Document Sample
AGENDA Powered By Docstoc
                            Municipal Members Meeting
                                 REGULAR MEETING

                                                   Friday, July 24, 2009
                                                               9:00 a.m.
                                               17th Floor Boardroom
                                    4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC

Chair:            Jim McIntyre, Coquitlam
Vice Chair:       Judy McLeod, Surrey

Municipal Members:
Rick Beauchamp, Lions Bay                         Lou Pelletier, Burnaby
Brian Bydwell, North Vancouver District           Jane Pickering, Maple Ridge
Howard Carley, Anmore                             Laura Lee Richard, Port Coquitlam
Terry Crowe, Richmond                             Michael Rosen, Belcarra
Christina DeMarco, Metro Vancouver                Tim Savoie, Port Moody
Tiffany Duzita, Tsawwassen                        Ramin Seifi, Langley Township
Beverly Grieve, New Westminster                   Jason Smith, Bowen Island
Kim Grout, Pitt Meadows                           Bob Sokol, West Vancouver
Ronda Howard, Vancouver                           Paul Stanton, White Rock
Jean Lamontagne, Surrey                           Richard White, North Vancouver City
Tom Leathem, Delta                                Greg Yeomans, TransLink
Gerald Minchuk, Langley City

              Please advise Manjit Sunner at 604-432-6369 if you are unable to attend.
                                NOTICE TO THE GVRD
                           TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

                                        9:00 a.m.
                                   Friday, July 24, 2009
                   17th Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C.



        1.1     July 24, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda
                Staff Recommendation:
                That the Technical Advisory Committee adopt the agenda for its regular
                meeting scheduled for July 24, 2009 as circulated.


        2.1     June 26, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes
                Staff Recommendation:
                That the Technical Advisory Committee adopt the minutes of its regular
                meeting held June 26, 2009 as circulated.

        No items presented.


        5.1     Summary and Outcomes of the Regional Growth Strategy Consultation
                Program Results
                Designated Speakers: Lee-Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner, Policy and
                Planning Department
                That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report
                dated July 14, 2009, titled “Summary and Outcomes of the Regional Growth
                Strategy Consultation Program Results”.

        5.2     Key Interim Lessons from the Metropolitan Growth Management
                Scenario Study
                Designated Speaker: Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner,
                Metro Vancouver
                That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report
                dated July 15, 2009“, titled “Key Interim Lessons from the Metropolitan
                Growth Management Scenario Study”.

July 16, 2009
        5.3    Housing Data Book
               That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report
               dated July 15, 2009, titled “Housing Data Book”.

        6.1    Regional Development Monthly Indicators – June 2009.

        No items presented.

        Friday, September 18, 2009 (Municipal & Associate Members).

        Staff Recommendation:
        That the Technical Advisory Committee conclude its regular meeting of July 24, 2009.




                        TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) held at
9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 26, 2009 in the 17th Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby,
British Columbia.

Chair, Jim McIntyre, City of Coquitlam
Vice Chair, Judy McLeod, City of Surrey
Paul Crawford, Township of Langley (alternate)
Terry Crowe, City of Richmond (arrived at 9:28 a.m.)
Christina DeMarco, Metro Vancouver
Kim Grout, City of Pitt Meadows
Susan Haid, District of North Vancouver (alternate)
Ronda Howard, City of Vancouver
Ed Kozak, City of Burnaby (alternate) (departed at 11:48 a.m.)
Laura Lee Richard, City of Port Coquitlam
Marcy Sangret, Corporation of Delta (alternate)
Tim Savoie, City of Port Moody
Suzanne Smith, North Vancouver City (alternate)
Greg Yeomans, TransLink

Gerald Minchuk, City of Langley
Rick Beauchamp, Village of Lions Bay
Howard Carley, Village of Anmore
Tiffany Duzita, Tsawwassen First Nation
Beverly Grieve, City of New Westminster
Jean Lamontagne, City of Surrey
Jane Pickering, District of Maple Ridge
Michael Rosen, Village of Belcarra
Jason Smith, Bowen Island Municipality
Bob Sokol, District of West Vancouver
Paul Stanton, City of White Rock

Jana Anderson, Recording Secretary

Note: Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Lions Bay and Tsawwassen are not included in the
calculation of quorum.

         Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                            held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 1 of 8


       1.1    June 26, 2009 Regular Meeting Agenda

              It was MOVED and SECONDED
              That the Technical Advisory Committee:
              a) amend the agenda of its regular meeting held June 26, 2009 by adding
                   Item 4.2, Suzanne Smith, City of North Vancouver, Planning for Climate
                   Action; and
              b) adopt the agenda as amended.


       2.1    May 29, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes

              It was MOVED and SECONDED
              That the Technical Advisory Committee:
              a) correct the minutes of its regular meeting held May 29, 2009 as follows:
                    i. on page 1, under “Members Present” add “Jennifer Little, City of Port
                   ii. on page 4, Item 5.3:
                        • first bullet, replace “Capital cost of plan” with “Cost of vision level
                        • second bullet, replace “for mileage” with “on fuel efficiency”
                        • fourth bullet, add “Mid level supplemental” before “plan”
                  iii. on page 5, Item 5.4, second paragraph, replace “transit corridors”
                       with “proposed frequent transit development corridors”; and
              b) adopt the minutes as corrected.

       No items presented.


       4.1    Phil Christie, Vice President of Real Estate, TransLink
              Phil Christie, Vice President of Real Estate, Translink, informed the
              Committee of the following:
              • TransLink is updating its 10 year plan (to 2010); this will include short
                  term and mid term direction and identified interest of communities along
                  transit corridors
              • TransLink is working with various municipalities on draft Municipal
                  Framework Agreements to explore opportunities for density at key
                  transportation nodes

9:28 a.m.
       Terry Crowe arrived at the meeting.

         Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                            held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 2 of 8

      •   TransLink has retained an architect to identify potential solutions to
          corridors which will follow with a workshop in fall 2009 and then TransLink
          will engage municipalities to obtain their feedback
      •   the Real Estate Division may influence various TransLink initiatives
          including capital spending and planning; strategic funding has been
          identified to establish joint ventures directly with municipalities

      Members were encouraged to engage the TransLink Real Estate Division as
      part of initial discussions to ensure integration of transit solutions in future

      Members provided the following comments:
      • ensure site specific issues are considered as part of the Transit Oriented
        Development (TOD) as well as the addition of services for improvements
        to high density stations
      • engage Coast Mountain Bus Company and the police as part of the
        dialogue on TOD
      • TransLink should work with more suburban municipalities on improving
        exchanges, mixed use opportunities for bus sites and consider providing
        a presentation on this to councils
      • strategically, the scale and context of transit needs will vary but it is
        important for investments, high capacity use and supporting land use
        plans to be integrated as this will support future investment
      • a key element toward creating high density urban areas is improved
        transit and bicycle service
      • it would be beneficial to engage school districts in planning discussions
        where densification could prevent school closures

      Request of Staff
      Staff was requested to circulate the presentation titled, “Planning &
      Development for Transit Infrastructure 7 the 10 year Plan” to the Technical
      Advisory Committee members.

