a Working Group to develop a

comprehensive proposal to guide the development of this Public Academy, including facility programming, planning process, project funding and management strategy;

c) Approve a Terms of Reference to guide the Working Group; d) Endorse the proposed approach to Working Group membership, to

include elected representatives, Musqueam First Nation, agencies, citizens, youth, park partners and staff; and

e) Direct the Working Group to report back with their recommendations no later than May, 2008.

Adopted on Consent

RD-18


1.2 Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park – GVRD Bylaw No. 1075, 2008 Report dated February 13, 2008 from the Parks Committee together with report dated January 21, 2008 from Michelle Garvock, Property Division Manager, Finance and Administration Department, and Chris Plagnol, Deputy Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department, seeking approval for the sale of a portion of two properties in Tynehead Regional Park located at the northwest corner of 96th Avenue and 176th Street in Surrey. If the Bylaw is adopted, the lands will be dedicated as road for the Gateway Project widening of 176th Street (Highway 15) at the intersection with Highway 1. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board defer consideration of staff recommendations in the report “Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park – GVRD Bylaw No. 1075, 2008” until complete information is received from the Ministry of Transportation and City of Surrey on all proposed land requirements in Tynehead Regional Park for road work.

Adopted on Consent

2.1 Charles Creek Flood Management, Electoral Area ‘A’ Report dated February 15, 2008 from the Land Use and Transportation Committee together with report dated January 23, 2008 from Tina Atva, Electoral Area A Planner and Administrator, Policy and Planning Department, providing an overview of the Charles Creek flood in 2006 and 2007, summarizing Metro Vancouver’s activities related to the matter, and requesting that the Ministry of Transportation undertake additional remedial works on Charles Creek. Recommendation: That the Board thank the Ministry of Transportation for works on Charles Creek undertaken to date and encourage the Ministry to continue with a full scope of remedial works on Charles Creek in order to ensure the long term safety of Strachan Point residents.

Adopted on Consent 2.2 Results of the Preliminary Public Consultation on the Proposed Issues,

Goals and Strategies for Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Report dated February 15, 2008 from the Land Use and Transportation Committee together with report dated January 24, 2008 from Christina DeMarco, Regional Development Planning Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department, providing a summary of the results of public consultation on the preliminary issues, goals, strategies, and actions to be considered in the preparation of a new Regional Growth Strategy for Metro Vancouver and seeking authorization to proceed with the preparation of the Draft Regional Growth Strategy.

RD-19


Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated January 24, 2008, titled “Results of the Preliminary Public Consultation on the Proposed Issues, Goals and Strategies for Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy”.

Adopted on Consent

4.1 Renewal of mortgages held by GVRD from GVHC Report dated February 1, 2008 from Jim Rusnak, Treasurer, Finance and Administration Department, seeking authorization of the renewal of mortgage financing for a one year term at a rate of 4.5% on the three GVHC properties, Regal Place Hotel, Manor House, and Crown Manor. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board authorize the renewal of mortgage financing for a one year term at a rate of 4.5% on the three GVHC properties as detailed in the report titled “Renewal of mortgages held by GVRD from GVHC” dated February 1, 2008.

Adopted on Consent

4.2 Investment Policy Changes Report dated February 14, 2008 from the Finance Committee together with report dated February 1, 2008 from Jim Rusnak, Chief Financial Officer, Phil Trotzuk, Financial Planning and Operations Division Manager, and Gord Nicol, Comptroller, Treasury, Finance and Administration Department, seeking amendments of the Investment Policy to match the policy on how Metro Vancouver investments are managed; allowing for access to higher yielding investments while maintaining conservative exposure to risk, greater flexibility in Metro Vancouver investing process; and pursuing ethical investments. Recommendation: That the Board approve the revised Investment Policy as contained in the report titled “Investment Policy Changes” dated February 1, 2008.

Adopted on Consent 5.1 Endorsement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities “National

Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness” Report dated February 15, 2008 from the Housing Committee together with report dated January 31, 2008 from Lorraine Copas, Senior Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department, informing about the National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness released by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) on January 23, 2008 and recommending that the Board endorse the FCM plan.

RD-20


Recommendation: That the Board: (a) Endorse the recommendations set out in the report dated titled

“Sustaining the Momentum: Recommendations for a National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness” attached to the report dated February 15, 2008 titled “Endorsement of the Federation of canadianl Municipalities “National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness” and forward a letter of support to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), and a copy of the letter to Rich Coleman, Provincial Minister Responsible for Housing;

(b) Circulate a copy of the FCM report to all member municipalities requesting their consideration and endorsement; and

(c) Convey to FCM that the proposed targets for the number of affordable housing units and transitional and supportive housing units be considered minimum targets and request that FCM review and update the targets annually or as new information becomes available.

Adopted on Consent

6.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Regional Economy – The world is watching Report dated January 30, 2008 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and John MacFarlane, Senior Program Manager, Corporate Relations Department, informing about the November 7th and December 6th and 12th, 2007 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Regional Economy – The world is watching as well as the original session held on September 25th, 2006 at the SFU Wosk Centre for Dialogue. Recommendation: That the Board forward the report dated January 30, 2008, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Regional Economy – The world is watching” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment.

Adopted on Consent 7.1 Urban Issues Board Discussion

Report dated February 19, 2008 from the Intergovernmental Committee together with report dated January 21, 2008 from Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, providing a summary of metropolitan urban issues discussed at the January 11, 2008 Board meeting with Senator Larry Campbell and Paul Zed, Member of Parliament, and seeking direction on the formulation of a Metro Vancouver position.

RD-21


Recommendation: That the Board: a) Direct staff to develop a Metro Vancouver position on urban issues in

collaboration with the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC) as a basis for Metro Vancouver and Federal discussions.

b) Authorize the Board Chair to send an invitation to the Chair of the BC (Conservative Party) Caucus and the NDP Caucus Chair to discuss Metro Vancouver urban priorities as part of the formulation of a Metro Vancouver position.

Adopted on Consent Recommendation: That the Board: a) Authorize the Chair to draft a letter on behalf of the Board thanking

the Governor General Michaëlle Jean for her visit, for hosting the Housing Committee, and for listening to Metro Vancouver social and housing issues and extend an invitation to the Governor General to meet with the Board.

b) Communicate to the Province that Metro Vancouver and all mayors of Metro Vancouver need to be informed when significant issues are being discussed and when major announcements are released by the Premier and/or a minister.

c) Invite the Chair of the TransLink Board and the Minister of Transportation and/or senior staff to engage them in discussion about the Regional Growth Management Strategy.

d) Invite the Premier to meet with the Intergovernmental Committee to discuss transportation issues.

Adopted on Consent 7.2 Name Change to Metro Vancouver

Report dated January 31, 2008 from Andrea Brace, Corporate Solicitor, advising that the Minister of Community Services has declined the Board’s request for a formal name change of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) to Metro Vancouver. Recommendation: That the Board defer further action with respect to its request to the Minister of Community Services to formally change the name of the Greater Vancouver Regional District to Metro Vancouver under its letters patent.

Adopted on Consent 8.1 Appointment of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Board

Directors Report dated February 5, 2008 from Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department, proposing that the number of GVHC directors be fixed at 10 members, proposing the appointment of 2008 GVHC Board members, and seeking authorization of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer to sign the Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Shareholder of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation establishing the number of directors and the directors of the Company.

RD-22


Recommendation: That the Board, representing the GVRD as sole shareholder of the GVHC, 1. Establish the number of directors of the Greater Vancouver Housing

Corporation (the Company) as being fixed at 10; 2. Appoint the following persons, each of whom has consented in writing

to act as a director, as directors of the Company, to hold office until the next annual general meeting of the Company or unanimous resolutions consented to in lieu of holding an annual general meeting, or until their successors are appointed:

Kurt Alberts Darrell Mussatto Linda King Mae Reid Judy Forster Tim Stevenson Colleen Jordan Judy Villeneuve William B. McNulty Wayne Wright

3. Authorize the Metro Vancouver Chief Administrative Officer or Deputy

Chief Administrative Officer to sign, on behalf of the sole shareholder of the Company being the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Shareholder of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation establishing the number of directors and the directors of the Company.

Adopted on Consent

8.2 2008 Board Meeting Dates Report dated February 5, 2008 from Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department, outlining the 2008 Board meeting dates. Recommendation: That the Board establish the day, hour and place for its 2008 regular meetings outlined in the report dated February 5, 2008, titled “2008 Board Regular Meeting Dates”.

Adopted on Consent 9.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – February

Report dated February 19, 2008 from Kelly Weilbacher, Assistant to the Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department, outlining the February 2008 delegations’ executive summaries. Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated February 19, 2008, titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – February”.

Adopted on Consent F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

The items removed from the consent agenda were considered in numerical order. 3.1 Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Air

Quality Management Bylaw

RD-23


Report dated January 31, 2008 from Raymond Robb, Regulation and Enforcement Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department, seeking endorsement for staff to engage in consultation regarding proposed amendments to the GVRD Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 937, 1999.

11:36 a.m. Directors Dhaliwal and Peddemors departed the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board authorize staff to proceed to consultation based upon the report dated January 2008, titled “Proposed Amendments to the Air Quality Management Bylaw”.

CARRIED

11:39 a.m. Director Anton departed the meeting.

Members requested that preservation of agricultural industry and compliance with provincial regulations be taken into consideration of the Air Quality Management Bylaw. Referral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board refer the following recommendation to the Environment Committee for consideration:

“That the Board direct staff to report back on consultation regarding the proposed amendments to the Air Quality Management Bylaw including:

• Assessment of the compatibility of the proposed amendments with the proposed Metro Greenhouse Gas strategy objectives and Sustainable Region Initiative principles;

• The outcome of the provincial regulatory amendments concerning the agricultural air emissions (if available) or update on the status of the provincial review; and

• The ability of currently-available emission controls to remain in compliance with the proposed standards.”

CARRIED Directors Hunt and Wilson absent at the vote.

3.2 Regional Greenhouse Gas Strategy Objectives

Report dated February 14, 2008 from the Environment Committee together with report dated January 31, 2008 from Ali Ergudenler, Senior Engineer, and Eve Hou, Air Quality Planner, Policy and Planning Department, seeking approval to adopt regional greenhouse gas reduction targets that align with those established by the provincial government, and directing staff to develop a strategy to achieve those targets.

11:49 a.m. Director Lee departed the meeting.

RD-24


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: (a) Endorse, in support of provincial objectives and as a basis for

development of regional and corporate plans, regional greenhouse gas reduction targets of 33% below 2007 levels by the year 2020 and 80% below 2007 levels by 2050.

(b) Direct staff to develop a rigorous regional greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation strategy and implementation timeline as a basis for consultation which will achieve the targets and addresses both regional sources of greenhouse gas emissions and Metro Vancouver’s corporate emissions.

(c) Direct staff to support the strategy by economic analysis. (d) Direct staff, as a priority, to report in May 2008 on a strategy to reduce

Metro Vancouver Corporate GHG emissions. CARRIED

Directors Alberts, Villeneuve, and Wright absent at the vote.

6.1 International Regions Benchmarking Consortium Report dated January 14, 2008 from Hugh Kellas, Manager, Policy and Planning Department, forwarding an invitation to participate in the International Regions Benchmarking Consortium to be held in Seattle, Washington on June 1 to 4, 2008.

11:54 a.m. Directors Ferguson, Gill and Steves departed the meeting.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: (a) Advise the International Regions Benchmarking Consortium that

Metro Vancouver is interested in being an observer of the project; (b) Authorize the attendance of a Board member at “The Innovative

Region” conference sponsored by the International Regions Benchmarking Consortium to be held in Seattle, Washington, June 1-4, 2008.

CARRIED

7.3 Vancouver Airport Authority Board of Directors Appointment On-table report dated February 27, 2008 from the Intergovernmental Committee together with report dated February 14, 2008 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department, recommending a process for recruiting a Metro Vancouver nominee to the Vancouver International Airport Authority Board of Directors, in response to the invitation from the Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR). Clarification of the nomination process was provided. The YVR Task Force’s proposal will be forwarded to the March 2008 Board meeting for Board’s approval.

RD-25


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) Receive the YVR update report dated February 7, 2008 from Ms. Beth

Johnson. b) Approve the process for recruiting a new Metro Vancouver nominee

that is set out in this report titled "Vancouver Airport Authority Board of Directors Appointment”; and

c) Delegate a task force composed of Directors Brodie, Corrigan, Martin, and Stevenson to recommend a Metro Vancouver nominee to the Board at its March 28, 2008 meeting and forward this nomination to the Vancouver Airport Authority.

CARRIED

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA No items presented.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

1. World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement Notice of motion introduced at the January 25, 2008 Board meeting by Director Anton for consideration at the February 29, 2008 Board meeting.

12:05 p.m. Director Hunt departed the meeting.

The Board was requested to defer the item to the next Board meeting. Deferral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board defer the following motion to the March 28, 2008 Board meeting:

“That the Board endorse the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement launched at the United Nations Climate Change Conference on December 12, 2007.”

CARRIED

2. Support for the Rapid Transit Link from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre Notice of motion dated February 11, 2008, provided by Director Trasolini for consideration at the February 29, 2008 Board meeting, requesting the Board to reaffirm the Evergreen Line route as endorsed in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. On-table material was distributed at the meeting and is retained with the February 29, 2008 Board agenda package. Concerns were expressed about the lack of consultation on the change of the Evergreen Line technology and the route.

RD-26


It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board confirms support for the rapid transit link from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre via Port Moody as part of the transportation corridor outlined in the growth strategy of the Liveable Region Strategic Plan.

The above motion was not voted on.

12:17 p.m. Director Goldsmith-Jones departed the meeting.

12:19 p.m. Directors Dueck and Mussatto departed the meeting. 12:33 p.m.

Director Walton departed the meeting. 12:35 p.m.

Directors Alberts and Hepner departed the meeting. 12:37 p.m.

Loss of Quorum Members were advised of loss of quorum and the meeting was concluded.

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary


e-RIM 004598429 FINAL

RD-27


RD-28

CONSENT AGENDA

RD-29


RD-30

Board Meeting Date: March 28, 2008

To: GVRD Board From: Parks Commmittee Date: March 17, 2008 Subject: Joint Project Proposal – “Fraser Trails Legacy” Initiative and

Joint 2008 Special Event Recommendations: That the Boards direct staffs to develop: a) options and test feasibility of a “Fraser Trails Legacy” initiative to create interconnecting

“discovery” loops in the Fraser Valley between Coquitlam and Hope connecting and encompassing the Trans Canada Trail, as a collaborative effort among Metro Vancouver Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, Trails BC, local jurisdictions, provincial and federal government, BC Tourism, and First Nations; and to seek support and grants from senior levels of government and other funding sources; and

b) an event jointly delivered by Metro Vancouver Regional District and the Fraser Valley

Regional District with the participation of Trails BC, focusing on initiatives arising from approved options in recommendation (a) above.

At the March 11, 2008 Special Meeting of the GVRD and FVRD Parks Committees, recommendation (a) was amended to include collaborating with “provincial and federal government, BC Tourism” in creating the ‘discovery loops’.

Section E 1.1

RD-31

Special Parks Committee Meeting Date: March 11, 2008

To: Parks Committee Fraser Valley Regional Parks Committee From: Ed Andrusiak, Parks Manager, Metro Vancouver Doug Wilson, Parks Manager, Fraser Valley Regional District Date: March 5, 2008 Subject: Joint Project Proposal – “Fraser Trails Legacy” Initiative and

Joint 2008 Special Event Recommendations: That the Boards direct staffs to develop: a) options and test feasibility of a “Fraser Trails Legacy” initiative to create interconnecting

“discovery” loops in the Fraser Valley between Coquitlam and Hope connecting and encompassing the Trans Canada Trail, as a collaborative effort among Metro Vancouver Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, Trails BC, local jurisdictions and First Nations; and to seek support and grants from senior levels of government and other funding sources; and

b) an event jointly delivered by Metro Vancouver Regional District and the Fraser Valley

Regional District with the participation of Trails BC, focusing on initiatives arising from approved options in recommendation (a) above.

1. PURPOSE To obtain the Boards’ approval to develop options and test feasibility for a “Fraser Trails Legacy” initiative spanning the two regional district boundaries and advancing the Trans Canada Trail (TCT) that may attract support from senior levels of government and involve local jurisdictions, First Nations and community partners like Trails BC (BC agency for the Trans Canada Trail) and the Trans Canada Trail Foundation; and deliver a joint event between Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional Districts which promotes approved initiatives. 2. CONTEXT In November 2007, Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional District Parks Committees met to share information on their respective programs and explore opportunities for collaboration on projects. Arising from this joint meeting, both committees unanimously passed a motion requesting that staff develop a joint event to be held in 2008, celebrating recreational opportunities afforded by both park systems. The event would build on the 2008 focus on the Fraser River resulting from celebrations marking the 200th anniversary of Simon Fraser’s passage and the 150th anniversary of the founding of British Columbia at

ATTACHMENT

RD-32

Fort Langley. It would also present an opportunity to introduce and create excitement for a joint regional greenway and/or parks project. Staffs have reviewed existing parks and greenway plans and have focused on exploring new options for regional trail routes that also support the TCT between Hope and Coquitlam with representatives from Trails BC. Recent discussions have also been held with some Fraser Valley municipalities over the notion of advancing the TCT through their communities. Further meetings are scheduled. Current thinking envisages a legacy initiative that would see major trails constructed on both sides of the Fraser River interjoined to create a series of three loops, incorporating existing and planned bridges over the Fraser River. The most westerly loop would be formed by trails joining the twinned Port Mann and new Golden Ears Bridge; a central loop would utilize the Golden Ears Bridge and Mission Bridge; an eastern loop would be based around the Mission Bridge and an upgraded Agassiz Bridge. The western loop would tie into the existing TCT in Coquitlam and the initiative would seek to improve the eastern TCT connection to Hope. Initial focus for action would be on the middle loop with an aim to establish early connections to the Golden Ears Bridge scheduled to complete in July 2009. The loops would be destination experiences onto themselves but would also serve to connect the TCT to interregional and regional greenways, blueways and local community trails. They would also connect west to emerging greenways and a possible southern arm of the TCT to Tsawassen. They would also directly connect Lower Mainland communities east to the Coquihalla and “Spirit of 2010” trail at Brookmere contributing to completion of one of the world’s most spectacular trail experiences. Local municipalities and other land jurisdictions would be sought as partners in the legacy project as well as the provincial and federal governments and First Nations. Where support is indicated for regional segments staff would prepare joint applications for grant funding for Board approval. Through Trails BC the Trans Canada Foundation would also be asked for fundraising assistance. Special Event A joint event, perhaps on Canada’s “Parks Day” (July 19, 2008), could be used to build awareness for the “Fraser Trails Legacy” initiative and to showcase a portion of the initiative, perhaps the “middle loop”. Event planning is only at the concept stage but would be based on the approach below:

• water and/or land travel connecting two points on the “middle loop”, the Mission waterfront and the Golden Ears Bridge crossing of the Fraser River;

• participants could travel trail sections in pairs or small groups on foot, wheelchair, horse, bicycle or watercraft and would comprise community representatives, participating organizations, political leaders, celebrities and media;

• thematic references to BC 150 and the 200th anniversary of Simon Fraser would be built into the program;

• the importance of trails to health and wellness and livable communities would be promoted along with the Trans Canada and Spirit of 2010 Trails; and

• all participants and would gather at one location, perhaps Derby Reach Regional Park, where the trails legacy initiative would be promoted and the general public would be welcomed.