4.2   Suzanne Smith, Planner, Community Development Department, City of
      North Vancouver Planning for Climate Action
      Suzanne Smith, Planner, Community Development Department, City of North
      Vancouver Planning for Climate Action, informed the Committee about the
           • 2002, the City of North Vancouver adopted a community plan which
               identified reduction targets for energy use and GHG emissions; a
               Local Action Plan was developed and the City became partners in the
               Climate Protection Program.
      • the Local Action Plan was created using data from completing an
           inventory, and setting targets using Climate Change and Ecosystem
           Impact (CCEI) results; the Plan is being implemented after which
           monitoring and amendments to it will occur
      • CCEI results from North Vancouver indicated:
               o 49% of emissions were from on road transportation
               o 48% from building
               o 3% from waste

  Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                     held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 3 of 8

           •   examples of other community action plans could be found at
               under the link, ‘PCP milestones for British Columbia’
           •   integration of transportation planning and land use planning as well as
               energy policies is important toward achieving the provincial GHG
               reduction targets

           Members provided the following comments:
           • data showing the relation of density toward measurable reductions in
             emissions would be valuable
           • municipalities held a workshop from which a foundation report on
             modelling for achieving targets was developed; preliminary report results
             indicate it would be difficult to achieve the provincial targets set
           • Metro Vancouver Air Quality Branch’s completed paper on achieving air
             quality emissions, intends to include targets in the Regional Growth
             Strategy, and is also working on district energy and potential gains in that
           • City of Vancouver is completing studies on building and district energy

           Request of Staff
           Staff was requested to post the report titled, “CEEI Report Review and
           Comparison to Metro Municipalities” dated June 2009 on the Technical
           Advisory Committee website.

           On-table document titled “Update on setting numerical GHG reduction
           targets” dated June 10, 2009 was distributed at the meeting and is retained
           with the June 26, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee agenda.

           Presentation material titled “Planning for Climate Action, Presentation to
           TAC” is retained with the June 26, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee


     5.1   Proposed Amendment to the Technical Advisory Committee Terms of
           Report dated May 15, 2009 from Christina DeMarco, Regional Development
           Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department, providing the Technical
           Advisory Committee (TAC) with proposed amendments to the TAC Terms of

           Concerns were expressed that should the proposed recommendation be
           passed, it would be potentially in opposition of the recently adopted RAAC

           It was MOVED and SECONDED
           That the Technical Advisory Committee recommends no further changes to
           its Terms of Reference.

       Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                          held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 4 of 8

5.2   Report on 2006 Census Bulleting #12 – Income and Shelter Costs
      Report dated May 18, 2009 from Lorraine Copas, Senior Planner, Policy and
      Planning Department, and Neil Spicer, Planning Data Analyst, Policy and
      Planning Department, providing the Technical Advisory Committee with
      information relating to the 2006 Census Bulletin #12 on income and shelter

      Members were informed that an electronic version of the housing data book
      would be made available on the Metro Vancouver website.

      It was MOVED and SECONDED
      That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report
      dated May 18, 2009, titled “Report on 2006 Census Bulletin #12 – Income
      and Shelter Costs”.

5.3   Update on Draft Regional Growth Strategy Process
      Report dated June 17, 2009 from Christina DeMarco, Regional Development
      Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department, and David Hocking,
      Division Manager, Corporate Relations Department, informing of the
      consultation process for the draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).

      David Hocking, Corporate Communications Division Manager, Corporate
      Relations Department, informed the Committee about the following:
         • 20 public consultations and two focus groups were completed on the
             Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
         • focus group participants were randomly selected to ensure a range of
             ages, gender and geographic representation
         • approximately 700 people attended the public meetings and 100
             attended the two focus groups
         • comments from other agencies including the Squamish-Lillooet
             Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, First Nations and
             Non Governmental organisations were received and would be
             incorporated; a revised draft will be developed and circulated to the
             Technical Advisory Committee and the Regional Administrators
             Advisory Committee in September 2009, and to local government
             following Board release
         • themes to organize public consultation included shaping the region,
             supporting a sustainable economy, and the regions’ environment
         • both public and focus groups were asked to comment on the vision,
             goals and guidelines for achieving the goals; approximately 20% of
             both groups chose “vision only”
         • Metro Vancouver, when requested, is currently meeting with individual
             municipal councils in a workshop format on the RGS

      Members provided the following comments:
        • implementation of the RGS is difficult to comment on; regionally
           defined boundaries are the hardest for the public to understand
        • implementation links back to the theme areas but most people have
           difficulty in translating how that relates to bylaws and policies

  Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                     held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 5 of 8

                 •   concern that during the consultations the delivery component of the
                     implementation options impacted how people voted
                 •   there was an explanation of the implications of option A and C but less
                     on the meaning of option B
                 •   the difference between guidelines and policies was not provided in the
                 •   concern regarding completion of the approval process before the end
                     of 2009 as some Councils will be away over the summer

             Request of Staff
             Staff was requested to provide an update on the following:
             • Regional Growth Strategy consultation process at the July 2009 TAC
                meeting; and
             • Related Board decisions and discussion from the June 26, 2009 meeting
                via email to TAC members.

             It was MOVED and SECONDED
             That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report
             dated June 17, 2009, titled “Update on Draft Regional Growth Strategy

      5.4    Update on Membership of Regional Transportation Targets Working
             Report dated June 18, 2009 from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner,
             Policy and Planning Department, regarding an update on membership of the
             Regional Transportation Targets Working Group.

             Members were informed that the Regional Transportation Targets Working
             Group would provide guidance to Metro Vancouver staff. Resources from
             municipal members would be minimal. One meeting will be held in July 2009
             with additional meetings scheduled in September and October 2009.
             Approximately 4-5 meetings would be scheduled in total in order to develop
             draft regional transportation targets.

             Members were asked to present additional nominations to Metro Vancouver

11:48 a.m.
       Ed Kozak departed the meeting.

      5.5    Waiving of Municipal Building Permit Fee for Participants of Metro
             Vancouver’s Wood Stove Exchange Program
             Report dated June 12, 2009 from Marian Kim, Senior Engineer, Policy and
             Planning Department, providing an update on the status of the waiving of
             municipal building permit fees for participants of Metro Vancouver’s Wood
             Stove Exchange Program.

         Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                            held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 6 of 8

    The Committee was informed of the following:
       • wood smoke emissions contribute to PM2.5 emissions and winter
          smog; there are potential health risks from improperly operated wood
          burning stoves
       • Metro Vancouver is proposing both a regulatory and non-regulatory
          process to reduce emissions
       • the Wood Stove Exchange program intends to reduce existing wood
          smoke pollution by replacing older stoves with newer technology that
          meet more stringent emission standards
       • Metro Vancouver received $58,000 in provincial funding, and is
          targeting 140 to 160 change-outs as well as working with program
          partners such as retailers, member municipalities and trade
       • fundamental requirements of the program include proof, a tracking
          mechanism and rebate process
       • average cost to residents per change-out ranges from $2,000-2,900
          and therefore member municipalities are being asked to waive
          building permit fees
       • homeowners could apply for up to $370 rebate through LiveSmart BC
       • existing compliance of wood stoves may be grandfathered if ban
          comes into place and would be under “burn curtailments”

    Members provided the following comments:
      • it would be beneficial to provide homeowners with examples of various
         additional funding sources
      • letters requesting waiving of building permit fee must be sent directly
         to Mayor and Council
      • concerns about providing incentives to convert to new wood-burning
         technology given that some residents in the region are advocating for
         a ban on residential wood burning

    Presentation material titled “Partnering in Metro Vancouver’s Wood Stove
    Exchange Program” is retained with the June 26, 2009 Technical Advisory
    Committee agenda.

    It was MOVED and SECONDED
    That the Technical Advisory Committee support Metro Vancouver’s Wood
    Stove Exchange Program by:
    a) Directing that municipalities be asked to consider the request to wave
        municipal building permit fees for residents who are installing a qualifying
        clean burning appliance under the Wood Stove Exchange Program, and
        providing Metro Vancouver staff with the appropriate contact information
        for their municipality, to whom this request can be forwarded; and
    b) Providing suggestions on how Metro Vancouver can further engage
        member municipalities as partners in this program.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                   held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 7 of 8


              It was MOVED and SECONDED
              That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the following
              6.1 Report to GVS&DD Board dated May 12, 2009, titled “Regional
                    Development Cost Charges for Affordable Housing”.
              6.2 Report to RAAC dated May 15, 2009, titled, “Technical Advisory Committee
                    Resolution Regarding Draft Regional Growth Strategy Process”.
              6.3 Official Community Plan Targets, Policies and Actions for GHG
                    Reduction Regional Workshops: Spring 2009, plan and delivery of these
                    regional workshops by Ministry of Community Development in
                    partnership with BC Hydro and the Fraser Basin Council.
              6.4 TAC Social Issues Subcommittee February 25, 2009 Meeting Minutes.
              6.5 TAC Social Issues Subcommittee March 25, 2009 Meeting Minutes.
              6.6 TAC Housing Subcommittee January 29, 2009 Meeting Minutes.
              6.7 Regional Development Monthly Indicators – April 2009.
              6.8 Resolution B136 – Unbundled Parking Requirement: Provincial
                    Responses to LMLGA 2008 Endorsed Resolutions, correspondence
                    from Councillor Corinne, LMLGA President to LMLGA Members, dated
                    April 27, 2009.
              6.9 Carbon Neutral Workbook v 12. Draft document offers interim guidance
                    in advance of a final decision on the boundaries for corporate carbon
                    neutrality. Document being presented to LMLGA on June 9, 2009.
                    Please contact Tatiana Robertson if you have any questions
              6.10 Ecological Health Plan June 24, 2009 Workshop Invitation.
              6.11 Regional Development Monthly Indicators - May 2009.

       No items presented.

       The next meeting is scheduled for July 24, 2009.


       It was MOVED and SECONDED
       That the Technical Advisory Committee conclude its regular meeting of June 26, 2009.

                                                                       (Time: 12:05 p.m.)

_____________________________                     __________________________
Jana Anderson,                                    Jim McIntyre, Chair
Recording Secretary

004946858 FINAL

         Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
                                            held on Friday, June 26, 2009  Page 8 of 8




                                 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009

To:        Technical Advisory Committee

From:      Lee-Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department

Date:      July 14, 2009

Subject:   Summary and Outcomes of the Regional Growth Strategy Consultation


That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report dated July 14, 2009,
titled “Summary and Outcomes of the Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Process.”

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the outcomes of the public
consultation process for the Regional Growth Strategy, highlight some of the key issues
emerging from the process, and to identify the next steps in the process for completing the
Regional Growth Strategy.

In April and May, 2009 Metro Vancouver undertook a public consultation program to receive
feedback on the draft Regional Growth Strategy, titled Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our
future.” At its May 29, 2009 meeting, the committee received an interim update of the
consultation process, including a revised timetable for completing a new draft Regional
Growth Strategy. At its June 26, 2009 meeting, the committee received a presentation from
staff that outlined the consultation activities and the results of the voting that was done as
part of the consultation.

At its July 10, 2009 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee received the attached report,
which summarized the input received during the consultation process. They also received a
second report which transmitted the submissions. For the committee’s information, the
summaries of the submissions are attached to this report. These summaries are organized
into three categories: summary of municipal comments; summary of submissions from
groups, organizations and agencies; and a summary of the written feedback received from
the public at the public meetings. The complete set of submissions can be accessed on
Metro Vancouver’s website at:

As stated in the July 10, 2009 Regional Planning Committee report, there were three main
themes that emerged during the consultation process:

1. Urban Containment Boundary/Agriculture/Rural
There was broad support for the Urban Containment Boundary concept and the need to
protect agricultural land at the regional level. While also supporting the concepts in
principle, some municipalities noted concerns with the amendment process for lands within
the Agriculture area, which require both Agricultural Land Commission review and Metro

Summary and Outcomes of the Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Process
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 2 of 2

Vancouver Board review. There was support for the Rural designation as long as
municipalities could determine the nature of rural residential development.

2. Employment Distribution Policies
The public supported the protection of industrial lands for industrial purposes, and supported
policies to direct commercial uses to Urban Centres, and discourage major commercial uses
outside of Centres. However, these policies raised the most objections from municipal
members (see attached report and summaries for more details). While many agreed with
the need to protect industrial lands, they did not agree on the implementation mechanism.

3. Plan Implementation
The public was asked about the level of support for three options on plan implementation,
with the options ranging from a vision and goals-only plan, to a more regulatory plan with
regionally defined boundaries. The majority of the public (about 80%) indicated support for
a plan that went beyond vision and goals only. Municipal submissions conveyed concerns
about the regulatory nature of the draft strategy, the requirements for Regional Context
Statements, and the amending formulas for changing land uses.

Staff has been meeting with municipalities to discuss these items as well as the other items
identified in the municipal submissions. Following Board instructions, a letter was sent to
municipalities advising them of the revised timetable for the Regional Growth Strategy as
well as advising that Metro Vancouver staff were available to meet with municipal councils
and senior staff to continue to discuss the regional plan. Metro Vancouver staff has met
with several municipalities and will continue to meet upon request.

Staff is working on a revised draft Regional Growth Strategy that will address the issues
identified above, as well as many other additional issues raised in municipal submissions,
government and by the public. Staff will bring a new draft forward to TAC and the Regional
Administrator’s Advisory Committee at their meetings in September, 2009, and it will
subsequently be forwarded to the Regional Planning Committee.

None presented.

This report transmits the results of the consultation process for the Regional Growth
Strategy and includes summaries of all of the comments received during the process. It
also advises the committee on the next steps in the process to create a new draft strategy,
which includes ongoing meetings with municipalities. It is anticipated that a new draft
Regional Growth Strategy will be available in the fall, 2009.