The event can be scaled to what is feasible in the time frame would be jointly conducted by staffs from Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley Regional District and volunteers from Trails BC. Support could also be sought from the parks and recreation programs of participating

RD-33

municipalities, provincial parks and Parks Canada if Canada’s “Parks Day” is also celebrated. 3. ALTERNATIVES Joint Project Proposal Option 1: Develop options and test feasibility for a “Fraser Trails Legacy”

initiative to create interconnecting “discovery” loops in the Fraser Valley between Coquitlam and Hope and connecting and encompassing the Trans Canada Trail, as a collaborative effort among Metro Vancouver Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, Trails BC, local jurisdictions and First Nations; and seek support and grants from senior levels of government and other funding sources.

This proposal for a “Fraser Trail Legacy” initiative builds on ideas previously raised by Trails BC, municipalities, other agencies, community members and/or regional park plans and existing trail sections. There is strong interest in realizing both northern and southern routes for the TCT across the Fraser Valley connecting more communities, greenways and trail networks and greatly expanding recreational and cultural opportunities. Completion of the Golden Ears Bridge and future improvements to the Port Mann and Agassiz bridges require that trail routes change and new potential is created. Establishing a bold and appealing major trail framework could provide alternative means of exploring our regions and engaging residents and visitors in healthy exercise and cultural discovery. Connecting Lower Mainland communities and visitors to the Spirit of 2010 Trail would greatly enhance its popularity and provide a world class trail experience. It would require significant resources, commitment and cooperation from many levels of government including First Nations, land agencies, interest groups, citizens and business to realize this trail legacy proposal. Land jurisdiction, securement costs and issues, and First Nations consultation and interests would have to be addressed along with operating and maintenance commitments from a number of partners. Option 2: Do not approve development and testing of a joint “Fraser Trails

Legacy” initiative advancing regional and provincial trail routes and the Trans Canada Trail and as outlined in this report and direct staffs to explore other options for joint projects between Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional Districts.

Advantages: There are many opportunities for collaboration between Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional Districts that might be delayed or forfeited by directing significant effort and fundraising into a “Fraser Trails Legacy”. Such opportunities include:

1) Focusing on fewer trail options allowing resources to be spread over more initiatives; 2) Pursuit of a joint park program for Sumas Mountain and River and/or Vedder

Mountain and River; and 3) Advancing the “blueways” program for the Fraser River from Hope to the ocean by

developing new and existing regional park sites, and adding amenities and infrastructure on the waterfront to receive water-based recreationists.

These projects share some overlapping components, particularly linear connections, so it is possible to shape the initiative to capture segments of greatest common interest or those that can be implemented more easily. This option would defer Metro Vancouver and Fraser

RD-34

Valley Regional Districts’ resource commitments and staff time and/or make them available to other priority initiatives. It could also be used to scale the scope of the trails initiative to a priority route. Disadvantages:

1) Momentum from province-wide celebrations for BC’s 150 and the 200th anniversary Simon Fraser’s passage featuring the Fraser River corridor could be diminished if a related project is not immediately pursued;

2) Recreationists expect that regional and municipal trails will connect to the new Golden Ears Bridge for both recreation and commuting purposes;

3) Decommissioning of the Albion Ferry in 2009 will result in a disconnected TCT unless new routes are established;

4) Major trail corridors should be established soon in developing communities like Mission and Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley to secure the best routes and encourage local access from new housing developments; and

5) The Spirit of 2010 Trail will remain disconnected from the Lower Mainland if a continuous trail corridor is not provided across the Fraser Valley.

Joint Special Event Option 1: Develop an event jointly delivered by Metro Vancouver Regional District

and the Fraser Valley Regional District and with the participation of Trails BC, focusing on initiatives arising from approved options in recommendation a) above.

This event would build on the community pride and excitement fostered by BC 150 and focus attention on a bold response to new trail loop possibilities created by the Golden Ears Bridge and attraction of the Fraser River. New routes for the Trans Canada Trail could be featured in the event and the bigger vision for additional loops and regional greenways and connections to the Spirit of 2010 Trail introduced. It would provide an opportunity to build partnerships for the initiative and gain profile for approved projects. It is anticipated that the event will require $10,000 base funding from Metro Vancouver as well as in-kind and staff support from both Districts and assistance from partners. It will require staff effort to organize the event and it may be difficult to ensure the attendance of key partners and representatives if held in mid-summer. Option 2: Direct staff to develop an event of a different nature and/or one not

aimed at promoting the proposed trail legacy initiative. A wholly river-based public program has been avoided due to competing profile from events later in the summer including BC Day at Fort Langley with a canoe flotilla and Rivermania. More emphasis on the water would tie in more strongly to the celebration of Simon Fraser while BC 150 can be incorporated into any event. It is anticipated that regional parks along the Fraser River will be utilized in both of these province-wide events and that regional districts will be supporting some related activities. There are many possibilities for joint events that would be more broadly focused on promoting the opportunities offered by the two regional parks programs. However, it is late in the year to be introducing a new event, engaging partners and gaining profile due to the promotion of the above celebrations. More lead time would also help identify and secure necessary resources. 4. CONCLUSION

RD-35

The “Fraser Trails Legacy” could unite many different jurisdictions and communities and create outstanding new recreational opportunities to get people active and outdoors and discover other modes of travel in their neighborhoods and beyond. The initiative could get a quick start by developing the middle trail loop which connects the two districts, responds to new opportunities provided by the Golden Ears Bridge, showcases regional parks and greenways on the Fraser River, and gets people moving and excited about larger challenges like the Spirit of 2010 and Trans Canada Trails. The proposed event would be designed to introduce and build support for the initiative and create enthusiasm for trails and recreation on and along the Fraser River across the two regional districts. Development and delivery of the proposed event would help to bring together potential partners and build the capacity and commitment required to deliver this ambitious public trail legacy initiative. WD/EA/dm Attachment

RD-36

RD-37

This page left blank intentionally.

RD-38

004603012

Board of Directors Meeting Date: March 28, 2008

To: Board of Directors From: Land Use and Transportation Committee Date: March 19, 2008 Subject: Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on

Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated February 26, 2008, titled “Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy“. At its March 7, 2008 meeting, the Land Use and Transportation Committee received for information the report dated February 26, 2008, titled “Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy“. The Committee referred the report to the Board for information as progress in the development of a new Regional Growth Strategy.

Section E 2.1

RD-39

Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008

To: Land Use and Transportation Committee From: Christina DeMarco, Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department Date: February 26, 2008 Subject: Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on

Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Recommendation: That the Land Use and Transportation Committee receive for information the report dated February 26, 2008, titled “Additional Feedback from the Preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy” and forward the report to the Board for information. 1. PURPOSE This report provides the Land Use and Transportation Committee with a summary of the municipal feedback received to date as well as a summary of the issues and suggestions outlined in the submissions from business and industry representatives, non-profit organizations and other agencies as well as members of the public. This report also provides a summary of the feedback received through the questionnaire which was included as part of the Discussion Guide. 2. CONTEXT At its February 8, 2008 meeting, the Land Use and Transportation Committee received a report titled “Results of the Preliminary Public Consultation on the Proposed Issues, Goals and Strategies for Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy” which provided an overview of the public consultation process activities and a preliminary summary of the feedback received. A companion report was also forwarded to the February 8, 2008 meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee which provided a compilation of the results from the public consultation meetings, the workshop proceedings, the on-line questionnaire as well as copies of written submissions received by January 31, 2008. This report provides the Land Use and Transportation Committee with a summary of the municipal feedback received to date as well as a summary of the issues and suggestions outlined in the written submissions. This report also provides a summary of the feedback received through the questionnaire which was included in the Discussion Guide and which could be completed on-line through the Metro Vancouver website. Also included in this report is discussion of the specific areas of follow-up in response to municipal council decisions or requests which have been forwarded to Metro Vancouver.

RD-40

Additional Feedback from the preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy

Page 2 of 11 Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008

Feedback Received To Date To date, seven municipalities have provided written feedback on the general directions set out in the Discussion Guide which was released for public consultation in November 2007. They include: the Corporation of Delta, the City of Richmond, the City of Surrey, the District of North Vancouver, the Township of Langley, the City of New Westminster, and the City of Coquitlam. The City of Burnaby and City of North Vancouver responses are expected to be received in early March. In addition, a total of 20 written submissions have been received from a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations. Attachment 1 includes copies of the municipal feedback received to date while Attachment 2 includes copies of the written submissions. It is anticipated that additional comments and feedback will be received from member municipalities and others. As a result, Metro Vancouver staff will continue to provide regular up-dates to the Land Use and Transportation Committee as additional feedback is received.

GOAL 1: Accommodate growth in a sustainable and compact metropolitan

structure Strategy 1: Focus regional growth in centres and along transit corridors Results from the Municipal Feedback In general, there was municipal support for focusing future growth in centres and along transit corridors as well as support for the development of guidelines on specific types of uses or activities to be located in centres. There was also support for the development of population and employment targets for the centres provided they were developed in consultation with member municipalities. There was less support for the proposed use of minimum densities for centres with some municipalities suggesting that differences in local contexts and circumstances may mean the need for greater flexibility. Some municipalities indicated that they would like to have additional discussion on the implementation options for this strategy. Other Comments and Feedback The feedback received from the Urban Development Institute (UDI) shows support for this strategy. They note that this approach combined with appropriate levels of density could help to alleviate existing pressures on the supply of land as well as make better use of existing transit investments. They also note that the types of measures outlined under this strategy are important if Metro Vancouver is to achieve its longer term sustainability objectives. The submission from the Vancouver Food Policy Council also supports the strategy of focusing growth in centres as a means of reducing development pressures on agricultural land. Other submissions also suggest that incentive-based policies should be explored as a means of encouraging growth in the desired areas. Strategy 2: Establish defined areas for urban growth Results from the Municipal Feedback The current LRSP has two land use designations: Urban Area and the Green Zone. The Green Zone functions both as a way to protect natural and resource lands and as an urban growth boundary. The discussion guide included recommendations for consideration of additional regional land use designations, including rural, and urban reserve. Most municipalities indicated that they would require additional information about the designations being proposed, the amendment process, as well as greater clarity as to the purpose and intent of the proposed designations before they could provide further comment.

RD-41

Additional Feedback from the preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Page 3 of 11 Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008 Other Comments and Feedback The comments received from other groups and organizations as well as members of the public tended to focus on specific land use designations including an agricultural land use designation as well as an industrial land use designation. These specific comments will be discussed more fully within the context of the discussion related to Goal 3-Strategy 4 and Goal 4-Strategy 7 in this report. The submission from the UDI notes that in adopting this strategy it is important for Metro Vancouver to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of land to support development and that any attempts to “freeze” development and/or restrict development to specific areas should be offset with the necessary increases in density within the urban area. GOAL 2: Offer diverse and affordable housing choices Strategy 3: Increase housing supply and diversity, including the supply of housing

for low and moderate income households Results from the Municipal Feedback There was general support for this goal. Most municipalities recognized the importance of working to put into place strategies for increasing the supply and diversity of modest cost housing including strategies to increase the supply of housing affordable to households with low to moderate incomes. Most municipalities also supported the development of housing targets at the sub-regional level as well as the development of housing action plans as a means of providing a coordinated response provided these actions were developed in consultation with member municipalities. Other Comments and Feedback Some of the written submissions highlighted the importance of looking at ways to encourage more co-op housing, work force housing and other forms of affordable housing. There was also support for providing increased housing diversity (e.g. a variety of housing forms and types) as well as ensuring that appropriate strategies are in place to support the development of rental housing. Some respondents also suggested that it may be beneficial to look at possible incentive-based strategies including financial incentives as a means of encouraging more secondary suites. The submission from UDI notes that the rising housing costs are to some extent the result of supply-side constraints. In response to this issue, UDI has recommended that municipalities be encouraged to pre-zone land for housing including pre-zoning for smaller lot sizes as well as making more land available for multi-family development. The submission from UDI also notes that they have concerns that the use of inclusionary zoning could have the potential to make housing less affordable as increased costs are passed on to housing consumers and that a region-wide levy may represent a fairer approach. GOAL 3: Support and strengthen a diverse regional economy Strategy 4: Maintain an adequate supply of industrial lands to meet the needs of the

regional economy Results from the Municipal Feedback In general, there was municipal support for ensuring that there is an adequate supply of industrial land, however, there were differences expressed as to how this could be achieved. Some municipalities indicated that they were uncertain as to how a specific land use designation for industrial lands would work and would require additional information before

RD-42



they could comment further. Some municipalities also suggested that the regional growth strategy should include incentives or recognition for municipalities that have taken action to preserve and protect their existing industrial land. Other Comments and Feedback A number of business and industry representatives provided feedback on this strategy including the importance of ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to preserve and protect the region’s industrial land. The submission received from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority suggested that Metro Vancouver should take action to protect the region’s industrial land base and also suggested that the Regional Growth Strategy should look for ways to expand the supply of industrial land to meet future needs. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) suggested that adopting a regional industrial land use designation could make it difficult for the market to respond to changing demand and that such a policy could result in a distortion of land prices. NAIOP also indicated that they believe that industrial lands are already adequately protected through municipal land use decisions. UDI recognizes the importance of ensuring that there is an adequate supply of industrial land. However, their submission suggests that they are not certain as to whether an industrial land reserve would be the best vehicle given the need for the ability to be able to respond to changing market demands. Their submission also notes that some of the sites that are currently designated as industrial may not be suitable for current needs. As a result, UDI is recommending that the Province, Metro Vancouver and local municipalities should work together along with industry representatives to identify where new industrial lands are needed. Their submission also suggests that financial incentives or zoning flexibility should be considered to support the development of additional industrial space. The submission from the B.C. Business Council suggested that in addition to the directions set out in the Regional Growth Strategy, it would be beneficial to have a regional economic strategy which looks at the full range of strategies and activities needed to support a strong regional economy, and that the specific actions set out under Strategy 4 are not sufficient. Strategy 5: Facilitate the location of major commercial activities in centre locations

to enhance access for workers and customers and build prosperous, attractive centres in every subregion

Results from the Municipal Feedback This strategy focuses on encouraging commercial development within centres as a means of promoting strong commercial centres and making better use of existing community and transportation infrastructure. While there was general agreement with the intention of the strategy, a number of municipalities indicated that their preference is to explore incentive-based policies such as increased transit service. Some municipalities also noted that there may be individual cases where out- of -centre office development is necessary and beneficial within a given community and the strategy should provide municipalities with the necessary flexibility. Other Comments and Feedback The submission from the UDI expressed their support for this strategy and indicated that the Regional Growth Strategy should include policies which encourage commercial development in major centres and along transit corridors. In particular, the submission from UDI indicates that there are a number of locations that are well-served by transit which would provide

RD-43

Additional Feedback from the preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Page 5 of 11 Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008 important opportunities for commercial development. The submission from UDI also indicated that it is important for Metro Vancouver to explore possible incentive-based strategies to promote commercial development in areas near transit. GOAL 3: Support and strengthen a diverse regional economy Strategy 6: Maintain the agricultural land base for food production through

supportive land use and development policies Results from the Municipal Feedback There was municipal support for maintaining the agricultural land base for food production but there were differences expressed as to how this could be achieved. In particular, some municipalities indicated that they were uncertain as to whether the creation of a specific land use designation for agricultural land would have any benefit as agricultural lands are already protected through the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Other municipalities indicated that they preferred to see agricultural lands remain part of the Green Zone, as is the current practice. Some municipalities also indicated that they would require additional information if a separate agricultural designation were to be established including information about how the proposed designation could be amended. Other Comments and Feedback Members of the Vancouver Food Policy Council supported a regional land use designation for agricultural lands as a means of recognizing and protecting the region’s food growing lands. Urban agriculture and support for local food producers were other areas of importance identified through the written submissions received. GOAL 4: Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets Strategy 7: Ensure the long-term protection of critical habitat areas, drinking

watersheds, riparian areas, parks, recreation corridors, forests and agricultural lands

Results from the Municipal Feedback In general, there was municipal support for the Green Zone and the role that it plays in ensuring the long-term protection of the region’s natural assets. However, there were a range of perspectives on the role and purpose of the Green Zone including the different types of lands that are part of the Green Zone (e.g. ecologically significant, recreational and agricultural). There was also general support for establishing a more consistent approach to the use of Green Zone lands throughout the region. Some municipalities also indicated that there is the need for a flexible and responsive amendment process for both the inclusion and exclusion of Green Zone lands, especially if agricultural lands remain part of the Green Zone. Other Comments and Feedback Members of Metro Vancouver’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) supported removing the ALR from the Green Zone and in creating a separate agricultural designation. In particular, members of the AAC were concerned that the inclusion of the ALR in the Green Zone may restrict farming activities. AAC members also wanted to see more incentive-based policies rather than regulation. The UDI submission focuses on the needed to ensure that going forward there is sufficient flexibility around lands in the Green Zone. In particular, the UDI submission notes that in the past, the Green Zone designation was not fully understood and that there is the need to have a flexible amendment process.

RD-44



Strategy 8: Ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological and recreational

connectivity across the region Results from the Municipal Feedback There was consistent acknowledgement that the ecological assets threaded throughout the region need to be protected – not just those in the Green Zone. The concern was raised that municipalities have no jurisdiction over some key areas such as coastal or inter-tidal areas and therefore are limited in the types of actions that can be taken. While the protection of ecological assets is viewed as a municipal responsibility within the context of specific local land use decisions, there was general concurrence that the region should at a minimum provide high level goals and guidance on a reference map which highlights the ecological and recreational significance of specific areas within the broader regional context. Other Comments and Feedback There were no specific public comments on this strategy. GOAL 5: Create a sustainable regional transportation system Strategy 9: Increase transit supply throughout the region and promote walking and

cycling Results from the Municipal Feedback The importance of an integrated approach to land use and transportation was acknowledged. Many municipalities also noted that is it is important for Metro Vancouver to work collaboratively with TransLink to ensure that local transit needs and priorities are met. Most municipalities also supported the development of targets for transit service and mode split by sub-region provided they are developed in consultation with member municipalities. Other Comments and Feedback The submission from the B.C. Business Council supported this strategy but recommended that opportunities to increase densities along transit corridors and at key transit stations be pursued. This was supported by other submissions as well which called for better integration between transit stations and land use decisions as a means of improving the viability of the existing transit system and supporting additional transit investments. Respondents also indicated that they would like to see different transit technologies considered. Strategy 10: Advance a regional network of roads and highways that prioritizes goods

movement, transit operations and high-occupancy vehicles Results from the Municipal Feedback The importance of the network of regional roads and highways for the efficient movement of goods and people was recognized by member municipalities as an important element to be addressed within the context of the Regional Growth Strategy. There was a sense that Metro Vancouver has an important coordinating role to play in ensuring that there are clear linkages established between land use and transportation decisions including identifying regional roads and highway networks on a regional map as well as providing guidelines for prioritizing users. A number of municipalities also indicated that Metro Vancouver has an important role to play in communicating regional and local transit service needs to TransLink and senior levels of government. Other Comments and Feedback The submission from the B.C. Business Council noted that the region and members municipalities should develop growth strategies which capitalize on the investments which have been made to “Gateway”.

RD-45

Additional Feedback from the preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Page 7 of 11 Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008 Strategy 11: Manage transportation demand Results from the Municipal Feedback There was generally support for the region taking a more active role in the development of specific demand management strategies. Specific measures might include bus lanes, parking supply measures as well as road pricing mechanisms. It was also recognized that the successful implementation of these measures requires close collaboration with TransLink as well as flexibility at the municipal level to ensure that local needs and priorities can be met. Other Comments and Feedback The submissions from business leaders and the public included suggestions for the expansion of major highways and bridges to address issues related to congestion and to allow for the efficient movement of goods across the region. Other suggestions also included the expansion of HOV lanes as well as the use of electronic tolls. The reduction of street parking, reclaiming road space for transit, bicycles or walking as well as requiring that parking stalls in strata developments be sold separately from the units were other suggestions. Other Municipal Comments and Feedback A number of municipalities also indicated that issues related to climate change and greenhouse gas reductions should be considered within the context of the RGS including information on how the Provincial targets for the reduction in green house gas emissions will be met. Some municipalities also indicated that there should be specific policies or directions on food security and waste reduction as well as more discussion of social issues, such as immigration. A number of municipalities also commented on components they felt were necessary to implement the Regional Growth Strategy. Municipalities supported having an amendment process outlined within the Regional Growth Strategy to ensure the strategy can be updated and remain relevant over time. Some municipalities also indicated that they would like to see an implementation program which sets out the specific responsibilities and accountabilities and which includes information on how key elements within the plan will be financed. Other Comments and Feedback from the Public A number of the submissions received to date focused on issues related to the projected level of growth relative to the region’s carrying capacity, with concern that the region is accepting too much population growth. In addition, some felt that there was the need for a greater emphasis on issues related to social and cultural diversity. Strategies to reduce green house gas emissions as well as the provision of services and infrastructure needed to support the anticipated growth were also identified as important issues. Actions to support a strong and competitive regional economy were also identified by some. The Questionnaire Results The initial public consultation process included a questionnaire which was designed to gather feedback from the public on their perspective on different issues which are of importance to the region. The questionnaire was distributed at the public meetings along with the Discussion Guide and was available on-line through the Metro Vancouver website. A total of 131 individuals completed the questionnaire. The following provides some of the key highlights from the questionnaire while additional detail can be found in Attachment 3.

RD-46



Public Feedback on the Top 3 Issues or Concern: When asked to identify the top 3 issues or concerns, the following were the responses received: Themes and key issues Responses

Transportation - transit, traffic congestion, cycling, mode of transportation, goods movement 85

Housing - affordability, housing diversity, homelessness 65

Growth - growth management, sustainability, rate of development, location of development 55

Environment – Greenhouse gas, the ecological footprint, climate change, air and water quality, environmental well-being 39

Agriculture- ALR, Agriculture, food security and food production, preservation of farms & farmland 34

Habitat - wildlife protection, natural assets, natural habitat, riparian areas, parkland 32

Economy - industry, jobs, incomes and poverty, economic prosperity 16

Energy - energy costs, peak oil, fuel prices, fuel shortages, energy efficient buildings 13

Social - culture, social issues, sense of community 13

Alignment with the Vision The Discussion Guide set out the following vision:

Metro Vancouver will be a livable and sustainable region. It will be a region of well-designed, connected and diverse communities where people of all ages, incomes and origins can live, work and play in safety and comfort. The conservation of land, water and energy resources will drive regional decision-making. Valuable farmland and natural areas will be protected and enhanced. An affordable and efficient transportation system will support economic prosperity, healthy living and community well-being.

Approximately 75% of those who responded to the questionnaire reported that they felt that the vision statement set out in the Discussion Guide was consistent with their desired vision for the future. Those who did not share the same vision generally expressed concerns about the expected level of growth and the sustainability of accommodating this level of growth.

Support for the Goals When asked about their support for the five goals identified in the Discussion Guide, the majority of respondents indicated that they supported the goals. When asked if anything should be added to the five goals, a number of respondents indicated that there was the need for specific goals around how the region will manage future growth as well as specific goals related to transportation and GHG reductions. Some respondents also felt that there should be additional goals around food security and agricultural production. Additional Recommendations from Municipal Councils The City of Richmond, the Township of Langley, and the City of Surrey also included specific Council resolutions for consideration and follow-up by Metro Vancouver. This section outlines the resolutions and the specific actions taken by Metro Vancouver staff to date. City of Richmond The City of Richmond recommended that: • The Metro Vancouver Board be requested to establish a work program which clarifies all

of the steps required to prepare, review, and approve the Growth Management Strategy and Growth Management Strategy Implementation Program;

• Metro Vancouver staff be asked to (a) explore more fully several of the specific options set out in the Discussion Guide as noted in the City of Richmond staff report; (b) Report on

RD-47

Additional Feedback from the preliminary Public Consultation Process on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy Page 9 of 11 Land Use and Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008

their pros and cons; (c) Consult with municipalities on these options before proceeding with a draft Regional Growth Strategy.

• The three basic principle of food security, climate stability, and reduced ecological footprint be major considerations in the final draft of the new Regional Growth Management Strategy; and,

• The Metro Vancouver Board be requested to extend the deadline for submissions to March 31, 2008 for all municipalities and the general public and that a copy of the City’s resolutions be sent to member municipalities of Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver Staff Action In keeping with the directions received at the February meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, work has begun on the development of a preliminary draft Regional Growth Strategy. However, the feedback received from the City of Richmond and others will be taken into consideration as the strategy is developed including further exploration of the pros and cons of the different options identified in the City of Richmond report. Township of Langley The Township of Langley recommended that: • The Township of Langley portion of the Green Zone and agriculture lands be reviewed

and amended before completion of the Regional Growth Strategy; • The transit map be amended to indicate the following as transit corridors:

Fraser Highway from Willowbrook Town Centre to Aldergrove Highway No. 1 from Aldergrove to Gloucester 200th Street south of the Regional Town Centre to 32 Avenue 264 Street from Aldergrove to Gloucester That the designation of 200th Street north of Highway No. 1 over the Golden Ears

Bridge, to the Maple Ridge Town Centre and west connecting to the Evergreen Line be changed to “rapid transit corridor”, in harmony with the Provincial plans.

Metro Vancouver Staff Action All municipalities will have an opportunity to submit proposed amendments to their Green Zone boundary along with the appropriate justification as the new Regional Growth Strategy is developed. Transportation and transit -related considerations such as those outlined in the submission from the Township of Langley will require consultation with TransLink. City of Surrey The City of Surrey asked that staff arrange a workshop to discuss the concerns and comments contained in this report and other matters important to the City of Surrey in the preparation of a revised Regional Growth Strategy. Metro Vancouver Staff Action The initial phase of consultations involved a number of meetings with municipalities to discuss the directions being considered. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to be available to meet with municipalities at their request to discuss specific issues or concerns which they may have and to provide clarification. Next Steps The feedback received through the municipal review process and public consultation process to date has helped to shape the preliminary, incomplete draft Regional Growth Strategy which is before the Land Use and Transportation Committee for consideration and comment prior to developing a more complete draft. The draft strategy will continue to be refined until the

RD-48



Board is comfortable with releasing it for further municipal and public consultation. A final draft plan would be prepared based on that consultation. Figure 1 below provides an overview of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy review process:

The formal Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw adoption procedures set out in the Local Government Act are quite extensive. Following first and second reading of the bylaw, and a Public Hearing, the Board refers the bylaw to “affected local governments” for their acceptance, or non-acceptance with reasons, within 120 days. “Affected local governments” includes Metro Vancouver member municipalities, the adjacent Squamish-Lillooet and Fraser Valley Regional Districts and the TransLink Board. While affected local governments are required to respond within 120 days of the Board’s request for acceptance, non-acceptance may result in an extensive period to resolve the disagreement either through discussion or activation of the dispute resolution process set out in the Local Government Act. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Land Use and Transportation Committee may: 1. Receive this report for information. 2. Direct staff to undertake additional analysis in specific areas and report back on results. 4. CONCLUSION This preliminary consultation phase provided the opportunity for public discussion on the goals, strategies and possible implementation tools for Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. The feedback received through the initial public consultation process generally confirmed support for the goals and strategies that have been identified. In many cases, municipalities indicated that they needed more information on the details of implementation prior to selecting a preferred implementation option. Based on the feedback received to date, staff is developing a preliminary draft Regional Growth Strategy for consideration by the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Other municipal and public submissions are expected to be received and the emerging directions for the Regional Growth Strategy will be examined in light of the further comments. Attachments: (available at http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/submissions.html ) Attachment 1 – Municipal Submissions Attachment 2 – Written Submission – Feedback from the Public Attachment 3 – Results from the Questionnaire 004603012

RD-49

Attachments INDEX Attachment 1 Municipal Submissions Previously provided in hard copy to the Land Use and Transportation Committee now available at http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/submissions.html#Responses • City of Coquitlam • Corporation of Delta • City of Richmond • Township of Langley • City of New Westminster • District of North Vancouver • City of Surrey • City of Burnaby (forthcoming) • City of North Vancouver (forthcoming) Attachment 2 Feedback from the Public Previously provided in hard copy to the Land Use and Transportation Committee now available at http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/submissions.html#FeedbackPublic Metro Vancouver residents: • Suan Booiman • Brenda Berck • Karin Bernauer • Jack Becker • Ralf-Henry Nicolai • Sheila Pratt • Tristan Johnson • Max Wideman • David Mussallem • Betty and Klaus von Hardenberg Organizations/Other Levels of Government: • Tim Murray, Director IWC • Alan Firth, Madison Pacific Properties Inc. • Richard Desmarteau, BCLNA rep to Fraser Valley Regional District AAC • Derek Wilson, TRANSform Canada • Business Council of British Columbia • National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) • Vancouver Food Policy Council • Urban Development Institute (UDI) • Public Works and Government Services Canada • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority • Ron Antalek, Remax Ridge Meadows Realty

RD-50

Attachment 3 The Questionnaire Results The initial public consultation process included a questionnaire which was designed to gather feedback from the public on their perspective of some of the key issues and challenges to be addressed through the regional growth strategy as well as gather feedback on the general directions under consideration. The questionnaire was distributed at the public meetings and was available on-line through the Metro Vancouver website. 131 individuals completed the questionnaire. The following provides information on the feedback received. Identified “Top Three” Issues: Among those who responded to the request to identify their top issues, transportation was identified 85 times, housing 65 times, and growth related issues were identified 55 times. Less frequently mentioned were economy, energy, social well-being, health and governance. The most common environmental issue identified was around climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental protection. Protecting our natural assets was also frequently mentioned as well as concern about food production and farm land protection. Themes and key issues Responses Transportation - transit, traffic congestion, cycling, mode of transportation, goods movement 85

Housing - affordability, housing diversity, homelessness 65

Growth - growth management, sustainability, rate of development, location of development 55 Environment - Greenhouse gas, ecological footprint, climate change, air and water quality, environmental well-being 39

Agriculture- ALR, Agriculture, food security and food production, preservation of farms & farmland 34

Habitat - wildlife protection, natural assets, natural habitat, riparian areas, parkland 32

Economy - industry, jobs, incomes and poverty, economic prosperity 16 Energy - energy costs, peak oil, fuel prices, fuel shortages, energy efficient buildings 13

Social - culture, social issues, sense of community 13 Vision for the Region: Respondents were asked to indicate if the vision for Metro Vancouver which was set out in the Discussion Guide was consistent with their vision and/or to identify other areas which should be considered. Of those who responded Yes or No to this question, 75% reported that they felt that there was a reasonable degree of alignment between the proposed vision set out in the Discussion Guide and the types of vision that they would like to see. Most of those who replied “no” questioned whether accommodating growth is a foregone conclusion within the regional vision. Vision: Does Metro Vancouver vision stated in the guide match your personal

vision for the region Responses

Yes – additional emphasis on transportation (11) and environmental issues around habitat and farm protection (6) 75 No – growth management (12), most expresessed concern that growth should not be accommodated or supported. 23

Unclear – concerns about growth management (3), environment (3), social values (3), economy (3) 19

RD-51

and transportation (2)

Additional Goals : The Discussion Guide set out five (5) key goals for consideration as part of the public consultation process: 1. Accommodate growth in a sustainable, compact metropolitan structure. 2. Offer diverse and affordable housing choices. 3. Support and strengthen a diverse regional economy. 4. Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets. 5. Create a sustainable regional transportation system When asked if there were other goals which should be added, a number of respondents suggested that there should be additional goals added around how future growth will be managed as well as specific transit/transportation related goals. A number of respondents also suggested that there should be some additional goals related to climate change and the reduction in green house gas emissions. Agriculture including specific goals related to food security and food production were also identified. Some respondents also indicated that there should be specific goals or targets around issues related to housing affordability and homelessness. Goals and Strategies: Respondents were also asked if they had a preferred option in terms of the different strategies and approaches set out in the Discussion Guide. The following provides a general overview of the responses received: Goal 1 – Accommodate growth in a sustainable and compact metropolitan structure Strategy 1 Focus regional growth in centres and along transit corridors

Percents Percentage scale0 100

C. Designate regional and municipal town centres and transit corridor locations on a regional map and provide targets and guidelines. 76.0%

B. Identify the centres and transit corridor locations on a regional map and provide general guidelines. 15.5%

A. State general goals for municipalities to focus development in centres along transit corridors. 8.5%

Strategy 2 – Establish defined areas for urban growth Percents

Percentage scale

0 100

C. Designate urban, rural and Green Zone land uses on a regional map. 81.4%

B. Designate urban and Green Zone land uses on a regional map. 9.3%

A. State general goals for developing a compact metropolitan region. 9.2%

RD-52

Goal 2 – Diverse and affordable housing choices Strategy 3 – Increase housing supply and diversity, including the supply of housing for low and moderate income households Percents

Percentage scale0 100

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

62.8%

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

30.5%

A. State general goals to increase the total supply of housing and affordable housing units. 7.0%

Goal 3 – A strong and diverse economy Strategy 4 – Maintain as adequate supply of industrial lands to meet the needs of the regional economy Percents


C. Designate industrial land as a regional land use category with specific guidelines on permitted uses. 64.1%

B. Identify industrial lands of regional significance on a regional map. 24.2%

A. State a general goal of protecting industrial lands in the region. 11.7%

Strategy 5 – Facilitate the location of major commercial activities in centre locations Percents


C. Designate the major centres on a regional map and establish policies to encourage major commercial development in these locations as well as policies to discourage this development elsewhere.

66.1%

B. Designate the major commercial centres on a regional map and identify general development objectives for each location. 23.4%

A. State the general goal of attracting and accommodating major commercial activities in identified major commercial centres. 10.5%

Strategy 6 – Maintain the agricultural land base for food production through supportive land use and development policies Percents


C. Designate agricultural lands on a regional map and require municipalities to define policies to address the agricultural/urban interface. 82.4%

B. Designate agricultural lands on a regional map. 10.7%

A. State the general goal of protecting agricultural land. 6.9%

RD-53

Goal 4 – Protect and enhance the region’s natural assets Strategy 7 – Ensure the long-term protection of critical habitat areas, drinking watersheds, riparian areas, parks, recreation corridors forests and agricultural lands


B. Designate these components of a Green Zone on a regional map and provide a schedule of permitted uses for these lands. 84.0%

A. Designate these components of a Green Zone on a regional map. 16.0%

Strategy 8 – Ensure the protection and enhancement of ecological and recreational connectivity across the region Percents


B. Provide guidelines for integrating ecological values into land use development processes and identify the ecological and recreational greenways on a regional map.

90.7%

A. State the general goal of integrating ecological values into land use development processes and for the provision of ecological and recreational greenways in the region.

9.3%

Goal 5 – A sustainable regional transportation system Strategy 9 – Increase transit supply throughout the region and

promote walking and cycling Percents Percentage scale0 100

C. Identify a frequent transit network on a regional map, set targets for each sub region for increasing transit ridership, and increasing cycling and walking trips.

81.8%

B. Identify a transit network that provide frequent service on regional map and set targets for increasing the share of trips made by transit. 16.7%

A. State the general goal of increasing transit use throughout the region. 1.5% Strategy 10 – Advance a regional network of roads and highways

that prioritizes goods movement, transit operations and high-occupancy vehicles


C. Identify a regional roads and highways network on a regional map as well as provide guidelines for prioritizing users. 66.9%

B. Identify regional roads and highways network on a regional map and state general principles for prioritizing users. 20.7%

A. State the general goal to prioritize the movement of goods, transit and HOVs in the regional network of roads and highways. 12.4%

Strategy 11 – Manage transportation demand Percents Percentage scale0 100

B. Identify specific strategies for managing demand on the regional transportation network. 87.4%

A. State the general goal of managing demand on the regional 12.6%

RD-54

transportation network.