1. Report to the July 10, 2009 Regional Planning Committee titled “Regional Growth
   Strategy Consultation Program Results” dated June 30, 2009 (eRIM doc. #004942675,
2. Municipal Submission Summary, Public Comments Summary and Groups,
   Organizations and Agencies Summary (eRIM doc. # 004947172)

                                                                        5.1 ATTACHMENT 1

                                  Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009

To:        Regional Planning Committee

From:      Christina DeMarco, Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department
           David Hocking, Division Manager, Corporate Relations

Date:      June 30, 2009

Subject:   Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results


That the Board receive for information the report dated June 30, 2009, titled “Regional
Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results”.


This report summarizes the consultation program and the input received on the Regional
Growth Strategy.


In February 2009, the Board released the Draft Regional Growth Strategy for public
consultation. The Board requested that municipalities provide initial comments by April 8,
2009 and final comments by May 22, 2009. The public component of the process began on
April 15, 2009 and finished by the end of May. Throughout April, May, June and July Metro
Vancouver staff has had meetings with member municipal councils to discuss and resolve
issues raised by those municipalities. If additional correspondence or submissions are
received, staff will forward them to future committee meetings and continue to post them on
the website.

At its June 4, 2009 Regional Planning Committee meeting, the committee received a report
and presentation on preliminary outcomes of the public consultation process. The
committee endorsed a recommendation for a report on the results of the public and
municipal consultation, as well as an amended timetable for providing a new Regional
Growth Strategy, and this recommendation was adopted by the Board at its June 26, 2009

This report provides a summary of the activities undertaken for the consultation program,
and an overview of the main themes. A separate report on the July Regional Planning
Committee agenda provides all of the submissions, comments and notes collected during
the consultation program. All materials are available on the Regional Growth Strategy

Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
Page 2 of 9

2.1    Overview of the Public Consultation Process
The objectives of the consultation and communication program were to:
•      Foster public understanding of the purpose of a regional growth strategy and
       demonstrate how Metro Vancouver 2040 fits within Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability
•      Discuss key regional policies and seek public comment.

 A number of consultation activities were undertaken, including public meetings, and
outreach to stakeholders, First Nations, municipalities and other “affected local

Weekly consultation updates were distributed through existing Corporate Relations
databases. External list serves for professional associations and organizations with an
interest in planning issues as well as environmental and sustainability blogs were updated
weekly. Event information emails were also forwarded to various community associations,
business and special interest groups.

Public meetings
Twenty meetings for members of the public were organized. These included eight evening
meetings held sub-regionally and three evening meetings at the request of individual
municipalities, four regional forums, three breakfast meetings and two focus groups.

Meeting Locations (and Geographic Area Represented)              Date        Participants
Evening Meeting Vancouver (Vancouver)                             April 22        38
Regional Forum Surrey (Surrey/Delta/White Rock)                   April 23       47
Evening Meeting Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows)            April 29        70
Regional Forum Burnaby (Burnaby/New Westminster)                  April 30       19
Evening Meeting White Rock (White Rock)                           May 5           4
Breakfast Meeting Vancouver (Vancouver)                           May 6          69
Evening Meeting Burnaby (Burnaby/New Westminster)                 May 7          12
Breakfast Meeting North Vancouver (North Shore)                   May 13          11
Evening Meeting Langley (Langley City and Township)               May 13          22
Evening Meeting Richmond (Richmond)                               May 14          14
Evening Meeting Surrey (Surrey/Delta/White Rock)                  May 19          9
Regional Forum Vancouver (Vancouver)                              May 20         126
Evening Meeting North Vancouver (North Shore)                     May 20          10
Evening Meeting Port Coquitlam (Northeast)                        May 21          48
Focus Group (all areas represented)                               May 25         49
Focus Group (all areas represented)                               May 26         48
Evening Meeting Township of Langley (Township of Langley)         May 26         16
Breakfast Meeting Surrey (Surrey/Delta/White Rock)                May 27         16
Regional Forum West Vancouver (North Shore)                       May 27         35
Evening Meeting District of North Vancouver (District of North
                                                                 May 28           12

In addition to these meetings, New Westminster and Delta hosted their own public meetings.

                                           Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
                                             Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
                                                                                         Page 3 of 9

Evening Meetings
The format for the eight sub-regional meetings was as follows:
•      a ten-minute video which provided an overview and context for Metro Vancouver
•      presentations on the draft Strategy’s content and a review of municipal feedback
       structured according to three cross-cutting themes: Shaping the region, Supporting a
       sustainable economy and the Environment
•      facilitated group discussions on each theme focused on specific policy proposals
       within the themes, followed by electronic voting on the level of agreement with the
•      presentation and discussion on governance options followed by electronic voting.

The municipal evening meetings followed the same format, but with a question and answer
period replacing the facilitated group discussions because that approach was more
appropriate for the smaller number of attendees. There were 255 people who attended the
evening public meetings.

Regional Forums
Four regional forums were held, one each in the South of Fraser, the Central Northeast, the
North Shore and Vancouver. These forums followed the format of Metro Vancouver’s
regular Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue series. They were delivered in
partnership with Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade throughout the region.
Sessions were moderated by Peter Holt and Rafe Mair. Four panelists were invited to
provide five minute presentations following the screening of the Metro Vancouver 2040
video. Participants were then invited to engage in a dialogue with the panelists and each
other, providing comments and asking questions. The panelists were:
•       Rob Barrs, Principal, HB Lanarc Consultants Ltd.
•       Gordon Price, Director, SFU City Program
•       Gordon Houston, Captain, and formerly President and CEO of the Vancouver Port
•       Michael Geller, President, The Geller Group
•       Michael Goldberg, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Sauder School of Business, UBC.

Panelists were invited to critique Metro Vancouver 2040 from their various areas of
expertise. They provided additional recommendations and thoughtful considerations for
participants to explore further throughout the session. Attendance at the regional forums
was 227 participants.

Breakfast Meetings
Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Community Breakfasts are a series of Vancouver-based
monthly meetings in support of the Sustainable Region Initiative. One of the regularly
scheduled sessions was devoted to supporting the consultation on Metro Vancouver 2040,
and two additional breakfasts were held on the North Shore and in Surrey.

The format for the breakfasts was similar to that for the evening meetings, though slightly
compressed to take into account the early morning schedules of attendees. The agenda
included all of the elements of the sub-regional evening sessions except that the facilitated
discussions were replaced by a question and answer period, and the expression of opinion
on the draft Strategy was through feedback forms. There was an electronic voting system
for the governance question only. The three breakfasts were attended by 96 people.

Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
Page 4 of 9

Focus Groups
The purpose of the focus groups was to address concerns that participants of public
consultation meetings may not accurately represent the broad public, since attendees are
self-selecting, and may over-represent those who have specific interests. To correct for this
potential biased, the focus groups were recruited using techniques that generate a random
group of individuals that approximately represent the demographic and geographic structure
of the region.

The content of the focus groups was identical to the evening public meetings so that the
results of the voting from the two types of meetings could be compared. The focus groups
sessions were attended by 97 people.