List of Potential Indicators: Respondents were also asked to identify other indicators or measures which they felt would help Metro Vancouver to measure our progress in achieving a region that is both livable and sustainable. The following table provides a summary of the range of responses received: Transportation - mode splits and targets, kilometres of roads & transit routes, transit capacity, transit standing-room use

Housing - measure homelessness, affordable housing stock, unit size & types, incomes required for housing, households paying 50% of income

Growth - mix use ratios for towns and centres, municipal permit approval times, densities, brownfield development rates

Environment - Indicators around GHG targets, air quality, water quality & consumption, ecological "footprint"

Agriculture- inclusions and exclusions in the ALR, production of farms (hobby farms), measure buffer zones around agriculture lands

Habitat - measure biodiversity, species counts, urban tree counts, "green" land measures

Economy - workplace densities, employment, capital spending

Energy -energy consumption

Social – measures of violence, education, arts & culture use and investment

Health – vehicle accidents, asthma, health near industrial uses

Quality of Life – some mention of new indicators around quality of life

RD-55

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

RD-56

Aboriginal Relations Committee Meeting Date: March 7, 2008 To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations Date: February 19, 2008 Subject: Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated February 19, 2008, titled “Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations”, for information. 1. PURPOSE To provide updates on treaty negotiations, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) activities, and Metro Vancouver’s involvement in Aboriginal relations. 2. CONTEXT a) Status of Treaty Negotiations across the Province There are 58 First Nations participating in the BC treaty process. Because some Nations negotiate at a common table, there are currently 48 sets of negotiations. There are 40 First Nations in Stage 4 (Agreement-in-Principle) negotiations and 8 First Nations in Stage 5 negotiations to finalize a treaty. Attachment 1 of this report provides a full table-by-table summary of the five sets of treaty negotiations in the Metro Vancouver region according to the British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC) and LMTAC updates. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement was ratified by the First Nation on July 25, 2007 and received Royal Assent by the Province on November 8, 2008. The Final Agreement was introduced into the House of Commons on December 6, 2007 for Federal government ratification. The Final Agreement is currently being considered by Federal government committees. The Maa-Nulth Nation Final Agreement is also currently before the Federal government for consideration and ratification. b) Brief Updates of Recent Aboriginal Affairs-Related Events and Other Information

Section E 3.1

RD-57

Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations Aboriginal Relations Committee – March 7, 2008 Page 2 of 6 BC Supreme Court Decision in the William’s Case On November 21, 2007, a BC Supreme Court decision found that Chief Roger William and the Xeni Gwet’in people (part of the larger Tsilhqot’in Tribe) succeeded in establishing their Aboriginal title to a significant portion of their traditional territory in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. This was the first decision regarding a claim for Aboriginal title in BC since the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Delgamuukw in 1997. The claim area was defined as Tachelach’ed (Brittany Triangle) and the Trapline Territory, totaling approximately 440,000 hectares. The Tsilhqot’in also sought declarations of Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap and to trade in animal skins and pelts. The declarations of Aboriginal title to the claim area and claim for damages for infringement were dismissed without prejudice to the Tsilhqot’in tribe’s claims in the future. The Tsilhqot’in people were found to have Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap and to trade to approximately 200,000 hectares (or 45% of the claimed area) but Justice David Vickers could not formally award Aboriginal title because the case put forward by the First Nation did not allow him to find for anything less than the entire parcel area claimed. In his 458-page ruling, Justice Vickers also found that: 1. British Columbia’s Forest Act does not apply within Aboriginal title lands. 2. British Columbia has infringed upon the Aboriginal rights and title of the Tsilhqot’in

people, and has no justification in doing so. 3. Canada’s Parliament has unacceptably denied and avoided its constitutional

responsibility to protect Aboriginal rights, pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

4. British Columbia has been violating Aboriginal title in an unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal fashion since it joined Canada in 1871.

Additional information on this ruling, based on information received by staff attending a legal seminar, can be found in Attachment 2 of this report. Aboriginal Rights Declaration Signed by 120 First Nations Leaders On November 30, 2007, the BC First Nations Leadership Council issued a media release conveying that over 120 First Nations leaders had met in North Vancouver to sign a declaration, entitled “All Our Relations”, affirming Aboriginal title to their respective territories, and the “inalienable, sovereign rights to self-determination.” The signatories also declared they would only continue with their treaty negotiations on “the basis of a full and complete recognition of the existence of our title and rights throughout our entire lands, waters, territories, and resources.” Jerry Lampert Appointed to the BC Treaty Commission by the Federal Government On December 5, 2007, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Chuck Strahl, announced the appointment of Jerry Lampert to the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC). Mr. Lampert retired recently from the Business Council of BC where he was the President and CEO since 1993. Mr. Lampert is currently joined by three other Commissioners: Robert Phillips, Jody Wilson, and Jack Weisgerber. The First Nations Summit appoints two commissioners and the federal and provincial governments appoint one each. BCTC is currently without a chief commissioner, who is appointed to a three-year term by agreement of the three parties. The four part-time commissioners serve two-year terms.

RD-58

Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations Aboriginal Relations Committee – March 7, 2008

Page 3 of 6 Statistics Canada’s Release of the 2006 Census on Canada’s Aboriginal Population On January 15, 2008, Statistics Canada released the results of the 2006 Census on Canada’s Aboriginal population, which now accounts for 1,172,790 people (or 3.8% of the nation’s population). In 1996, the Aboriginal population accounted for 799,010 people; 976,305 Aboriginals in 2001. The census counts the Aboriginal population who identify themselves as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, or who report themselves as being “Registered Indians”, or members of an Indian Band or First Nation. Fifty-four percent of Aboriginal people in Canada now live in urban areas, up from 50% in 1996. BC’s total of 196,075 Aboriginal people (representing 4.8% of the provincial population) is second to Ontario’s total of 242,495. Sixty percent of BC’s Aboriginal population lives in urban areas, with only 26 percent living on Indian Reserves. Overall, BC’s Aboriginal population has grown by 15 percent between 2001 and 2006, which is three times the rate of non-Aboriginal Canadians, and the second largest in Canada after Ontario. In general, the Aboriginal population has a median age of 28, whereas the average age of the non-Aboriginal population is 41 years. There are 40,310 Aboriginals living in Metro Vancouver (or 1.9% of the region’s population), the third largest Aboriginal population in Canadian urban centres behind Winnipeg (68,380) and Edmonton (52,100). A total of 7,550 Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people were living on Indian Reserves located within Metro Vancouver in 2006, an increase of 791 persons (or 11.7%) from 2001 (Attachment 3); only 2,880 of the region’s Aboriginals currently live on Indian Reserves (Attachment 4). 2008 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Election On January 23, 2008, LMTAC held its annual elections for Chair, Vice-Chair as well as membership on the Executive and its other sub-committees. Mayor Ralph Drew (from the Village of Belcarra and Metro Vancouver Board’s representative to LMTAC) was acclaimed to serve as LMTAC Chair for the sixth consecutive year. Councillor Corinne Lonsdale (District of Squamish), a member of LMTAC since its inception in 1994, was acclaimed as LMTAC Vice-Chair for a third year, and continues to serve as Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee. Treaty table representatives will continue to serve in their current positions until their three-year terms expire in January 2009. Additional information on LMTAC can be found on its web site: www.lmtac.bc.ca 2008 LMTAC Orientation On January 30, 2008, LMTAC held its annual orientation session for new and returning Committee members, the focus of which was on building intergovernmental relationships between local and First Nations governments. Over 60 participants attended this session, which featured a keynote presentation by the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on the New Relationship; a Lower Mainland case study including a joint presentation by Chief Leah George-Wilson (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) and Mayor Richard Walton (District of North Vancouver); and a workshop session with legal expert Donald Lidstone (Lidstone, Young and Anderson) on First Nation-local government service agreements. Kwikwetlem First Nation’s Community-to-Community Forum

RD-59

Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations Aboriginal Relations Committee – March 7, 2008 Page 4 of 6 On February 6, 2008, Kwikwetlem First Nation hosted a Community-to-Community Forum, with invitations to representatives from the City of Coquitlam, the City of Port Coquitlam, Metro Vancouver and senior governments. At the Forum, Kwikwetlem representatives provided information on the history and background of the First Nation and also discussed the following issues: Gateway Program, Translink, Coquitlam Dam, and the return of Sockeye Salmon to the Coquitlam Lake Reservoir. The First Nation also spoke to its intentions of applying to enter into the treaty process within the next few months “in order to preserve and further the band’s independence.” Provincial Throne Speech Initiatives Related to First Nations and the New Relationship, including a Common Treaty Table Approach On February 12, 2008, the province’s throne speech included the following new initiatives relating to First Nations and the New Relationship: • Support for “fast-tracked treaty negotiations at common tables”, as suggested by the BC

Treaty Commission and First Nations; • The pursuit of “incremental treaty agreements” to help First Nations benefit earlier in the

treaty-making process; • Aboriginal rights to harvest wood for domestic purposes on Crown land will be given new

statutory recognition; • New mechanisms will facilitate effective management of all parties in meaningful

consultation and help First Nations participate as equity partners in major economic development projects.

The common treaty tables approach (in reference to the first bullet above) had earlier received a $400,000 financial commitment by the BC Treaty Commission in late January 2008. The common tables process is in response to issues raised by the 60 First Nation signatories to the Unity Protocol in late 2006/early 2007. The Unity Protocol called for the creation of a common voice for negotiators to deal with six barriers to treaty signing that cannot be solved at individual treaty table negotiations. The six barriers identified in the Unity Protocol are: certainty, constitutional status of treaty lands, governance, taxation, resource and lands management, and fisheries. c) Recent LMTAC Activities Since the last progress report to the Board in November 2007, LMTAC (and or its staff) has, among other issues and initiatives, addressed or participated in the following endeavours: • Attended a Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ workshop on land management in

local communities, entitled “Opportunities and Challenges for First Nations – Municipal Government Relations”, held on December 6, 2007 in Nanaimo, BC.

• A meeting with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on January 11, 2008 (as a follow-up to an earlier meeting in September 2007) to discuss local government input and involvement in the province’s New Relationship initiatives with BC’s First Nations, including a proposal to expand the Memorandum of Understanding between the Province and the Union of BC Municipalities that establishes a role for local government in treaty negotiations, and the possibility of coordinating a forum in which the Minister could engage a broader local government audience in a dialogue on the New Relationship.

• Attended a legal seminar (January 11, 2008) hosted by the law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin regarding the BC Supreme Court decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. BC.

RD-60

Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations Aboriginal Relations Committee – March 7, 2008

Page 5 of 6 • Embarked on discussion, research and preparation of a paper on the topic of co-

management and related agreements involving First Nations. • Conducted elections at its inaugural 2008 Board meeting (January 23, 2008) and held

an orientation/refreshed session (January 30, 2008) for new and returning members of LMTAC.

d) Metro Vancouver Involvement in Aboriginal Relations Over the past several months, Metro Vancouver staff has, among other endeavours: • Hosted working group meetings (December 14, 2007 and February 1, 2008) with the

Tsawwassen First Nation regarding membership on the regional board, regional services, and water utilities.

• Hosted a meeting with the Kwikwetlem First Nation (November 20, 2007) to discuss Aboriginal interests in the Coquitlam Watershed. The outcome of this meeting was for the parties to produce a joint media release (issued on February 4, 2008 and included as Attachment 5 of this report) based on a tri-partite agreement between the Metro Vancouver, BC Hydro and Kwikwetlem First Nation on the return of sockeye salmon to the Coquitlam Lake Reservoir. As part of the agreement, Metro Vancouver and Kwikwetlem First Nation will be conducting a three-year study of lake ecology and water quality impacts of returning sockeye. The study has the full support of the Kwikwetlem Salmon Restoration Program Committee, a multi-stakeholder consultative committee initiated in 2003 by BC Hydro to determine the scientific feasibility of returning sockeye salmon above the dam.

• Attended a legal seminar (January 11, 2008) hosted by the law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin regarding the BC Supreme Court decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. BC.

• Attended the meeting between the LMTAC Executive and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (January 11, 2008).

3. ALTERNATIVES No alternatives presented. 4. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Board receive the report dated February 19, 2008, titled “Progress Report on Treaty Negotiations and Aboriginal Relations”, for information. Attachments: 1. Status of negotiations in the Metro Vancouver region by treaty table 2. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700 3. Census Population of the Metro Vancouver Region, 2001-2006 4. Indian Reserve Population in the Metro Vancouver Region, 2006 Census 5. Media Release: “Joint Program Plans to Return Sockeye Salmon to Coquitlam Lake

Reservoir” (February 4, 2008) 004604035

RD-61


RD-62

Attachment 1

Status of negotiations in the Metro Vancouver region by treaty table (Sources: LMTAC and the BC Treaty Commission)

The following is a description of the current status of treaty negotiations for each of the five tables in the Metro Vancouver region to February 15, 2008. Katzie (Stage 4 of 6 – Negotiation of an Agreement-in-Principle stage) Negotiation of an Agreement-in-Principle continues with the parties meeting two days each month. A tripartite progress assessment is planned in early 2008 following presentations by Katzie on their interests in fish, lands and governance. Over the past year, this table has made good progress in discussions on forest resources, migratory birds, wildlife, and other draft chapters. Katzie members number approximately 490 and traditionally used and occupied the land and water around Pitt Lake, Pitt River, Surrey, Langley, New Westminster, and Vancouver. Councillor Mel Kositsky (Township of Langley) is the LMTAC representative to the Katzie negotiations. Musqueam (Stage 4 of 6 – Negotiation of an Agreement-in-Principle stage) Agreement-in-Principle negotiations have proceeded slowly since the parties signed their Framework Agreement in April 2005, as the parties have been in litigation, and subsequent negotiations, over the disposal of four parcels of Crown lands in Musqueam’s traditional territory. In its most recent action, Musqueam Indian Band obtained an injunction over the disposal of Sinclair Centre and Burrard 401 in downtown Vancouver. Musqueam has achieved declarations of a Crown duty to consult and possibly accommodate its interests in all four of these court actions, and has also negotiated with the Federal Crown to determine the scope and content to the duty to consult and accommodate with respect to these lands. Musqueam Indian Band has approximately 1,080 members, with a traditional territory spanning the Metro Vancouver region. Councillor Jean Ferguson (District of West Vancouver) is the LMTAC representative to the Musqueam negotiations. Squamish (Stage 3 of 6 – Negotiation of a Framework Agreement stage) Squamish Nation continues to pursue opportunities outside the treaty process, including economic development, intergovernmental relations, and the recent First Nations Olympic Legacy Agreement between Squamish and Lil’Wat Nations with the Resort Municipality of Whistler; the First Nation has not been involved in treaty negotiations since 2000.

RD-63

Councillor Corinne Lonsdale (District of Squamish) is the LMTAC representative to the Squamish negotiations. Tsawwassen (Stage 5 of 6 – Negotiation of a Final Agreement stage) The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement was ratified by the community on July 25, 2007. The Province ratified the Final Agreement on November 8, 2007. The federal government must now also pass settlement legislation in order for all three parties to proceed with signing the treaty and establishing an Effective Date for treaty implementation. Tsawwassen comprises approximately 360 members and traditionally occupied and used the land and water around Pitt Lake and the Fraser River delta, Point Roberts, Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank, many adjacent smaller sloughs and drainage streams in the lower Fraser Valley and adjacent sea areas. Councillor Linda Barnes (City of Richmond) is the LMTAC representative to the Tsawwassen negotiations. Tsleil-Waututh (Burrard) (Stage 4 of 6 – Negotiation of an Agreement-in-Principle stage) The Tsleil-Waututh Nation is currently negotiating a substantial number of chapters in its Agreement-in-Principle, the most recent additions being culture and heritage and taxation. The table has increased its meeting frequency over the past few months and the parties have identified a detailed list of outstanding issues that will be discussed in negotiations over the coming months. Tsleil-Waututh Nation has approximately 440 members and with a traditional territory in and around North Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. Councillor Alan Nixon (District of North Vancouver) is the LMTAC representative to the Tsleil-Waututh negotiations. 004604038

RD-64

Attachment 2

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700

The following is a summary of the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700 (a.k.a. the “William Decision”) based on a briefing received at a legal seminar hosted by the law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin in Vancouver, BC on January 11, 2008. A full-text copy of the 473-page judgement can be found on the Internet using the following link: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/07/17/2007BCSC1700.pdf Context • On November 21, 2007, the British Columbia Supreme Court released Tsilhqot’in Nation

v. British Columbia 2007 BCSC 1700 (a.k.a. the “William Decision”). • The Xeni Gwet’in people sought declarations of Aboriginal title in part of the Cariboo-

Chilcotin region of BC, on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in people. The Claim area was defined as Tachelach’ed (Brittany Triangle) and the Trapline Territory in and around the remote Nemiah Valley, south and west of Williams Lake.

• This is the first decision regarding an extensive claim for Aboriginal title in Canada since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia in 1997.

• There were 339 days of trial starting in November 2002, stretching over 4½ years; Justice David Vickers’ decision is 473 pages in length.

• Chief Roger William, Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government, brought the claim forward on behalf of all members of the Tsilqot’in Nation which, as the Plaintiff in this case, is comprised of the following First Nations:

● Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah) ● Tl’esqox (Toosey) ● Tsi Del Del (Redstone) ● Tletinqox-t’in (Anahim) ● ?Esdilagh (Alexandria) ● Yunesit’in (Stone) • The Tsilhqot’in people (the six First Nations plus some members of the Ulkatcho Band at

Anahim Lake) have no single political body to represent their interests. • All but the Tlesqox (Toosey) Band are members of the Tsilhqot’in National Government. • The Tslesqox (Toosey) Band is a member of the Carrier/Tsilhqot’in Tribal Council. • At present there are approximately 3,000 Tsilhqot’in people, some living on Reserve and

some living off-Reserve. • The Tsilhqot’in people were “semi-nomadic” (this is a very important distinction in the

Aboriginal title findings by Justice Vickers). Claims by the Tsilhqot’in • Aboriginal Title: to the entirety of specific tracts of land – the Trapline Territory and the

Tachelach’ed (Brittany Triangle) Claim Area, which is included within but only represents approximately 10%-15% of what the Tsilhqot’in claim as its Traditional Territory. The Claim Area consisted of 440,000 hectares in the Nemiah Valley in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area of BC.

• Aboriginal Rights: Rights to hunt and trap birds and animals in the Claim Area for ceremonial and subsistence purposes and the right to trade pelts and skins in order to earn a moderate livelihood.

RD-65

• Damages: For infringements of Aboriginal Title. • Alternate Claim: Advanced only late in the argument and note pleaded; Aboriginal Title

to portions of the two tracts claimed. Aboriginal Title – Findings • Pleadings Issue: The Provincial and Federal governments would be prejudiced by the

alternate claim to smaller portions of the two tracts of land pled in the statement of claim. Claims as pleaded were all or nothing and the case was defended on that basis. Court accepted that if the Plaintiffs had pled title to smaller portions, it would have triggered a different approach by the Defendants (the Province) to the evidence in the course of the trial and, therefore, the Defendants were prejudiced.