The Public Consultation Series was highlighted on the Metro Vancouver Home page in the
”What’s New” section. From the Home page visitors could click once and enter the Public
Consultations page. On this page they could pull down a full schedule of meetings, register,
submit feedback, view a printable PDF of the Regional Growth Strategy Brochure, or link to
the detailed Regional Growth Strategy page.

A weekly print advertising campaign began the week of March 26, 2009, with the placement
of full page ads in the Vancouver Sun and the Province advertising the Deciding Our Future
Spring Series which included the dates and venues of public consultations for the Regional
Growth Strategy, Zero Waste Challenge and Liquid Waste Management. Sub-regional
meeting notices were placed in each of the Community newspaper groups – Vannet and
Black Press. Two ads were placed in 24 Hours – one full page back cover and another
inside half page. Ads have run in the regional Ethnic newspapers – Ming Pao, Tsing Tao
and Epoch Times.

The Regional Growth Strategy’s first meeting coincided with this year’s Earth Day, April 22,
and an ad was placed in the Vancouver Sun’s two-part “Green Living” supplement
highlighting the event. Electronic banners were purchased on Georgia April
20-May 4 and May 11-25. An electronic banner was purchased for the Earth Day newsletter
to subscribers of the Business in Vancouver’s Green Living Magazine.

April 23 - A series of Public Service Announcements (PSA) ran on CBC Radio 1.
April 28-30 - A series of 15-second ads ran on CKNW morning and afternoon drive times.
May 5 - CBC PSA.
May 6-7 - A series of 15-second ads ran on CKNW morning and afternoon drive times.
May 12-14 - A series of 15-second ads ran on CKNW morning and afternoon drive.
May 18 - May 21 - A series of 30-second ads News 1130.

Earned Media
Media Advisories were sent out to all print, radio and television media in advance of all
Metro Vancouver 2040 public consultation meetings, to encourage media to cover the
meetings or request interviews with Metro Vancouver spokespersons. Since March, there
have been more than 30 published stories about the draft growth strategy in Canwest and
Black Press chain community newspapers and in the Vancouver Sun.

                                            Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
                                              Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
                                                                                          Page 5 of 9

Major stories included:

•   April 21 - CKNW live interview and phone-in calls with Regional Planning Committee
    Chair Derek Corrigan and CAO Johnny Carline (Thirty-minute segment on CKNW’s Bill
    Good Show).

•   April 23 – CBC AM live interview and phone-in calls with Regional Planning Vice-Chair
    Darrell Mussatto and Metro Vancouver CAO Johnny Carline (Sixty-minute segment on
    CBC’s Almanac Show).

•   June 11-18 – Georgia Straight full page story by Charlie Smith.

Consultation with Municipalities
In February, Metro Vancouver forwarded the draft Regional Growth Strategy to all member
municipalities, invited them to provide key issue comments by April 8, 2009 for inclusion in
the consultation process, and more detailed comments by May 22, 2009. Metro Vancouver
staff also offered to attend municipal council meetings to provide a presentation, answer
questions and receive comments on the regional growth strategy. Submissions were
received by all municipalities by the April deadline. As of the date of this report, ten
municipalities provided letters or reports with additional detailed comments. In addition to
receiving input, Metro Vancouver staff has attended several municipal council meetings to
discuss issues in detail and these meetings will continue through July.

The full submissions are available on the website. A very considerable amount of time was
spent by all member municipalities in preparing and deliberating on their submission. The
municipal submissions fully document the areas of support, comment and concerns. Much
of the overall vision, goals and strategies of the draft are supported. However there were
several areas of concern as identified in the section below.

Consultation with other “affected local governments”
The Local Government Act requires that the regional growth strategy be forwarded to
“affected local governments” for acceptance. In Metro Vancouver’s case, in addition to the
member municipalities, the regional growth strategy must also be accepted by the two
adjacent regional districts of Squamish-Lillooet, and the Fraser Valley, and by the TransLink
Board. The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District reviewed the draft; they indicated support
for the policies outlined in the draft strategy and also indicated that they wish to continue to
participate in the development of the strategy. The Fraser Valley Regional District also
responded and provided support for a number of areas of the strategy, however, they also
commented on a number of areas that they wished to see included in a revised draft of the
Regional Growth Strategy. TransLink’s submission noted the linkages with their long-range
transportation plan, indicated general support for the draft strategy and expressed a
willingness for staff to continue to work together to ensure the draft strategy and TransLink’s
plans reflect the mandate of each agency.

Consultation with First Nations
First Nations were given the opportunity to participate in the consultation process according
the Metro Vancouver Board approved three-step process. Letters were sent to all affected
First Nations, with follow up telephone calls and then registered letters. No comments have
been received to date.

Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
Page 6 of 9

Consultation with Groups, Organizations and Agencies
The draft Regional Growth Strategy was forwarded to regionally-based groups,
organizations and agencies. Metro Vancouver received submissions from 28 groups. The
submissions reflected the mandate of the organizations which submitted them, and also
provided a number of suggestions to improve the plan. These suggestions will be
considered by staff when developing the next version of the draft strategy.

2.2     Results of the Public Consultation Program
As described above, the public meetings were organized by themes, and the discussion was
structured around questions related to the theme. Participants were asked to vote
electronically as to whether they supported the concepts outlined in each theme. The
participants were asked to vote in the following manner:

    Red:        Indicates “Stop. Do not proceed with this proposal”

    Yellow:     Indicates “Proceed, but I have additional comments/concerns/questions”

    Green:      Indicates “Go ahead – support for this proposal”.

The use of colour signals was meant to provide an indication of the level of support for the
various proposals and the questions were designed to stimulate discussion and debate at
the public meetings.

The results of the voting at the public meetings and at the focus groups are very similar.
Taking the aggregate of the votes from the subject matter questions (e.g. urban
containment, agriculture, housing, etc.), there is clear support for the directions of the
strategy, with approximately 60% of people indicating that Metro Vancouver “go ahead” with
the proposals. About 10% of the public voted “Red” for the proposals, which was slightly
higher than the focus groups. This can be explained by the self-selecting nature of those
who attended the public meetings. The results of the voting for the public meetings and the
focus groups are provided below. A full list of the comments made by participants at the
public meetings can be found on the website.

                                     Summary of all nine votes

           Public        10%         Yellow 30%              Green 60%

           Focus         Red
                                Yellow 32%                Green 62%
           Groups        6%

                    0%         20%          40%        60%          80%   100%

There are three themes that emerge from reviewing the results of the public meetings, and
reviewing the comments submitted by the municipalities:

                                           Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
                                             Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
                                                                                         Page 7 of 9

1. Urban Containment Boundary/Agriculture/Rural
The public supported the Urban Containment Boundary and the need to protect agricultural
lands at the regional level. The municipalities expressed support for both of these concepts
as well, but noted concerns with the amendment process for lands within the Agriculture
area, which require both Agricultural Land Commission review and Metro Vancouver Board
review. There was support for the rural designation as long as municipalities could
determine the nature of rural residential development.