• Test for Delgamuukw employed: (1) Pre-sovereignty Use and Occupation; (2) Exclusive Occupation; (3) Continuous Occupation.

• Proper Rights holder for both Aboriginal Title and Rights is the community of the Tsilhqot’in people, not the bands making up the Tsilhqot’in people.

• Pre-Sovereignty Use and Occupation: (1) Sovereignty at 1846; (2) There was insufficient evidence of use and occupation of the entirety of the Claim Area to establish Aboriginal Title.

• Exclusive Occupation: Tsilhqot’in people had exclusive control of those parts of the Claim Area that they used regularly.

• Continuous Occupation: Tsilhqot’in people continuously occupied the Claim Area. • Opinions: In a non-binding opinion, the Court concluded that: (1) there was sufficient

evidence for findings of Aboriginal Title to tracts of land that were not specifically pled; (2) some of the “Opinion” area was outside the Claim Area; (3) the provincial Forest Act does not apply to Aboriginal Title lands.

Aboriginal Rights – Findings • Rights Claimed and found to exist: (1) “right to hunt and trap birds and animals

throughout the Claim Area for the purposes of securing animals for work and transportation, food, clothing, shelter, mats, blankets and crafts, as well as for spiritual, ceremonial, and cultural uses”, including the right to catch wild horses; (2) right to trade in skins and pelts as a means of securing a moderate livelihood.”

• Infringement: (1) The destruction of wildlife habitat and the effect of wildlife diversity resulting from forest harvesting activities in the Claim Area were a prima facie infringement of the Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Rights. (2) The Courts also inferred that the land use planning process infringed Aboriginal Rights, stating that: “There is no single government agency that views sustainability through a broad lens, taking into account the values of the people affected by government decisions. Any model of sustainability that is driven solely by an economic engine is deficient if it is incapable of taking into account social values.”

• Justification: The infringement was not justified: (1) Without providing sufficient, credible information in order to assess the impact of the harvesting activities on the wildlife in the area, the activities would continue to be an unjustifiable infringement. (2) the Province had not acknowledged the Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Rights.

RD-66

Damages • Infringement of Aboriginal Title: The Tsilhqot’in claim for damages was based on

findings of Aboriginal Title and infringement. As a result of the trial judge’s dismissal of the Tsilhqot’in claim to title, the claims for damages were also dismissed, although without prejudice to a renewal of such claims.

• The Limitation Act would not apply to such claims, although it does apply to claims for infringement of Aboriginal Rights.

Implications: Aboriginal Title • The court, in the non-binding opinion, extended the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision

in R. v. Morris to conclude that Provincial legislation would not apply to Aboriginal Title lands where it infringed that title.

• Province cannot justify infringement of Aboriginal Title under the Sparrow analysis because the Province has no authority to infringe Aboriginal Title.

• Purchasers of land, without notice of claims, may or may not still hold title (Chippewas of Sarnia Band); however, under this analysis, the Land Title Act would no longer apply.

• Grant of fee simple title after Union was itself an infringement of Aboriginal Title. • Claims to infringement of Aboriginal Title could not be affected by the Limitation Act. • Pending proof of Aboriginal Title, the Province is still required to consult where

Aboriginal Title is asserted. Implications: Aboriginal Rights (re: Application of Provincial Laws) • The trial judge relied on R. v. Morris, although Morris dealt with treaty rights • Provincial laws could not extinguish Aboriginal rights; however, the provisions did not go

to the core of the Aboriginal rights, leaving the Province free to justify any infringement it may cause.

• The infringement was not justified: given the high bar for consultation, justification will be unlikely.

• Therefore, the impugned provisions of the Forest Act do not apply in the Claim Area to the extent of any infringement of Aboriginal rights.

• Claims for damages resulting from unjustified infringements are subject to the Limitation Act: the running of time for such claims is the date of the Sparrow decision (May 31, 1990).

Implications: Duty to Consult (Five Stages) • (1) Is there a duty to consult? The Province must consult where Aboriginal title is

asserted, or Aboriginal rights exist or are asserted and it contemplates conduct that may affect the right or title.

• (2) If so, what is its scope and content? Varies based on the strength of the claim or nature of existing right and seriousness of the impact. The Court’s findings raise the level of consultation necessary to satisfy the duty to consult such that the Province is required to provide detailed information of the impacts (including cumulative impacts) of its activities, and consultation requires an acknowledgement of rights.

• (3) Is it necessary to seek workable accommodation? Consultation will not always lead to accommodation, and accommodation may or may not result in agreement. If there is no adverse impact, then it is unlikely that accommodation will be necessary.

• (4) If so, what is reasonable accommodation? There is no prescribed form of accommodation: it flows from the consultation process.

RD-67

• (5) The Crown must make a decision. The decision is subject to review by the courts (a) whether consultation was reasonable; and/or (b) whether attempts to seek workable accommodation were adequate.

Implications: Access to Land for Development • In areas subject to Aboriginal title, all Provincial legislation dealing with land or use of

land which infringes Aboriginal title will not apply. • In areas subject to Aboriginal rights, all Provincial legislation which potentially affects

wildlife or fish (hunting, trapping, and fishing rights being most commonly claimed) likely infringes Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and is unlikely to be justified given the high bar set for consultation and, therefore, may be of no force and effect.

• Most licenses and permits to access lands and resources are Provincial. • Increases the importance of seeking Aboriginal agreement in advance of infringing

actions. Conclusions • The Court was very critical of the guidelines for forestry: “[1081] In this case the

provincial forestry guidelines failed to prevent an infringement. I conclude that if the current provincial forestry scheme applies to aboriginal title land, then its application to Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title land constitutes a prima facie infringement or denial of Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title triggering the need for justification.”

• The Court quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Adams: “In light of the Crown’s unique fiduciary obligations towards aboriginal peoples, Parliament may not simply adopt an unstructured discretionary administrative regime which risks infringing aboriginal rights in a substantial number of applications in the absence of some explicit guidance.”

• The Court also quoted from Haida: “It is open to governments to set up regulatory schemes to address the procedural requirements appropriate to different problems at different stages, thereby strengthening the reconciliation process and reducing recourse to the courts. As noted in R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R.101, at para. 54, the government “may not simply adopt an unstructured discretionary administrative regime which risks infringing aboriginal rights in a substantial number of applications in the absence of some explicit guidance.” It should be observed that, since October 2002, British Columbia has had a Provincial Policy for Consultation with First Nations to direct the terms of provincial ministries’ and agencies’ operational guidelines. Such a policy, while falling short of a regulatory scheme, may guard against unstructured discretion and provide a guide for decision-makers.

• Opinions on Aboriginal title, if accepted in subsequent judgments, create a de facto Reserve under the Indian Act for all Aboriginal title land (i.e. the Government of Canada would have to be one of the signatories to any agreement signed by the Province with First Nations).

• Ruling on consultation for Aboriginal rights, if accepted in subsequent judgments, require the Province to admit the existence of asserted rights as a requirement of consultation.

• Opinion on consultation with respect to Aboriginal title, if accepted in subsequent judgments requires the Province to consult with respect to asserted Aboriginal title even though it cannot justify infringement.

RD-68

Questions That Remain Outstanding • In light of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Adams, Haida and Taku, and

the decision in this case, why has the Province not adopted a policy or a regulatory procedure respecting consultation?

• How can the Province have a constitutional obligation to consult with First Nations in relation to asserted Aboriginal title if it has no constitutional authority to infringe Aboriginal title?

• How can the Province be obliged to admit the existence of asserted Aboriginal rights as part of the consultation process where the process itself admits of the potential of weak or non-existent claims where consultation is not required or notice may be sufficient?

• Where the Province has entered into an agreement with a First Nation over lands where Aboriginal title is asserted and then proven to exist, is the agreement valid without the agreement of Canada?

• Since there is no single entity representing the Tsilhqot’in people, who does the Province consult with in respect of claims of Aboriginal title or rights?

004604040

RD-69


RD-70

Attachment 3

Census Population of the Metro Vancouver Region, 2001-2006 Jurisdiction

2001Total

Population

2006Total

Population

Absolute Growth,

2001-2006

Percentage Absolute Growth,

2001-2006

2006 Aboriginal Population

2006 Aboriginal Population

as a Percentage of the 2006 Total Population

Anmore 1,344 1,785 441 32.8% 15 0.8%Belcarra 682 676 -6 -0.9% 20 2.9%Bowen Island 2,987 3,362 405 13.7% 130 3.9%Burnaby 193,954 202,799 8,845 4.6% 3,005 1.5%Coquitlam 112,890 114,565 1,675 1.5% 1,565 1.4%Delta 96,950 96,723 -227 -0.2% 1,700 1.8%Electoral Area ‘A’ 8,034 11,050 3,016 37.5% 55 0.5%Langley City 23,643 23,606 -37 -0.2% 850 3.6%Langley Township 86,896 93,726 6,830 7.9% 2,450 2.6%Lions Bay 1,379 1,328 -51 -3.7% 0 0.0%Maple Ridge 63,169 68,949 5,780 9.2% 1,870 2.7%New Westminster 54,656 58,549 3,893 7.1% 1,835 3.1%North Van. City 44,303 45,165 862 1.9% 925 2.0%North Van. District 82,310 82,562 252 0.3% 755 0.9%Pitt Meadows 14,670 15,623 953 6.5% 385 2.5%Port Coquitlam 51,257 52,687 1,430 2.8% 905 1.7%Port Moody 23,816 27,512 3,696 15.5% 470 1.7%Richmond 164,345 174,461 10,116 6.2% 1,275 0.7%Surrey 347,825 394,976 47,151 13.6% 7,630 1.9%Vancouver 545,671 578,041 32,370 5.9% 11,145 1.9%West Vancouver 41,421 42,131 710 1.7% 155 0.4%White Rock 18,250 18,755 505 2.8% 290 1.5%Katzie First Nation 301 332 31 10.3% 260 78.3%Kwantlen First Nation 64 63 -1 -1.6% 55 87.3%Kwikwetlem First Nation 20 29 9 45.0% N.A. N.A.Matsqui First Nation 417 426 9 2.2% 140 32.9%Musqueam Indian Band 1,310 1,376 66 5.0% 605 43.9%Semiahmoo First Nation 136 109 -27 -19.9% 55 50.5%Squamish Nation 2,834 3,136 302 10.7% 1,445 46.1%Tsawwassen First Nation 474 674 200 42.2% 200 29.7%Tsleil-Waututh Nation 1,203 1,405 202 16.8% N.A. N.A.METRO VANCOUVER Indian Reserves

1,987,1816,759

2,116,5817,550

129,400791

6.5%11.7%

40,3102,880

1.9%38.1%

004604042

RD-71

Attachment 4

Indian Reserve Population in the Metro Vancouver Region, 2006 Census (Sources: BC Stats, Province of British Columbia; Statistics Canada)

Indian Reserves In the Metro Vancouver Region (alphabetical order)

First Nation 2001Population

2006 Population

% Change in Population

(2001 to 2006)

2006Occupied

Private Dwellings

2006Land Area

(sq. km.)

2006Densities (Persons

per sq. km.)Barnston Island 3 Katzie 46 49 6.5% 17 0.58 84.3Burrard Inlet 3 Tsleil-Waututh 1,203 1,405 16.8% 699 1.09 1,292.2Capilano 5 Squamish 2,230 2,492 11.7% 1,242 1.70 1,470.2Coquitlam 1 Kwikwetlem 15 24 60.0% 14 0.01 1,764.7Coquitlam 2 Kwikwetlem 5 5 0.0% 5 0.77 6.5Graveyard 5 Katzie 0 0 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0Inlailawatash 4 Tsleil-Waututh 0 0 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0Inlailawatash 4A Tsleil-Waututh 0 0 0.0% 0 0.02 0.0Katzie 1 Katzie 224 246 9.8% 69 0.43 570.6Katzie 2 Katzie 31 37 19.4% 14 0.31 121.3Kitsilano 6 Squamish 0 0 0.0% 0 0.04 0.0Langley 5 Kwantlen 0 0 0.0% 0 1.34 0.0Matsqui 4 Matsqui 417 426 2.2% 245 0.23 1,814.3McMillan Island 6 Kwantlen 59 63 6.8% 20 1.78 35.4Mission 1 Squamish 550 569 3.5% 156 0.26 2,151.2Musqueam 2 Musqueam 1,305 1,371 5.1% 458 1.88 728.6Musqueam 4 Musqueam 5 5 0.0% 2 0.53 9.4Pitt Lake 4 Katzie 0 0 0.0% 0 2.18 0.0Sea Island 3 Musqueam 0 0 0.0% 0 0.06 0.0Semiahmoo Semiahmoo 136 109 -19.9% 58 1.34 81.3Seymour Creek 2 Squamish 54 75 38.9% 20 0.47 161.2Tsawwassen 0 Tsawwassen 474 674 42.2% 278 2.10 320.6Whonnock 1 Kwantlen 5 0 -100.0% 1 0.38 0.0TOTALS 6,759 7,550 11.7% 3,298 17.50 432.4 Total Number of Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver region (23) by First Nations (10): • Katzie (5) ● Qayqayt (0) • Kwantlen (3 of its 7 Indian Reserves) ● Semiahmoo (1) • Kwikwetlem (2) ● Squamish (4 of its 24 Indian Reserves) • Matsqui (1 of its 5 Indian Reserves) ● Tsawwassen (1) • Musqueam (3) ● Tsleil-Waututh (3) 004604046

RD-72

February 4, 2008

JOINT PROGRAM PLANS TO RETURN SOCKEYE SALMON TO COQUITLAM LAKE RESERVOIR

COQUITLAM: After an absence of nearly 100 years, sockeye salmon returned to the Coquitlam River in 2007. This follows the establishment of a program in 2003 to assess the feasibility of restoring sockeye above the dam. While there are still questions to be answered before a full-scale run can be re-established, work to address these is well underway. The return witnessed in 2007 has resulted in a renewed commitment among interested parties to re-establish Coquitlam sockeye. Water quality protection is a critical consideration in the overall feasibility analysis, and Metro Vancouver and Kwikwetlem First Nation will be conducting a three-year study of lake ecology and potential water quality impacts of returning sockeye. “We share the Kwikwetlem people’s commitment to a return of sockeye to those waters,” said Mayor Ralph Drew, a member of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors and the designated Board liaison to the Kwikwetlem First Nation. “All parties have agreed to spend the next three years carefully monitoring the ecology of the lake just to be sure there is no impact on drinking water quality.” Metro Vancouver’s Water Commissioner, Johnny Carline, commented: “We are very optimistic about the success of this project. Considerable scientific work has already been done, and the joint monitoring program is designed to ensure that the re-introduction of sockeye salmon into Coquitlam Lake will be compatible with Metro Vancouver’s objective of absolutely safe, good quality, drinking water.” “Kwikwetlem means red fish up the river,” said Kwikwetlem First Nation Councillor George Chaffee. “Our community is committed to a return of the sockeye. It is very meaningful to us, historically and culturally,” added Kwikwetlem Fisheries Resource Manager Glen Joe. The water quality study has the full support of the Kwikwetlem Salmon Restoration Program Committee; a multi-stakeholder Consultative Committee initiated in 2003 by BC Hydro to determine the scientific feasibility of returning sockeye salmon above the dam. This Committee has also been addressing other issues related to the sockeye’s return. To date the Coquitlam watershed feasibility studies have been funded by the BC Hydro Bridge Coastal Restoration Program, which funds projects to restore fish and wildlife populations and habitat in the coastal region impacted by Hydro’s generating facilities. Membership on the committee includes: Metro Vancouver, Kwikwetlem First Nation, BC Hydro, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, BC’s Ministry of Environment, Cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, and environmental groups, including Watershed Watch Salmon Society, North Fraser Salmon Assistance Program and the Maple Creek Streamkeepers.

RD-73

This joint approach demonstrates the interests of all parties towards ensuring the conservation of salmon species, restoration of a culturally important fish, maintenance of clean, safe drinking water, as well as maintaining the reservoir’s function as part of a hydro-electric system. BC Hydro Senior Vice President, Chris O’Riley commented: “We are very pleased that sockeye salmon returned. There are still many questions to be answered, but this is a major achievement and milestone and we are very pleased to be involved with all our partners in this program.” In 1914, Coquitlam Lake was enlarged by the construction of a dam on the Coquitlam River. Today, the reservoir is jointly managed by BC Hydro and Metro Vancouver. It is one of three protected sources of drinking water for Metro Vancouver’s 2.3 million residents, stores water for the generation of hydro-electricity and lies within the traditional territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation. The dam created an obstruction for salmon to return to their spawning and rearing habitat in the Coquitlam Watershed. Prior to 1914, sockeye salmon were indigenous to Coquitlam Lake and a component of the historic food fishery for the Kwikwetlem First Nation.

- 30 -

For information: Metro Vancouver: Bill Morrell Media Relations and Corporate Communications Phone: 604-451-6107 Cell: 604-788-2821 Email: [email protected] BC Hydro: Gillian Robinson Riddell Media Relations Corporate Affairs Phone: 604-623-4022 Email: [email protected] Kwikwetlem First Nation: Phone: 604-540-0680

RD-74

mailto:[email protected]

004604326


To: Board of Directors From: Environment Committee Date: March 13, 2008 Subject: International Eco-Municipality Conference Recommendation: That the Board authorize the conference registration fee for Director Richard Walton to attend the International Eco-Municipality Conference in Sweden in May 2008, and request Director Walton to report on the conference results to the Environment Committee. At its March 11, 2008 meeting, the Environment Committee received the attached request by Director Richard Walton on attendance at the International Eco-Municipality Conference held in Helsingborg, Sweden, May 27 – 29, 2008, and approved the above recommendation. Attachment: International Eco-Municipality Conference invitation and request

Section E 4.1

RD-75

RD-76

International Eco-m

unicipality ConferenceH

elsingborg Sw

edenM

ay 27-29 2008

The National Association of

Swedish Eco-M

unicipalitiesw

ww

.sekom.nu

RD-77

WelcomeW

elcome to Sw

eden and an historical meeting for the future

In June 2005, during some w

arm and sunny days, a group of com

mitted people gathered in

Madison, W

isconsin, USA to form

a network of eco-m

unicipalities in North Am

erica. We

were invited to speak about Sw

edish eco-municipalities and inspire our friends w

ho live on the other side of the Atlantic. Th

e conference ended up with a deeper com

mitm

ent to go further in our collaboration. M

y promise to the audience w

as to make an invitation for an

international meeting in Sw

eden where eco-m

unicipalities from different parts of the w

orld w

ould have the opportunity to meet, learn and be inspired by each other.