2. Employment Distribution Policies
The public overwhelming supported the protection of industrial lands for industrial purposes,
and also showed supported directing commercial uses to Urban Centres, and discouraging
major commercial development outside of Urban Centres. However, these issues raised the
most objections from municipal members. Potential “interference” in a member
municipalities’ ability to attract new jobs and tax base is the main reason for objections to
the proposed policies. Almost all municipalities supported the need to protect industrial
land, but most did not agree with the proposed implementation.

Many municipalities suggested that industrial lands be identified as a “reference only” in the
Strategy and recommended implementation remain at the local level.

There are concerns about seeking Board consent for amendments to industrial area
boundaries as well as concerns about the impact of the proposals on existing zoning rights.
Others suggest that the term “industrial” be expanded to “employment” to allow
municipalities more latitude in the location of economic activities. Others suggested that the
definition of industrial need only minor adjustment to be acceptable.

The clarity of proposals on the present and future role of the Industrial/Commercial areas is
mentioned by several municipalities. Some suggestions are made that high density
development should take precedent over industrial uses where rapid transit stations are
located in industrial areas.

It was also noted that the Strategy did not identify new sources of industrial land supply and
that more could be done to intensify the use of existing industrial land. The challenge for the
revised Strategy is to craft a solution that continues to make best use of industrial areas,
promote jobs in accessible locations across the region and also advance all other regional
goals of a transit-oriented, compact region.

3. Plan Implementation
The public and focus groups were also asked to indicate their level of support with respect
to implementation of the strategy. Both the public and the focus groups indicated about the
same level of support for option A, the goals-based plan, approximately 20%. About 36% of
the public chose option B, and 44% chose option C. The focus group results were slightly
different; with more choosing option B (47%) than C (31%). These results indicate that both
groups reject a “vision and goals only” plan, with about 80% preferring a stronger regional

Many municipalities indicated that in general, they have concerns about the regulatory
nature of the draft strategy and Board involvement in land use matters. The amendment
process proposed in the draft would add time to the development process, where changes
would affect regional interests defined in the Plan. Municipalities also commented that the
requirements for Regional Context Statements were too numerous. It was evident in many
of the submissions that the amending formulas for changing land uses were not well

Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
Page 8 of 9

understood by all municipalities. The subsequent discussions with individual municipalities
have clarified the process. In some cases, this has resulted in more support for the
proposed implementation mechanisms.

Question: What level of authority is needed to achieve these goals?

                                           Question 10

        Public        A 21%            B 36%              C 44%

                      A 22%                    B 47%        C 31%

                 0%         20%         40%         60%    80%      100%

    A. Set out a vision and goals for regional development but municipalities can interpret
       the vision as they wish.
    B. Set out a vision and goals, guidelines on how to achieve the goals, and some
       regionally defined boundaries. Municipalities can interpret some policies, but must
       comply with others subject to Metro Vancouver acceptance.
    C. Set out a vision and goals, policies on how to achieve the goals and regionally
       defined boundaries. Municipal plans are required to comply subject to dispute
       resolution as set out in the Local Government Act.

2.5 Next Steps

At the Board meeting of June 26, 2009, the Board approved a revised process and timeline
for completing a new draft of the Regional Growth Strategy. Staff will prepare a revised
Draft Regional Growth Strategy for committee review in the early fall. The draft will be
developed through review of the submissions, and through continued discussions with
municipal councils and staff, and other stakeholders. Once a draft is complete, it will be
forwarded to the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC) and the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) for comment. It will then be forwarded to the Regional Planning
Committee for consideration and the Metro Vancouver Board.


None presented.


This report outlines the consultation process undertaken for the draft Regional Growth
Strategy, and summarizes the key results of the input. Through this process, feedback was
received from member municipalities, adjacent regional districts, non-profit groups, business
organizations, community groups and other governments and their agencies. There was
also an extensive public outreach component.

                                            Regional Growth Strategy Consultation Program Results
                                              Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 10, 2009
                                                                                          Page 9 of 9

Overall support in principle for the goals and strategies is clear from municipalities and the
public and government agencies. However, there are three areas where there is divergent
opinion and that require further discussion and policy work between Metro Vancouver and
member municipalities. The first is the issue of amendments for the Urban Containment
Boundary and the Agriculture area. The second is the issue of employment distribution
policies and the location of commercial and industrial development. The third area is of
implementation, with the public favouring strong implementation mechanism while many
municipalities express concern about intrusions in municipal land use planning authority.
The Board will need to weigh the pros and cons of the different styles of regional planning
implementation and determine how best regional goals can be secured, while recognizing
the benefits and trade-offs at the municipal level.

Staff has indicated a number of areas where adjustments to the Draft Strategy could be
made. Staff will continue to visit meet with member municipalities, review the input and
bring forward a revised draft Regional Growth Strategy in the fall of 2009.


Results of Electronic Voting at Public Meetings and Focus Groups (eRIM doc. #004946575).



                                                                     5.1 ATTACHMENT 1A
Results of Electronic Voting at Public Meetings and Focus Groups

Question 1:   Do you support the establishment of an Urban Containment Boundary?

                                          Question 1

        Public    Red 13%        Yellow 37%               Green 50%

                  Red 3% Yellow 42%                      Green 55%

                 0%        20%         40%         60%        80%       100%

Question 2:   Do you support focusing housing and job growth within Urban Centres
              and along Transit Corridors?

                                          Question 2

        Public    Red 10% Yellow 29%                 Green 61%

                  Red 3%    Yellow 38%                   Green 55%

                 0%        20%         40%         60%        80%       100%

Question 3:   Do you support encouraging housing diversity and affordability?

                                          Question 3

                  Red 7%    Yellow 30%              Green 64%

                  Red 3% Yellow 30%                Green 67%

                 0%        20%         40%         60%        80%       100%

Question 4:   Do you support the connection of land use and transportation –
              reducing vehicle use and shifting more trips to transit, cycling and

                                          Question 4

        Public    Red 9%Yellow 26%                  Green 66%

        Groups    Red 5%     Yellow 36%                Green 58%

                 0%         20%       40%          60%         80%    100%

Question 5:   Do you support encouraging commercial uses in Centres and
              discouraging major office/retail employment generators outside of
              centres and transit corridors?

                                          Question 5

        Public    Red 15%    Yellow 28%                  Green 57%

                  Red 13%         Yellow 37%              Green 49%

                 0%         20%       40%          60%         80%    100%

Question 6:   Do you support the protection of Industrial lands for production,
              distribution and repair uses, and discourage conversion of these
              lands for office/retail and other non-industrial uses?

                                          Question 6

        Public    Red 11% Yellow 32%                     Green 57%

        Groups    Red 4% Yellow 29%                Green 67%

                 0%         20%       40%          60%         80%    100%

Question 7:      Do you support the protection of agricultural lands through a regional
                 designation and encourage active farming?

                                             Question 7

            Public    Red 12%Yellow 19%                Green 70%

                      Red 4%
                          Yellow 11%                Green 85%

                     0%         20%       40%          60%         80%      100%

Question 8:      Do you support protecting natural assets primarily through a regional
                 Conservation/Recreation designation?

                                             Question 8

            Public    Red 7% Yellow 32%                   Green 61%

                      Red 3%
                          Yellow 21%                  Green 76%

                     0%         20%       40%          60%         80%      100%

Question 9:      Do you support reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focusing
                 growth in centres and transit corridors?

                                             Question 9

            Public    Red 8% Yellow 34%                   Green 58%

            Focus     Red 12%                                   Green 45%
                                       Yellow 43%

                     0%         20%       40%          60%         80%      100%



                                                                5.1 ATTACHMENT 2

      Municipal Submissions Summary on the Regional Growth Strategy
                           As of June 29, 2009

Summary of general comments from municipalities related to:

1             Goal 1 - Create a Compact Urban Area

                     - Strategy 1.1 – Contain urban development within the Urban
                                      Containment Boundary

                     - Strategy 1.2 – Focus growth in Urban Centres and in Frequent
                                      Transit Development Corridors

                     - Strategy 1.3 – Encourage land use and transportation development
                                      that reduces greenhouse gas emissions

                     - Strategy 1.4 – Protect the region’s rural lands from urban

2             Goal 2 - Support a Sustainable Economy

                     - Strategy 2.1 – Promote patterns of land development that support a
                                      diverse regional economy and employment close to
                                      where people live

                     - Strategy 2.2 – Protect the region’s supply of industrial land

                     - Strategy 2.3 – Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and
                                      encourage its use for food production

3             Goal 3 - Protect the Region’s Natural Assets

                     - Strategy 3.1 – Protect the region’s conservation and recreation lands

4             Goal 4 - Develop Complete and Resilient Communities

                     - Strategy 4.1 – Provide diverse and affordable housing choices

                     - Strategy 4.3 – Minimize risks from natural hazards and adapt to the
                                      impacts of climate change

5             Goal 5 - Support Sustainable Transportation Choices

                     - Strategy 5.1 – Connect land use and transportation to support
                                      transit, walking and cycling

                     - Strategy 5.2 – Connect land use and transportation to support an
                                      efficient regional roads and goods movement network

6             Other Comments.


Municipal Submissions Summary
Regional Growth Strategy

Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Strategy: 1.1: Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No comments
Belcarra           •   No comments
Burnaby            •   No comments
Coquitlam          •   A thorough review be completed of the methodology used to develop population,
                       employment and dwelling unit (household) projections for the draft RGS with its member
                       municipalities before the Metro Vancouver Board considers adopting the strategy.
                   •   Concern that population projections are too high; development capacity in adopted land
                       use plans can generally accommodate the 2031 population projections (214,000) but
                       additional capacity needs to be identified for future 2041 growth (229,000).
                   •   Employment projections continue to be challenging; the City’s precondition on achieving
                       LRSP job targets (95,000 by 2041) i.e. the provision of a rapid transit system to the City
                       Centre is still not realized.
Delta              •   Support the concept of an Urban Containment Boundary and associated policies.
Electoral Area A   •   Municipal level targets for Electoral Area A do not appear to accommodate the already
                       planned growth in the UBC Official Community Plan, and the employment numbers do not
                       reflect the level of daily activity on the UBC campus (submission from UBC).
Langley City       •   No comments
Langley Township   •   No comments
Lions Bay          •   Request that population projection for Lions Bay be revised from 1,520 to 1,828.
Maple Ridge        •   Note the projections in the RGS are guidelines, and support they stay as guidelines in the
Maple Ridge        •   That Metro Vancouver provide greater detail on the population and demographic
                       projections for Maple Ridge including the methodology and achievability of those
New Westminster    •   Projections seem too aggressive for New Westminster and request further work be done.
                   •   Request clarification on the status of the tables in Appendix 1.1. and 1.2 as to whether
                       they are guidelines only, and requests that they projections in the RGS be represented as
                       guidelines only.
                   •   Concerned re: New Westminster’s ability to continue to accept sustained growth in the
                   •   Request the projections be amended to reflect the city’s current technical analysis with the
                       understanding that the projections will be altered at the time when the City submits a
                       revised Regional Context Statement as part of a new Official Community Plan.
North Van. City    •   No comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Population and employment projections are inflated; should clarify which are First Nation
                       numbers and municipality numbers, tables indicate numbers are guidelines, but 1.1.3 (a)
                       needs to be more general.

                 •   Generally support Boundary, but ask for additional clarification of uses within
                     Conservation / Recreation and Rural.
Pitt Meadows     •   Requests four properties be included within the Urban Containment Boundary.
Port Coquitlam   •   Growth projections too aggressive, would require amendments to Official Community
                     Plan, which would alter built form and are unrealistic given economic and physical
Port Moody       •   Wants Port Moody’s population projections withheld until they review their Official
                     Community Plan.
Richmond         •   Support Urban Containment Area and emphasis on Urban Centres. These will enable the
                     better management of urban growth in the timeframe of the RGS.
                 •   Support that the proposed 2040 RGS population, employment and housing unit targets
                     are guidelines and not hard requirements. This is good as many factors affect the
                     attainment of the targets and thus flexibility is needed.
                 •   Richmond agrees with the 2021, 2031 and 2041 population estimates provided that they
                     remain as guidelines only. This provides flexibility.
Surrey           •   Supports the Urban Containment Boundary concept.
                 •   Population and employment projections in the draft RGS are generally consistent with
                     Surrey’s projections.
Vancouver        •   Council conveys support for the overall regional land use concept which consists of a
                     clear Urban Containment Boundary that protects green areas and limits the extent of
                     urban development.
                 •   Council acknowledges to Metro that the accompanying targets for dwelling units and
                     employment are consistent with Vancouver zoning and policy, noting that they are a
                     minimum not a maximum.
                 •   Council conveys support for the regional land use regulation for the Urban Containment
West Vancouver   •   Tables 1.1 and 1.2 indicate that these numbers are guidelines only. Policies that rely on
                     the numbers in this table must provide adequate flexibility to municipalities as
                     achievement of population projections may not be realistic. What will happen if these
                     guidelines are not reached, conversely, will issues be raised if a municipality or a
                     subregion exceeds these projections?
                 •   How are the numbers for development on Capilano Reserve lands accounted for?
                     Development of the lands on the Capilano Reserve may have significant impacts on the
                     District of West Vancouver, the North Shore subregion and the region as a whole, yet First
                     Nations lands are not part of the RGS. There is clearly a need for greater recognition of
                     the role that First Nations communities play in regional growth management.
White Rock       •   Request that 2006 Census population figures for White Rock be corrected, and that
                     projections be revised.

Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Strategy 1.2: Focus growth in Urban Centres and in Frequent Transit Development Corridors

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   Frequent Transit Development Corridors could reduce viability of town centres and nodes
                       around SkyTrain stations.
                   •   Parks, Industrial Areas, Business Centres and single/two family neighbourhoods could be
                       impacted by Frequent Transit Development Corridors.
                   •   Regional Growth Strategy does not recognize that areas around transit stations located in
                       industrial areas are a good fit for office and retail uses.
                   •   See TransLink review as “third level” of review; suggest consultation with TransLink only.