As chairman for the N

ational Association of Swedish Eco-M

unicipalities, I now have the

honour of welcom

ing you to Sweden for our first International Eco-M

unicipality Con-

ference on 27-29 May 2008. I am

especially happy to be able to host this conference in m

y hometow

n of Helsingborg, w

hich is a mem

ber of the National Association of Sw

edish Eco-M

unicipalities (Sekom) H

elsingborg is situated in the southern part of Sweden in the

county of Skåne where the Ö

resund, which flow

s between Sw

eden and Denm

ark and connects the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic O

cean, is very narrow.

We w

ant to extend a special invitation to representatives of the municipalities and com

mu-

nities in North Am

erica, Africa, Asia and Europe that have made form

al political decisions to w

ork for sustainable development as defined by the four system

conditions developed by Th

e Natural Step. W

e also invite representatives from national eco-m

unicipality networks

and people who are in alliance w

ith those networks as coordinators and developers in their

individual comm

unities.

By the end of our conference, I expect that all of us will have strengthened our identity as

eco-municipalities and that w

e jointly will have taken steps tow

ard closer international coo-peration. H

ow that w

ill happen and what roles w

e will play – that lies in all of our hands.

Please join us for an historical meeting for the future in the eco-m

unicipality of Helsing-

borg.

Lars ThunbergC

hairman for the N

ational Association of Swedish Eco-M

unicipalities

RD-78

ProgrammeTuesday M

ay 27W

ednesday May 28

Thursday May 29

09.00 amSTU

DY TO

UR

This time is open for those taking part in the

conference to join the Sustainable Sweden

Association tour group on the following visits

in Helsingborg

NSR LAN

DFILL

Local production of biogas and recycling of w

asteM

iljöverkstadenThe Environm

ental Education Centre

09.00 amFU

LL ASSEMBLY LECTU

RE

Introduction to the day

Presentations from participating countries

Incl. Coffee break

09.00 amFU

LL ASSEMBLY LECTU

RE

Word Café discussions

What´s the next step?

Incl. Coffee break

11.00 amREG

ISTRATION

12.00 amLU

NCH

12.00 amLU

NCH

12.00 amLU

NCH

AND

END

OF CO

NFEREN

CE

01.00 pmFU

LL ASSEMBLY LECTU

RE W

elcome to H

elsingborg and the first international Eco-m

unicipality conference!M

rs. Carin Wredström

, Mayor of the City

of Helsingborg

Mr. Lars Thunberg, Chairm

an of the National

Association of Swedish Eco-m

unicipalities

Strategic planning for a sustainable developm

entD

r. Karl-Henrik Robért, The N

atural Step

Eco-municipalities – from

a bumble-bee

to a global movem

entM

r. Torbjörn Lahti, The Natural Step

01.00 pmW

ORKSH

OP

Open space dialogue

Mutual learning for local sustainable

developement

Key factors for sucessfull cooperation

Incl. Coffee break

01.30 amSTU

DY TO

UR

This time is open for those taking part in the

conference to join the Sustainable Sweden

Association tour group on the following visits

in Helsingborg

Participation and cross-sector planning in residential areas

03.00 pmCO

FFEE BREAK05.30 pm

BUS TO

THE CITY CEN

TRE

03.30 pmFU

LL ASSEMBLY LECTU

RE

Building a sustainable Sweden

Mr. Andreas Carlgren, Environm

ent Minister of

Sweden (invited)

Aalborg Comm

itments – a tool for local

governments to address the challenges of

sustainable development

Mr. Peter W

enster, The Swedish Association of

Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR)

Fundamental H

uman N

eedsProf. M

anfred Max-N

eef, Chile

06.00 pmG

UID

ED TO

UR O

F HELSIN

GBO

RG

05.00 pmEN

D O

F DAY 1

07.30 pmD

INN

ER

07.00 pmD

INN

ER WITH

ENTERTAIN

MEN

T11.00 pm

DEPARTU

RE BUS TO

SUN

DSG

ÅRDEN

and end of day 2

RD-79

General infoRegistrationPlease use the online registration form

on the website w

ww.sekom

.nu or contact the Sekom

secreteriat. The last day to register for the

conference is March 31.

The registration desk at Sundsgården C

onference Center w

ill be open from

11:00 a.m. on Tuesday M

ay 27.

Conference feeTh

e Conference fee is SEK

3000*. It includes all meals during the

conference, as well as dinner on day 1 and day 2. Additional costs for

accomm

odations are listed below.

Accomm

odationAccom

modation at Sundsgården C

onference Center is pre-booked for

the conference participants. Please book your conference accomm

oda-tion w

hen you register for the conference on the website at

ww

w.sekom.nu.

Single room w

ith shower and toilet SEK

450/night/person D

ouble room w

ith shower and toilet SEK

300/night/personSingle room

with shared show

er and toilet SEK 250/night/person

*To determine your currency exchange rate see the X

E Universal

Currency C

onverter at: http://ww

w.xe.com/ucc/

Payment

Conference registration fee and accom

modation charges should be paid

by wire transfer to the Sekom

bank account by April 11, 2008. Please contact the custom

er service office of your bank to determ

ine its pro-cess for w

iring funds and any fees charged for that service. Also, please m

ake sure that you include your name and organizational or com

mu-

nity affiliation (if applicable) w

hen you make your paym

ent.

Föreningen Sveriges Ekokomm

uner (SEkom)

Bank giro account number 5184-2003

IBAN Bankaccount: SE59 8000 0845 2599 3360 1131

BIC: SW

EDSESS

Swedbank, S-105 34 Stockholm

Travel Information

Sundsgården Conference C

enter, ww

w.sundsgarden.se (only in Swe-

dish) is located 10 kilometres south of H

elsingborg in the southern part of Sw

eden. The nearest international airport is C

openhagen Inter-national Airport (K

astrup) in Denm

ark.

You can take the train directly from C

openhagen International Airport via M

almö, Sw

eden to Helsingborg C

entral Station. The trip w

ill take approxim

ately 1.5 hours. From H

elsingborg Central Station bus

number 219 (Yellow

Regional Bus) leaves for Sundsgården Conference

Center in the direction of “Landskrona” every 30 m

inutes.

For bus and train services, and trains from C

openhagen to Helsing-

borg, visit ww

w.skanetrafiken.se. Use the travel planner ”Reseplanera-

ren” for the time table.

For information about the C

ity of Helsingborg,

please visit ww

w.helsingborg.se

ContactTom

my Persson, C

oordinator, Sekom secreteriat

Sekom, Th

e National Association of Sw

edish Eco-municipalities

Miljökontoret, Th

e Environmental D

epartment

S-251 89 Helsingborg

Telephone +46 (0)42-10 73 19M

obile +46 (0)732-311 554E-m

ail [email protected]

Sustainable Sweden Eco-M

unicipality Study TourTh

e International Conference is also a part of the M

ay 2008 Sustaina-ble Sw

eden Eco-Municipality Study Tour.

See ww

w.sustainablesweden.se for inform

ation about the tour.

PLEASE NO

TE: If you are registered to participate in the 2008 Sus-

tainable Sweden Eco-M

unicipality Study Tour you do not have to do a separate conference registration, as the cost of the Tour includes regist-ration and accom

modation fees for participation in the conference.

RD-80

Environment Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2008

To: Environment Committee From: Brent Burton, Senior Project Engineer, Policy and Planning Department Date: January 31, 2008

Subject: Climate Change Visioning in Metropolitan Vancouver Recommendation: That the Board:

a) Approve partnership with the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of British Columbia in support of improving regional climate change visualisations and outcomes; and

b) Approve a grant in the amount of $25,000 in 2008, with similar grants to be brought forward for consideration in the 2009 and 2010 budgets, to the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of British Columbia in support of improving regional climate change visualisations and outcomes.

1. PURPOSE At its meeting of November 13, 2007, the Environment Committee directed staff to report on a partnering and financial arrangement with the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of British Columbia (UBC-CALP) for its consideration. The purpose of this arrangement would be to facilitate expanding existing relevant work on climate change visioning in Metropolitan Vancouver. 2. CONTEXT Climate change is a pressing global issue. As noted in a report to the Environment Committee dated September 11, 2007 titled “Metro Vancouver Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives,” an effective response to the challenge of climate change includes both actions to control the emission of greenhouse gases (i.e. mitigation) and actions to understand and prepare for climate change (i.e. adaptation). A variety of Metro Vancouver initiatives addressing both mitigation and adaptation are already underway. Dr. Stephen Sheppard and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia have been researching climate change impacts and response options for a number of years. They are currently completing a project, largely funded through a federal government program, that prototyped a new method to engage communities on local climate change impacts and response options by using modern visualisation techniques. They have very successfully integrated a wide range of experts and local stakeholders (over 120 community members in total engaged through previous workshops) into their project, focusing on impacts and options in the Corporation of Delta, but also considering the North Shore and possible impacts on drinking water supply. They have demonstrated scientifically that the process substantially increases community willingness to support climate change/ energy policies, through both mitigation and adaptation.

Section E 4.2

RD-81

Climate Change Visioning in Metropolitan Vancouver Page 2 of 3 Environment Committee Meeting Date: February 12, 2008

004603618

On November 13, 2007, the Environment Committee received a presentation from Dr. Sheppard titled “Climate Change Visioning in Metropolitan Vancouver”. At this meeting, he requested consideration of a funding and partnering arrangement with Metro Vancouver. The purpose of this arrangement would be to facilitate further visualisation and outreach work of direct regional interest. Dr. Sheppard was requested by the Environment Committee to provide a proposal for its consideration and staff was directed to coordinate this request. His proposal is attached and it outlines a flexible research arrangement with a request for partnership in conjunction with funding of $25,000 in 2008, with consideration of similar grants in 2009 and 2010. As the researchers are also seeking funding from a number of other sources, including the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), this proposed amount is estimated to be approximately ten percent of the total amount anticipated. A variety of proposed deliverables of direct interest to Metro Vancouver are outlined in the attached full proposal. In particular, these include:

• Further development of assessments (i.e. coastal areas in Delta and North Shore mountains) to reduce climate change / energy risk to utilities and communities;

• Access to the most recent information on climate / energy risks and mitigation, facilitating early integration of the latest scientific information and data (e.g. sea level rise, snowpack and greenhouse gas emissions);

• One or more workshops per year held in Metropolitan Vancouver, including partners and a wide range of community members, to disseminate and review findings and provide for knowledge transfer from the case study team.

3. ALTERNATIVES The Board could:

1) Approve both partnership with UBC-CALP and a grant in the amount of $25,000 for 2008, with consideration of similar grants in 2009 and 2010;

2) Approve partnership with UBC-CALP, but an alternative grant arrangement; 3) Approve partnership with UBC-CALP, but some other form of support (i.e. in-kind

support); or 4) Decide not to formally support UBC-CALP in this work at this time.

Option 1 is recommended. 4. CONCLUSION Researchers at the University of British Columbia have very successfully prototyped a new method to visualise climate change impacts. Although the geographic focus of their efforts has been on coastal areas in the Corporation of Delta, they have also completed some similar work on the North Shore mountains. They are seeking additional funding to complete research of interest to Metro Vancouver. Approval of this grant request is recommended. Attachment “Proposal for a Research and Capacity-Building Program to help achieve BC’s climate change targets”, January 31, 2008, Stephen Sheppard, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, University of British Columbia

RD-82

Proposal for a Research and Capacity-Building Program to help achieve BC’s climate change targets

TOWARD RESILIENT LOW-CARBON COMMUNITIES:

A climate change visioning process for community planning and outreach Rationale The BC Government has established aggressive targets for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission (33% reduction from 2007 levels by 2020, 80% by 2050) and identified priorities for adaptation to unavoidable climate change impacts. Metro Vancouver’s Air Quality Management Plan seeks to minimize Greater Vancouver’s contributions to climate change, and Metro Vancouver has signed the UBCM Climate Action Charter. However, GHG emissions are still rising and the population is growing. How will these challenging GHG reduction targets be met? At the same time, risks to infrastructure and communities are increasing as climate change worsens. How will the necessary changes be made to protect communities, without increasing carbon emissions or antagonizing local stakeholders? Scientific information on climate change often seems abstract and overly complex, and getting communities to change how they live and develop is very difficult. What if compelling visual media could be combined with scientific information and a participatory planning process, to build awareness and better inform tough decisions on climate change?

Summary of Proposed Outcomes for Metro Vancouver The aim of the proposed program would be to develop clearer guidance on the urgency and possible methods of transitioning from our increasingly vulnerable high-carbon communities to more resilient low-carbon communities, in order to meet GHG reduction targets (i.e. mitigation) and reduce, or adapt to, the impacts of climate change (i.e. adaptation). Consistent with its role, specific deliverables for Metro Vancouver include: • Further development of existing case studies in Metropolitan Vancouver (Delta and North Shore), to

address issues such as climate risks to utility infrastructure and options for recovery of clean energy under scenarios of climate change.

• Access to internationally-known researchers and modellers on climate risks and mitigation, facilitating early integration of the latest scientific information and data (e.g. sea level rise, snowpack and GHG emissions).

• Provision of visual data sets including visualisations of alternative adaptation and mitigation options in representative Lower Mainland neighbourhoods, for use in outreach, policy development, and decision-making.

• One or more workshop(s) per year in Metropolitan Vancouver, with significant partner and community engagement to disseminate and review findings, and develop guidance (knowledge transfer) from the case study team. (Previous workshops have engaged over 120 community members, with demonstrated change in willingness to support climate change policies

• Implications for regional policies and planning. Findings from the Local Climate Change Visioning Project to date UBC’s Local Climate Change Visioning Project in the Metro Vancouver region was set up in 2005 to help bridge the gap between global climate science and local action, through a new visioning process

Attachment

RD-83

which uses realistic imagery of alternative climate futures at the local community scale. The intent was to make climate change choices more explicit, in order to build awareness and capacity for policy and behaviour change. The prototype process draws on downscaled global climate models, other available modelling techniques, socio-economic scenarios, and GIS databases, as well as local knowledge and multi-disciplinary expertise through workshops with scientists, practitioners and community stakeholders. From these sources, maps, storylines, and 3D computer visualisations are produced at a scale that matters to decision-makers and the community: their neighbourhoods and backyards. The process generates pictures of alternative climate scenarios extending out to 2100, showing different levels of climate change impacts, adaptive responses, and GHG reductions. Case studies have been conducted in coastal Delta and on the Northshore mountains, in close coordination with the municipalities, Metro Vancouver, and various provincial and Federal agencies. In each community, the different adaptation and mitigation strategies are depicted in visioning packages that incorporate the best available science and precedents from other locations locally, nationally, and internationally. Evaluation results obtained from approximately 120 community members in Delta and North Vancouver and from Lower Mainland practitioners showed that: • the local visioning process increased awareness on the nature of local climate change impacts and

the range of response options available to the community – leaving people with a sense of the constructive actions that can be taken;

• the issue of climate change became more real and urgent to participants: for example, before the presentation, a majority of practitioners felt that serious climate change effects were 20 years away in the Lower Mainland, while after the presentation the majority felt the effects were serious now;

• the process altered community participants’ attitudes: willingness to support climate change policies (both mitigation and adaptation) was substantially increased; and

• people found the visualisations credible and helpful. Description of the Proposed Program The proposed research and knowledge transfer program would strengthen the ability of such Visioning Processes to help communities in Metro Vancouver and across BC in building public awareness and promoting actions to achieve provincial or local climate change targets. The goal is to bring these scenarios home to people and their municipal governments, through spatializing, localizing, and visualizing information on climate change, using virtual reality and computer mapping within larger educational and decision-making processes. Through the power of 3D visualisations, people could see for example, the effects on their community of unmitigated climate change (eg. sea-level rise, drought, increased fire risk) in their lifetime, or of “complete” resilient low-carbon communities with renewable energy, local food production, and sustainable technologies. The process allows communities to consider alternative scenarios based on assumed local and global conditions, such as a baseline “ Do Nothing” world where no effective action on climate change is taken, and various combinations/levels of adaptation and mitigation actions, including a “Deep Sustainability” world showing what a community matching the provincial GHG reduction targets might look like. These “worlds” or alternative measures for mitigation/adaptation are the outcome of modelling where available, and workshops that include municipal practitioners and community stakeholders in brainstorming plausible local strategies that fit the scenarios. In the proposed research, we would seek to improve the modelling base by integrating more spatial models from other researchers and practitioners, as well as developing new spatial carbon-modelling techniques from ongoing work at the Design Centre for Sustainability, in order to assist municipal and regional decision-making. The participatory process will remain an essential component given the scarcity and uncertainty of the modeling that is foreseeable in the near future. We also recognize the substantial need for a program to empower the communities themselves, and move such visioning techniques as quickly as possible beyond the universities and into local hands. The workplan would therefore include development of:

RD-84

1. 2-3 case studies as demonstration projects across BC, including a minimum of one in the Greater Vancouver region which builds on the substantial datasets and models already developed by the project team. This could focus on key locations or representative neighbourhoods, eg. the Northshore Mountains with issues of snowpack reduction, water supply, increasing natural hazards, and challenges of reducing carbon emissions in existing car-dependent residential areas. These case studies would help us learn how best to transfer knowledge, tools, and processes to practitioners/staff.

2. A guidance manual and tool-kit for communities to operationalize the visioning process and supporting outreach, providing templates for analysis and visualisation of adaptation and mitigation options (suited to varying levels of in-house capability).

3. Training and support programs for communities implementing these tools and participatory processes.

Specific deliverables would also include: • An annual workshop and report to demonstrate results to partners / sponsors / communities; • A website and DVDs that track and distill the findings and provide resources for communities

applying visioning processes; and • Recommendations on policy changes and planning procedures (eg. OCP requirements, Metro

Vancouver’s Sustainable Region Plan, Community Smart Plans, etc.), to operationalize visioning tools within larger processes and mainstream implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures.

As suggested in the Metro Vancouver November 13th Environment Committee meeting, other possibilities which might be explored (contingent on funding) include: presenting material to the public, Chambers of Commerce, etc. using CALP’s portable screens in the community; and developing a game-version with options to test out “what-if” choices.

Resources Available The Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) at UBC is one of a handful of internationally recognized centres of research in the use of visualisation and allied participatory techniques in land planning, sustainability, and climate change (www.calp.forestry.ubc.ca). CALP provides a highly-qualified team of visualisation, planning, and social science experts, with advanced technology including the well-known Landscape Immersion Lab. CALP is directed by Professor Stephen Sheppard, a leading researcher, author, and practitioner in landscape planning, with 25 years’ experience in planning, public perceptions of sustainability and visualisation of future environments. The project research team also includes Dr. Stewart Cohen (Environment Canada/Adjunct Professor, UBC), Dr. Alison Shaw (Post-Doctoral Fellow at UBC), visualisation experts, and several senior graduate students, supported by world-class BC researchers in climate modelling, impact/vulnerability assessment, sustainable energy systems, urban design, forestry, and socio-economics. This team has already engaged in innovative scholarly and applied research to develop and evaluate new tools for sustainable community visioning, through major research grants from the Federal GEOIDE network, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, and BC Government agencies (MOE and ILMB). CALP forms a part of UBC’s Design Centre for Sustainability within the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, which is associated with the successful Smart Growth on the Ground Initiative and innovative neighbourhood modelling tools used in advancing sustainable land use and community energy plans ( www.dcs.sala.ubc.ca ). The DCS has a large staff of designers, planners, and researchers who routinely conduct community planning charrettes and support extension activities. Dr. Sheppard also co-chairs one of the research clusters formed around the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS); this state-of-the-art green building and inter-university research programme, headed by Dr. John Robinson and located in Vancouver’s Sustainability Precinct at the Great Northern Way campus, includes a planned Decision Theatre which would operate as both a large-scale perception research lab and a forum for public interaction with 4D Visioning Systems ( http://www.cirs.ubc.ca/ ).

RD-85

Possible Collaborators/Partners and Resource Needs The above-named institutions are already in place as core partners in climate change-related research at UBC. We are now in discussions with various other core partners in developing outreach and guidance needs in BC and the Lower Mainland specifically, including the Climate Action Secretariat, BC Ministry of Community Services, BC Ministry of Advanced Education, Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Real Estate Foundation, the Fraser Basin Council, and Metro Vancouver. In addition, the program would need to work with a changing group of local partners drawn from municipalities and Districts, the alternative energy industry, green building sector, planning/sustainability consultants, NGOs, and local colleges. These partners would contribute to the development and evaluation of visioning material, review extension products for intended audiences, and explore opportunities to integrate study findings into emerging policy frameworks and planning procedures. Benefits to the partner organizations and communities would include:

• access to improved modelling, integrated datasets, and visualisation image sets; • template for community- or government-led studies; • a more informed and aware public; • accelerated capacity-building among key stakeholders, staff, and councils; • a stronger basis for decision-making on local/regional climate change issues, and • an improved chance of meeting climate change targets.

Partners are being invited to contribute data, staff time, other in-kind resources, and funding. This program would require from UBC a sustained commitment of senior research time, a project manager/coordinator, experienced graduate student involvement, and supporting expert and graphic production services. An application is being prepared for an NSERC Industrial Research Chair or CRD Grant, requiring a 50:50 match from other partners which would total at least $250,000/year over a minimum 3 year period. Metro Vancouver would play a key role in this study since it contains the best datasets in the province on greenhouse gasses and many other land use/transportation/climate issues, the study team has already developed comprehensive regional storylines and visioning material for Lower Mainland climate change scenarios as one of the main foci of the overall study, and the achievement of the provincial targets are likely to be substantially affected by Metropolitan Vancouver’s response. This project would be timely in contributing to emerging Metro Vancouver policies and plans scheduled for the next few years. Completion of the full project is anticipated to occur over a three-year time frame. At this time, it is suggested that a contribution of $25,000 or more per year in funding (approximately 10% of the minimum partner total required) might be appropriate for 2008, along with consideration of similar grants for 2009 and 2010. We would be happy to entertain enquiries or suggestions for this programme, via the following contacts:

Dr. Stephen R.J. Sheppard, Director, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, UBC [email protected]

Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning 2310-2424 Main Mall University of British Columbia

Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Ph: 604 822-6582 www.calp.forestry.ubc.ca

RD-86

Finance Committee Meeting Date: March 13, 2008

To: Finance Committee From: Greg Smith Manager Corporate Services Date: February 21, 2008 Subject: System Furniture and Tenant Improvement Reserve Funding Recommendation: That the Board approve the use of $925,000 from reserves to fund system furniture upgrades and tenant improvements within 4330 Kingsway and the neighboring building to the east, 5945 Kathleen Avenue, Burnaby, BC. 1. PURPOSE To release reserve funds necessary to implement the needed Corporate Office space reorganization, and to implement a sustainable furniture and construction program, allowing us to accommodate recent and expected growth within existing space. 2. CONTEXT During the last few years, a shortage of work space within 4330 has become an issue and has become a hindrance to working effectively. Late last year, decisions were taken to address these issues. Board approval was given to lease space within 5945 Kathleen. As well, the decision was made to transition into a more sustainable furniture option, commonly referred to as office system furniture. It is completely modular, reusable and enables more staff to work effectively within the same office “footprint”, in a sense the decision was made to densify our work space. We will substantially reduce the amount of “one time use” stud and drywall offices and move to reusable demountable walls and partitions. This will eventually eliminate almost all construction waste generated within Metro Vancouver Head Office. Implementation of these plans requires approximately 14 office moves of divisional work teams and two complete floors will require new demountable walls, furniture and tenant improvements. The estimated budget is $475,000 for the walls and furniture and $450,000 for the tenant improvements on two floors. We believe that it is appropriate that this initiative be funded through the Corporate Programs Reserve.

Section E 6.1

RD-87

Finance Committee – March 13, 2008 Page 2 of 2 System Furniture and Tenant Improvement Reserve Funding 3. ALTERNATIVES The Board may: a) approve the use of $925,000 from reserve funds to implement the above Head Office

moves and builds. This is the recommended option; or b) receive this report for information and take no further action. 4. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Board authorize the use of reserve funds totaling $925,000 for system furniture and tenant improvements. Doc. #004602791

RD-88

GVRD Board Meeting Date: March 28, 2008

To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Date: March 18, 2008 Subject: Name Change to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Board Recommendation: That the GVRD Board, on behalf of the sole shareholder of the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, resolve to change the name of the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” by approving and authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”), or Deputy CAO, to execute the Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Shareholder of Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (the “Company”) (attachment to the report dated March 18, 2008 and titled Name Change to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation). 1. PURPOSE To consider changing the Company’s name to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation”. 2. CONTEXT Background: At its July 27, 2007 meeting, the GVRD Board adopted the name “Metro Vancouver” and accepted a recommendation from the CAO to petition the Minister of Community Services for formal recognition of the name change through letters patent. Accordingly, the GVRD has adopted the name “Metro Vancouver” as a brand name. At its March 14 meeting, the GVHC Board decided to recommend changing the Company’s name to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” because the name change would better align the identity of the Company with its parent, “Metro Vancouver.” As well, replacement of the Company’s aging wood signage is planned to begin in 2008 and now is a timely opportunity to tie a name change into sign design. Legal Requirements: In order to change its name under the Business Corporations Act, the Company must alter its notice of articles by way of a special resolution passed by its shareholder, the GVRD. The Company has confirmed the availability of and reserved the name “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” with the BC Corporate Registry. 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board: (a) Keep the name Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation; or (b) Adopt “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” as a trade or brand name. As

indicated, above, the GVRD has adopted “Metro Vancouver” as a brand. The Company could similarly adopt Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation as its brand name and keep “Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation” as its legal name; or

Section E 7.1

RD-89

Name Change to Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation GVRD Board Meeting: March 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2

(c) Change the Company’s name to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation” by approving the attached unanimous consent resolution to alter the Company’s notice of articles. This is the recommended option.

4. CONCLUSION The GVRD operates under the brand name “Metro Vancouver” and intends to pursue having its name formally changed to include the words “Metro Vancouver.” Because the proposed name change would better align the identity of the Company with its parent, the Company’s Board recommends that the GVRD adopt the attached unanimous consent resolution to alter the Company’s notice of articles to change the Company’s name to “Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation”. Attachment: Unanimous Consent Resolution of the Shareholder of Greater Vancouver Housing

Corporation (the “Company”)

004605628

RD-90

UNANIMOUS CONSENT RESOLUTION OF THE SHAREHOLDER

OF

GREATER VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION (the “Company”)

in lieu of a general meeting The undersigned, being the sole shareholder of the Company entitled to vote at general meetings, hereby consents to and adopts in writing the following resolutions: RESOLVED THAT: 1. the name of the company be changed from “GREATER VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION” to “METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION” and that the first paragraph of the notice of articles of the Company be altered to read as follows:

“1. the name of the Company is “METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING CORPORATION”.

DATED as of ________, 2008


Per: ___________________________________

ATTACHMENT

RD-91


RD-92


To: Board of Directors From: Housing Committee Date: March 17, 2008 Subject: Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008 Recommendation: That the Board write to the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, Vancouver Foundation, and United Way to thank them for undertaking the count of homeless people, and to the Social Planning Research Council for engaging 670 volunteers in the process, in support of the Board’s objective to eliminate homelessness, and forward a copy of the letter to the Federal and Provincial ministers responsible for housing, and Metro Vancouver member municipalities. At its meeting on March 14, 2008 the Housing Committee received for information the report dated February 18, 2008, titled “Regional Homelessness Count 2008”. In reviewing the report, members of the Housing Committee wanted to express their appreciation by writing a letter to the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, Vancouver Foundation, United Way, and Social Planning and Research Council (SPARC). These organizations funded and organized the count, including the recruitment of the 670 volunteers who participated in the count. Members of the Housing Committee also recommended that a copy of their letter be forwarded to provincial and federal governments and member municipalities to draw their attention to the level of public interest and commitment around the issue of homelessness in our communities. Attachment Report dated February 18, 2008, titled “Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008” 004605503

Section E 7.2

RD-93

Housing Committee Meeting Date: March 14, 2008

To: Housing Committee From: Peter Greenwell, Coordinator, Regional Homelessness Secretariat Date: February 18, 2008 Subject: Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008 Recommendation: That the Housing Committee receive for information the report dated February 18, 2008, titled “Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008”. 1. PURPOSE To provide the Housing Committee with information on the 2008 regional homelessness count which will be conducted overnight on March 10 and during the daytime on March 11, 2008. 2. CONTEXT The 2008 regional homelessness count on March 10 and 11 is the third regional homelessness count to be undertaken by the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. The count is designed to provide up-dated information on the number of people who are homeless across Metro Vancouver as well as provide additional insight into the general socio-demographic profile of those who are homeless. The count is funded by the United Way, Vancouver Foundation and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. For the purposes of the 2008 count, a person who is homeless lacks a fixed, regular and/or adequate night time residence and would include persons who are in emergency shelters, safe houses and transition houses (including hotels used by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance). In addition, both Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health Authorities have also agreed to provide data on the numbers of individuals who are hospitalized and who have no fixed address on the night of the count. The count will be completed by teams of trained volunteers with the objective of having at least 500 volunteers (250 teams of two) to assist in both the daytime and night time components of the count. In addition, many service agencies that provide assistance to the homeless including emergency shelter providers as well as safe house and transition house operators will be asked to participate in the count on the night of March 10th. The count has been structured to include the sheltered homeless (individuals staying in emergency shelters) as well as the unsheltered homeless (individuals ‘sleeping rough’ on the street, in parks and ravines as well as in temporary and ad hoc arrangements). The unsheltered homeless will be identified through the day time count by the teams of volunteers who will be canvassing different areas where the homeless are known to congregate as well as through visiting different services and support programs such as meal programs, bottle depots, drop-in centres and other locations

ATTACHMENT

RD-94

Update on Regional Homelessness Count 2008 Page 2 of 2 Housing Committee Meeting Date: March 14, 2008

004595469

where homeless people have been known to gather. The daytime count will begin March 11th at 5:00 a.m. and conclude in the evening (around 10:00 p.m.). In order to gain an accurate picture of the needs across Metro Vancouver, the Homelessness Secretariat has been consulting with local steering committees, outreach workers, service organizations and others to develop a more complete picture of potential locations to be included in the count. We expect that preliminary findings will be available in early April and that a more detailed summary of the results will be available in July. In addition, this year representatives from community groups and municipalities in the Fraser Valley have undertaken to complete a similar count in their communities during the same time frame in order to gain a better understanding of the scope and nature of homelessness within the Lower Mainland. This represents an important opportunity for collaboration and will be the first time that this type of data is available.

3. ALTERNATIVES No items presented. 4. CONCLUSION All counts of people who are homeless are by their nature conservative estimates of the true extent of the problem. This will be the third regional homelessness count that the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness has completed with the last count being conducted in 2005. At the time of the last count, there were 2,174 individuals who were identified including a significant increase in the unsheltered population (those living on the streets or staying in temporary and ad hoc arrangements). While there are limitations to counts of this nature and the fact that a “point in time” survey will never be able to reflect the full extent of the problem, this research has helped to play an important role in raising awareness of the needs in our communities and in shaping the policy responses of senior levels of government. This research also has an important role to play in helping to identify emerging needs as well as helping to identify potential gaps in the continuum of services and supports at the local level.

RD-95

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

RD-96

Section E 8.1

004605764


To: Board of Directors From: Sustainable Region Initiative Committee Date: March 18, 2008 Subject: Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and

Outreach/Engagement Strategy Recommendation: That the Board receive the report dated March 13, 2008, titled ‘Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and Outreach/Engagement Strategy’ for information. 1. PURPOSE At the March 14, 2008 meeting of the Sustainable Region Initiative Committee the attached report was reviewed and the Committee recommended it be forwarded to Board for information. Attachment: Report dated March 13, 2008, titled ‘Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and Outreach/Engagement Strategy

RD-97

004605764

Committee Meeting Date: March 14, 2008

To: Sustainable Region Initiative Committee From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager Corporate Relations Bill Morrell, Corporate Communications and Media Relations Division Manager Date: March 13, 2008 Subject: Integrated Metro Vancouver Public Communication and

Outreach/Engagement Strategy Recommendation: That the Sustainable Region Initiative Committee endorse the attached Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy and forward to the Board for its information 1. PURPOSE To inform the committee of Metro Vancouver’s proposed strategy for communications, outreach, and public engagement in 2008. 2. CONTEXT Adoption of Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework provides the context for an overarching outreach and engagement strategy that is intended to inform about Metro Vancouver’s services, plans and role as advocate; consult with and seek out the views of citizens and businesses in regard to the establishment and achievement of priority objectives, and; influence behaviour change. Engagement of the region’s publics is considered a key contributor to the achievement of the Board’s objectives as established in the Sustainability Framework, and the proposed strategy provides the foundation for that engagement. Detailed implementation plans that refine the messaging and tactics best suited to each element of the strategy will be developed once the overarching strategy is confirmed. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Committee may: a) Endorse the proposed strategy and forward it to the Board for information; b) Provide direction to staff to modify the strategy 4. CONCLUSION Public engagement is a critical success factor in achieving Metro Vancouver’s goals and an overarching strategic approach helps illustrate how various streams of communications, outreach and education are integrated to advance the creation of a livable and sustainable region. Attachment: Presentation - Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy for Metro Vancouver

ATTACHMENT

RD-98

Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy

for Metro Vancouver

Presentation to SRI Committee

March 14, 2008

Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework

Serves to both define the organization’s three roles:

• Service delivery – ‘Sustainability in Action’

• Plans, policies and regulation – ‘Suite of Plans’

• Political leadership – ‘Collaborative Governance’

And to articulate how those roles are integrated in support of

the board’s key objective:

The creation of a livable and sustainable region

Effective engagement of the region’s diverse publics is critical to

achieving that goal

RD-99

Public Outreach and Communications Strategy

Metro Vancouver intends to engage the region’s many

audiences by way of a public outreach and communications

strategy so that:

The residents, businesses and communities of

Metro Vancouver gain a greater understanding

of the organization’s vision, roles and

responsibilities, the regional priorities identified

by the board for 2008, and, ways in which

citizens can take action in support of those

priorities

The Strategy

The strategy will:

• Inform publics about Metro Vancouver’s services, plans and

role as advocate,

• Consult with and seek out the views of citizens and

businesses in regard to the establishment and achievement

of priority objectives, and

• Influence behaviour change

RD-100

• An ongoing, proactive program of communications and

educational activities that articulates:

- what Metro Vancouver is and what it does;

- the organization’s vision for a livable and sustainable

region;

- the principles upon which that vision is based; and

- the actions proposed to achieve its goals

• Multi-faceted consultation and public engagement activities

that encourage input from a broad range of publics, and

• Targeted communications and social marketing programs

aimed at achieving specific actions

Key Elements

Who we are and what we do

Both existing and emerging communications and outreach

tools will be focused on increasing public awareness of and

support for Metro Vancouver’s vision, role and actions. Those

tools include:

• Proactive engagement of community and regional media

(including ethnic media)

• Enhancements to Metro Vancouver website content (in

addition to website redesign project currently nearing

completion)

• The Sustainable Region Television Show

RD-101

Who we are and what we do (continued)

• Attendance at key events (trade and consumer shows,

conferences, community events)

• Contributions to K-12 curriculum development and other

school-related activities such as teacher workshops

• Use of ‘new media’ mechanisms such as YouTube,

Facebook, blogs, RSS feeds, Podcasts, etc. to extend reach

• Collaboration with partner municipalities

Consultation and public engagement

Consultation and engagement activities span a broad range of

topics and processes. In 2008, those activities will include:

• Formal consultation meetings that seek public input to the

development of the Solid Waste Management Plan, the

Liquid Waste Management Plan, and the Regional Growth

Strategy

• Establishment of Technical/Community Committee (ZWC

social marketing) and Reference Panels (SWMP and LWMP

consultations)

• The Sustainability Community Breakfasts

RD-102

Consultation and public engagement (continued)

• Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues

• Sustainability Summit – next step in pulling together the

streams of input and determining if consensus positions are

emerging

• Educational partnerships (school districts, teachers

associations, Ministry of Education, e.g.)

• Web-mediated programs (on-line surveys, blogs/discussion

forums, e.g.)

• Advancement of the Sustainability Academies (a network of

combined visitor centres/public education facilities and

applied research centres)

Targeted communications and social marketing

Three outreach campaigns have been identified as priorities

for 2008.

• The Zero Waste Challenge (a key component of the

proposed SWMP)

• A Tap Water Campaign (tied to commissioning of the

Seymour-Capilano Water Filtration Plant)

• Urban Density (in relation to housing and regional

growth management)

RD-103

The Zero Waste Challenge

Core Concept: Garbage is a resource to be used, not

thrown away

• Engages citizens and businesses to both reaffirm

existing programs and introduce new and innovative

approaches to managing the region’s solid waste

• Social marketing approach will focus on changing

behaviours to increase the diversion of waste from

disposal

The Zero Waste Challenge (continued)

• Technical/Community Committee (community advocates,

stakeholders, elected officials, regional and municipal staff,

social marketers) will guide program development

• Pilot projects for multi-family residential and small business

to be implemented, assessed, adjusted and expanded

• Partnerships enhanced with RCBC and City Farmer

• TSR programming focused on solid waste management,

including output from dialogue series discussions

• Business Services Division programs

RD-104

Tap Water Campaign

Core concept: Metro Vancouver tap water is the best choice

• Commissioning of the Seymour-Capilano Water Filtration Plant

this fall provides a focal point for the campaign

• Campaign will build on public and media interest in the plant to

inform the public of the region’s high quality drinking water,

the disparity in cost between tap and bottled water, and the

detrimental environmental impact of discarding bottled water

containers in landfills

• Social marketing initiatives will be utilized to identify the

barriers and benefits of drinking tap water and promoting the

behaviour change needed

Urban Density

Core Concept: Increased density is an important tool in

meeting regional sustainability objectives

• Regional Growth Strategy consultation provides a

springboard to discuss the benefits and clarify points of

resistance to increasing density

• Connections between transportation, housing, density and

greenhouse gas reduction targets (as an example) will be

highlighted

RD-105

Urban Density (continued)

• Communications will inform publics of how density can

work to address growth management objectives in Metro

Vancouver

• Potential tactics include proactive media coverage,

workshop and conference attendance, demonstration and

pilot projects, and the development of a ‘tool kit’ for

planners and elected officials

Just as the Sustainability Framework integrates services, policy

and planning, and political leadership, so will the

communications and outreach strategy weave together various

streams of activity so that collectively we can achieve our

vision:

The highest quality of life embracing cultural vitality,

economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, all

nurtured in and by a beautiful and healthy natural

environment.

RD-106

004604895


To: Board of Directors From: Intergovernmental Committee Date: March 14, 2008 Subject: British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing Recommendation: That the Board:

a) Advise the Ministry of Economic Development and the Vancouver Economic Development Commission that Metro Vancouver will choose not to directly participate in the BC Canada Beijing Pavilion;

b) Approve the use of “Metro Vancouver” by the Taskforce on Regional Economic Development Opportunities (TREDO) for the purposes of the June 2008 mission to the BC Canada Beijing Pavilion and direct staff to work with TREDO on that mission; and

c) Direct staff to develop a policy on the use of “Metro Vancouver”. At its meeting on March 14, 2008, the Intergovernmental Committee reviewed the attached report dated March 5, 2008, titled British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing and revised recommendations a) and b) and added recommendation c) as noted above. Committee members gave approval for the use of the ‘Metro Vancouver’ name by the Taskforce on Regional Economic Development Opportunities (TREDO) and asked staff to assist TREDO in the development of the June 2008 mission to Beijing. The Committee also directed staff to develop a policy on the future use of the ‘Metro Vancouver’ name by other agencies. Attachment: Report dated March 5, 2008, titled British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing

Section E 9.1

RD-107

Attachment

004604993

Committee Meeting Date: March 13, 2008

To: Intergovernmental Committee From: Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Date: March 5, 2008 Subject: British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing Recommendation: That the Board:

a) Advise the Ministry of Economic Development and the Vancouver Economic Development Commission that Metro Vancouver will choose not to participate in the BC Canada Beijing Pavilion; and

b) Request the Vancouver Economic Development Commission refrain from characterizing the mission as representing ‘Metro Vancouver’, either by deleting that term from its promotional material or, if that is not practical, by making it absolutely clear that the use of the term refers only to the geographical area and does not imply any regional political authority.

1. PURPOSE To respond to the Intergovernmental Committee’s request for a response to correspondence concerning possible participation in the BC Canada Pavilion in Beijing. 2. CONTEXT The February 21, 2008 Intergovernmental Committee meeting received correspondence from the Community Relations Manager for the BC Olympic and Paralympics Winter Games Secretariat. Staff were requested to elaborate on the context of this communication and on the BC Canada Pavilion in Beijing. The BC Canada Pavilion in Beijing is intended to showcase the province's industry, culture and innovation for five months, before and during the 2008 Olympic Summer Games. The BC government, the Canadian government and the private sector are contributing funding. The Vancouver Economic Development Commission (VEDC) is leading a mission to Beijing June 9th and 10th, 2008. Participating Metro Vancouver municipalities include Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, City of North Vancouver, New Westminster and the District of North Vancouver. VEDC has secured financial support from Western Economic Diversification (WED) for administration, promotion, marketing and other materials. The participation fee for individual municipalities is $15,000.

RD-108

British Columbia (BC) Canada Pavilion in Beijing Intergovernmental Committee Meeting March 13, 2008 Page 2 of 2

004602779

The Ministry of Economic Development has suggested that this mission is an opportunity to profile Metro Vancouver. However, this suggestion has not been accompanied by any offer of funding support. Moreover, the focus of the mission is economic development, which so far has not been a function which Metro Vancouver has embraced. In this context, the VEDC has advised that their promotional material focuses on the term Metro Vancouver and it is the intention that the mission be perceived as representing Metro Vancouver. It appears the term will be left ambiguous so that the mission may be perceived as representing the geographical area or the political organization which represents the municipalities in that metropolitan area. The application to register “Metro Vancouver” is still pending with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO); however, the Greater Vancouver Regional District may be able to assert a trademark in the words “Metro Vancouver” based on common law. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option A: The Board may offer to assume symbolic leadership of the mission, under the Metro Vancouver banner. This would raise the profile of the organization and provide opportunities to explore a partnership with Beijing. However, it would imply Metro Vancouver is assuming a role in regional economic development and the offer to lead the mission may not be well received. Option B: The Board may decide not to participate and request the VECD refrain from characterizing the mission as representing ‘Metro Vancouver’, either by deleting that term from its promotional material or, if that is not practical, by making it absolutely clear that the use of the term refers only to the geographical area and does not imply any regional political authority. 4. CONCLUSION The BC Canada Beijing Pavilion presents a limited opportunity for Metro Vancouver to advance its international agenda. However, given the dissimilarity between Metro Vancouver and Beijing, it is staff’s opinion that Metro Vancouver would be better served by continuing to develop and define its international engagement strategy within the context of its membership in United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and its partnership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The use of Metro Vancouver in VEDC’s promotional materials may be construed as Metro Vancouver - the organization of 21 municipalities and not limited to its geographic reference. VEDC needs to commit to clarify this matter. Staff therefore recommend option B.

RD-109


RD-110


TO: Parks Committee FROM: Michelle Garvock, Property Division Manager Chris Plagnol, Deputy Corporate Secretary DATE: February 28, 2008 SUBJECT: Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park – GVRD Bylaw No. 1075, 2008 Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) Give leave to introduce “Greater Vancouver Regional District Disposition of Part of

Tynehead Regional Park Bylaw No. 1075, 2008” (the “Bylaw”) and that it be read a first, second and third time;

b) Direct staff to implement an alternative approval process to obtain elector approval for the

Bylaw pursuant section 797.5 of the Local Government Act; c) Establish the deadline for receiving elector responses as May 16, 2008; d) Establish elector response forms in the form attached; e) Determine that the total number of electors of the area to which the approval process

applies is 1,551,515; and f) Direct staff to report the results of the alternative elector approval process to the Board and

if approval has been obtained, bring the Bylaw forward for final reading and adoption by the Board.

1. PURPOSE

To obtain Board approval for the sale of a portion of two properties in Tynehead Regional Park located at the northwest corner of 96th Avenue and 176th Street in Surrey. If the Bylaw (Attachment A) is adopted, the lands will be dedicated as road for the Gateway Project widening of 176 Street (Highway 15) at the intersection with 96th Avenue. To provide additional information on land requirements for road and highway improvement projects affecting Tynehead Regional Park, as requested by the Committee in February.

Section G 1

RD-111

2. CONTEXT The Gateway Project requires land from two properties in Tynehead Regional Park for intersection improvements at 176 Street (Highway 15) and 96th Avenue in Surrey. The project requires a total of 2,566.9 square metres (0.63 acres) of park land and the demolition of one rental house. The Ministry of Transportation (MoT) requires the land be dedicated as road. The project also requires a small temporary license on 74 square metres (0.018 acres). MoT is obtaining an independent appraisal to be used in determining compensation to be paid to Metro Vancouver. This part of Tynehead Regional Park is not yet open to the public and contains no recreational facilities. The area has been altered by construction of a house and outbuildings many years ago. It is no longer in a natural state. MoT requires access to the property by May 31, 2008 to begin survey layout, clearing and grubbing. Compensation will be based on the principles provided for under the Expropriation Act. We expect that an agreement on compensation will be reached prior to the Board adopting the Bylaw. If the Bylaw receives first, second and third reading, the Corporate Secretary will complete the alternative approval process to obtain the approval of the electors and bring the Bylaw to the May GVRD Board meeting for final adoption. Staff will also bring the details on compensation for the proposed road dedication to the May Parks Committee and Board. A sample Elector Response Form and a report as to the determination of the total number of electors are attached as Attachments B and C. Provincial - Future Land Requirements From Tynehead Regional Park The Province of BC (MoT) is currently involved in an RFP for the design/build of interchange improvements at Highway 1 and 176th Street (Highway 15), which is expected to result in a request for land to be removed from Tynehead Regional Park within the next five years. The land requirements for this project will not be confirmed until the design is completed in the next few years. The project could require up to 2 hectares (5 acres) from the park, if a cloverleaf loop is located in the NE corner of the park as shown on the current publicly available reference concept plan (see Attachment D). The Province owns a parcel of land adjacent to the NE corner of Tynehead Regional Park. The Manager of Property Services for Provincial projects is receptive to the idea of a future land exchange of surplus MoT lands for the park lands required for future interchange improvements. MoT staff is not aware of any other MoT projects that will require land from Tynehead Regional Park.

RD-112

City of Surrey - Future Land Requirements From Tynehead Regional Park The City of Surrey will require approximately 2 hectares (5 acres) of land from Tynehead Regional Park in 2008 for their 96th Avenue widening project between 168th Avenue and 176th Avenue. This request will be coming forward in April or May 2008. Surrey expects to require up to an additional .8 hectares (2 acres) of land for the second phase of this project between 160th

Avenue and 168th Avenue in the next few years (See Attachment E for both Surrey projects). Compensation from Surrey may include land exchange of surplus land or road closures in addition to monetary compensation. Surrey staff is not aware of any other Surrey projects that will require land from Tynehead Regional Park. 3. ALTERNATIVES Option 1: Give first, second and third reading to the Bylaw authorizing the sale of the

land and direct staff to implement an alternative approval process. If elector approval was obtained staff would recommend that the GVRD Board adopt the Bylaw and dedicate the land as road. GVRD would receive compensation for the land. This is the recommended option.

Option 2: Decline to give the Bylaw first, second and third reading. MoT may be forced to expropriate the land required from the two properties or alter the intersection design at 176th Street and 96th Avenue.

4. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Board give the Bylaw first, second and third reading and direct staff to implement an alternative approval process. If elector approval is obtained and if the Bylaw is finally adopted, the GVRD can proceed with the dedication of the land as road. Attachment A GVRD Disposition of Part of Tynehead Regional Park Bylaw No. 1075, 2008 Attachment B Elector Response Form Attachment C Determination of total number of eligible electors – Alternative approval

process for GVRD Bylaw 1075, 2008 Attachment D Plan showing possible interchange design for Highway 1 and 176th St.

(Highway 15) Attachment E Plan showing land required by Surrey for 96th Avenue Widening

RD-113

Attachment A


BYLAW NO. 1075, 2008

A Bylaw to Authorize the Sale of Portions of Tynehead Regional Park

WHEREAS: A. Pursuant to Section 941.1 of the Local Government Act, the board of a regional district may, by bylaw, sell a regional park or portion thereof, provided it has obtained approval of the electors by alternative approval process; B. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is the registered owner of certain lands situated in Tynehead Regional Park in Surrey, British Columbia, being two parcels of land comprising 796.9 square metres (0.197 acres) and 1770 square metres (0.437 acres) respectively, and more particularly known and described as:

1. Parcel identifier: 009-200-355 Legal Description: A portion of Lot 10 except: firstly; part on Highway Plan 28296; secondly; part on SRW Plan 50683 Section 6 Township 9 New Westminster District Plan 24769 outlined in heavy black line on the plan provided by FCS Land Service reduced and attached hereto as Schedule “A”.

2. Parcel Identifier: 009-200-380

Legal Description: A portion of Lot 11 except; part on SRW Plan 50683 Section 6 Township 9 New Westminster District Plan 24769 outlined in heavy black line on the plan provided by FCS Land Service reduced and attached hereto as Schedule “B”.

(the “Lands”); C. The board has determined that the Lands are surplus to and not necessary for the operation and enjoyment of Tynehead Regional Park; D. The Board has obtained the approval of the electors by way of alternative approval process to sell the Lands; NOW THEREFORE the Board in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: 1. The Lands may be sold or exchanged for other land to be used for park purposes and the

sale of the Lands hereunder will have effect free of any dedication to the public for the purpose of a park.

2. This bylaw shall be cited as “Greater Vancouver Regional District Disposition of Part of

Tynehead Regional Park Bylaw No. 1075, 2008.”

RD-114

READ A FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD TIME this 28th day of March, 2008. RECONSIDERED, PASSED, AND FINALLY ADOPTED this day of , 2008.


Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

RD-115

RD-116

RD-117

ELECTOR RESPONSE FORM

Elector Response Form Page 1 004605447

The Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District proposes to adopt a bylaw (GVRD Bylaw 1075) to authorize the sale of portions of Tynehead Regional Park. The area to which this approval process applies is Electoral Area ‘A’; GVRD member municipalities as follows: City of Surrey, City of Richmond, Township of Langley, Corporation of Delta, City of Vancouver, City of White Rock, District of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, City of Coquitlam, District of Pitt Meadows, City of Langley, District of Maple Ridge, City of Port Moody, City of Burnaby, City of New Westminster, City of Port Coquitlam, District of West Vancouver, Village of Anmore, Village of Belcarra, Village of Lions Bay, Bowen Island Municipality; and the City of Abbotsford. For the purposes of signing this elector response form, the “elector” means a person who meets the qualifications of the Local Government Act for registration as a resident elector, or as a non-resident property elector, in the area described above.

I DECLARE: I am a Canadian citizen; I am or will be 18 years of age or older on May 16, 2008; I have been a resident of British Columbia for at least the last 6 months; I am not disqualified by the Local Government Act or any other enactment from voting in an election or otherwise

disqualified from voting in an election; I am entitled to vote, and have not previously voted in this Alternative Approval Process;

AND I have been resident of the area described above for at least the last 30 days.

OR I am NOT a resident of the area described above but I have been the registered owner of real property in the area

described above for at least the last 30 days. OR If there is more than one registered owner of the property, I am the person named in the written consent (see over)

as the person entitled to register as a non-resident property elector for the property described below. Property Address _________________________________________________________________

Address of Property in relation to which you are entitled to register as a Non-Resident Property Elector

AND By my signature, I hereby object to the approval of the sale of portions of Tynehead Regional Park (GVRD Bylaw 1075, 2008) Full Name _______________________________ _____________________________________ Surname First Name Residential Address_______________________________________ __________________________ Street Address Municipality Signature______________________________ Date ________________________

Please mail or deliver your completed form to: Metro Vancouver

Attention: Corporate Secretary 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5H 4G8

Responses must be received by the Corporate Secretary by no later than 4:00 p.m. on May 16, 2008

Elector response forms may not be submitted by email or facsimile.

Attachment B

RD-118

Elector Response Form Page 2 004605447

ELECTOR RESPONSE FORM (Continued from page 1) Complete this side of the form if there is more than one registered owner. Each registered owner must provide consent to the person registering as a Non-Resident Property Elector. The person designated as the Non-Resident Property Elector must be one of the owners of the property and must be one of the individuals granting consent.

WE, together with the person registering as a non-resident property elector, constitute a majority of registered owners of real property situated in the GVRD including Abbotsford, and hereby give consent to: _____________________________________________________________________ Surname, Given Name of Person Designated to be the Non-Resident Property Elector to be registered as the Non-Resident Property Elector for the jointly owned property described above. _____________________________________________________ ________________________________ Registered Owner’s Surname, Given Name Signature _________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Registered Owner’s Surname, Given Name Signature _________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Registered Owner’s Surname, Given Name Signature _________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Registered Owner’s Surname, Given Name Signature _________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Registered Owner’s Surname, Given Name Signature

RD-119

Attachment C

To: GVRD Board From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Date: January 22, 2008 Subject: Determination of Total Number of Eligible Electors – Alternative Approval Process

for GVRD Bylaw 1075, 2008 1. PURPOSE To establish the fair determination of the total number of electors of the municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, as well as Abbotsford for the purposes of an alternative approval process regarding the sale of portions of Tynehead Regional Park (GVRD Bylaw 1075, 2008).

Fair determination of electors in participating areas for a service is required for an alternative approval process pursuant to Section 797.5 of the Local Government Act and Section 86(4) of the Community Charter.

2. CONTEXT The participating areas for the service proposed by the bylaw are Electoral Area “A”, the member municipalities of the GVRD, and the City of Abbotsford.

Calculation of the number of electors in the participating areas was based on information provided by Elections BC. This public agency maintains an up to date voters list. According to Elections BC, the total number of registered electors in the participating areas, as of September 11, 2007, is 1,551,515. Ten percent (10%) of 1,551,515 is 155,152.

Approval of the electors by alternative approval process, pursuant to Section 86 of the Community Charter, is obtained if the number of elector responses received is less than 10% of the number of electors of the areas to which the approval process applies.

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented.

4. CONCLUSION The total number of electors for the participating areas is determined to be 1,551,515 based on information supplied by Elections BC. Therefore, approval of the electors for GVRD Bylaw 1075, 2008 is obtained if the number of elector responses received is less than 10% of the number of electors (or 155,152 electors).

RD-120

RD-121

ATTACHMENT E

RD-122

RD-123

RD-124

Corporate Secretary’s Department Tel. 604-432-6250 Fax. 604-451-6686

NOTICE OF MOTION

At the January 25, 2008 Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board of Directors, Director Anton requested that the following motion be considered as a Notice of Motion at the next regular board meeting:

"That the Board endorse the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement launched at the United Nations Climate Change Conference on December 12, 2007."

Attachment: A copy of the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement.

Section H 1

RD-125

RD-126

Corporate Secretary’s Department Tel. 604-432-6250 Fax. 604-451-6686

NOTICE OF MOTION

Director Trasolini provided the following Notice of Motion on February 11, 2008 for consideration at the next regular board meeting:

"That the Board of Directors confirms support for the rapid transit link from Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam Centre via Port Moody as part of the transportation corridor outlined in the growth strategy of the Liveable Region Strategic Plan."

Section H 2

RD-127


RD-128

Documents

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Regular Meeting · Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District ... Staff