                   •   Description of Municipal Town Centres could restrict development of Burnaby’s Municipal
                       Town Centres, downgrade the intensity of mixed uses in those centres.
                   •   Focus of Regional City Centres over Municipal Town Centres as concentrations of
                       employment is contrary to Burnaby’s Official Community Plan.
Coquitlam          •   Request additional clarification on the specific boundaries for Urban Centres, the Urban
                       Containment Boundary, and Frequent Transit Development Corridors.
                   •   Lower level centres such as Austin Heights should be included as “transit village centres”.
                   •   The proposed Frequent Transit Development Corridor concept be considered further with
                       its member municipalities in order to reach a regional consensus on appropriate
                       development policies for these corridors that also helps protect the viability of nearby
                       employment-generating lands.
Delta              •   Regional Growth Strategy should show Scott Road as a corridor.
                   •   Does not support review by TransLink.
                   •   Request that Tsawwassen be included as a Municipal Town Centre.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   Expanded hierarchy of centres and corridors weakens emphasis on the Regional City
                       Centres. Would prefer stronger focus on Regional City Centres.
Langley Township   •   Identify, not designate Urban Centres in the RGS.
                   •   Request that Willoughby, Walnut Grove, Murrayville, Brookswood and Fort Langley be
                       included as Municipal Town Centres.
                   •   Request that Carvolth be included as a Regional City Centre.
                   •   Request that airport, seaplane base and Trinity Western University be included as Special
                       Activity Centres.

Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   Do not support TransLink review of major development plans, but TransLink consultation
                       would be appropriate.
                   •   The impacts of Corridors in Maple Ridge are not yet known; densification in the corridor
                       must take into account impacts on the Town Centre. Recommend clarification as to the
                       location of the frequent transit corridor in the District of Maple Ridge be provided by Metro
                       Vancouver and that mapping be consistent.
New Westminster    •   Corridors concept covers 80% of City’s land base; not nodal; the Corridors concept does
                       not reflect the City’s long standing growth framework.
North Van. City    •   No Comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Require clarification on TransLink’s role in reviewing major development proposals.
                   •   Request that Lower Lynn be included as a Municipal Town Centre.
                   •   Request policies for Urban Centres be guidelines only
                   •   Policy 1.2.3 (3) that municipalities support office development in Urban Centres through
                       incentive measures is too prescriptive, and does not recognize that some centres may be
                       more suited as sites for high density residential density, community-serving retail and
                   •   Request flexibility for municipalities in the definition/determination of Frequent Transit
                       Development Corridors.
Pitt Meadows       •   RGS does not explain what the Corridors concept would mean for Harris Road and
                       Hammond Road.
Port Coquitlam     •   Corridors concept doesn’t respect local context, should be nodal.
                   •   Corridors policy sets linear band of development along Lougheed Hwy. This is not an
                       area where they wish to encourage growth and it doesn’t reflect where they want rapid
                       transit. The concept would also discourage growth of their mixed-use nodes.
Port Moody         •   Permitting community, cultural facilities only in Urban Centres could be limiting in Port
                       Moody’s desire to have an arts precinct outside of Inlet Centre.
                   •   Requests reference to TransLink review of major development projects removed.
Richmond           •   Supports Frequent Transit Development Corridors as a concept; but routes need more
                       consideration. Community consultation, planning and technical work needs to be done
                       prior to defining the corridors on a map; and Frequent Transit Development Corridors
                       needs more flexibility in the uses that would be allowed in those corridors. Request that
                       the corridors not be shown on any RGS maps until planning completed; wording on the
                       RGS maps to state that the corridors will be determined over time by Richmond and
                   •   Disagree with TransLink review as outlined in Regional Growth Strategy; more clarification
                       on TransLink’s role and authority for the review is needed.
Surrey             •   Actions to reduce parking requirements in Centres and Corridors needs to be met with
                       increased transit service.
                   •   Implementation of corridors will require municipal resources.
                   •   RGS should support variations in use, mixes of use and densities to reflect the local
                       context and should permit employment as well as residential in the corridors.
                   •   The RGS does not provide a compelling vision for the General Urban areas and does not
                       reflect the diversity across the region.
                   •   Does not support TransLink’s review of major development proposals, and suggests
                       TransLink should provide service level indicators that link land use and density with the
                       level of transit service that will be provided.
                   •   Supports the inclusion of Surrey Metro Centre and the five Municipal Town Centres in the
                   •   Concerned with requirement that Urban Centres be identified on a parcel-based map
                       within Regional Context Statements and requests clarification on boundary determination.

Vancouver        •   1.2.3(b), bullet 5 [reduction of parking requirements] does not recognize actions that have
                     been taken and does not establish a base from which the reduction should be made, and
                     suggest alternate wording “to establish, or maintain, lower parking requirements in Urban
                     Centres and at transit stations, than in other areas.”
                 •   Supports the location of job-rich uses, such as office, at rapid transit stations, and
                     therefore policy to retain industrial areas which are in proximity to transit stations is
                 •   Request further clarification on policy on provincial review of development proposals
                     impacting provincial highways.
                 •   Request Vancouver’s Metro Core description be amended to include “supporting industrial
                     uses” to the land use activities.
                 •   Request that Vancouver’s Metro Core boundaries be shown, rather than the symbol that is
                     currently used on the map.
West Vancouver   •   Request more clarity for the terms “medium density” and “high density” development and
                     for the term “major employment generator.”
                 •   Request clarification as to what target densities are considered appropriate in Urban
                     Centres and in non-designated centres. Require clarification in order to know whether
                     municipalities are in compliance with the RGS.
                 •   Unclear why TransLink is to be consulted as part of an OCP review, and not clear what
                     constitutes a “major development proposal.”
White Rock       •   No Comments

Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Strategy 1.3: Encourage land use and transportation development that reduces greenhouse
gas emissions

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   No Comments
Delta              •   Support the Greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, and request that the RGS ask
                       for provincial funding to assist municipalities in reaching the targets.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   No Comments
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   The plan requires more focus on climate change prevention.
New Westminster    •   No Comments
North Van. City    •   Supports integration of energy planning, greenhouse gas reduction. Suggest RGS goals
                       aim for a carbon neutral future. Will transportation and growth anticipated in the draft be
                       supportable in the long term from an energy point of view?
North Van. Dist.   •   Support greenhouse gas emission reduction targets but municipalities need to retain
                       ability to determine municipal targets; Request Strategy 1.3.3 be amended to “Support the
                       reduction of GHG emissions region-wide by establishing municipally determined targets.”
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   No Comments
Port Moody         •   No Comments
Richmond           •   Support climate change and peak oil being included in the plan, and will accelerate the
                       region’s progress in creating a transit-oriented region and reducing the urban footprint.
Surrey             •   No Comments
Vancouver          •   Suggest that the province should also work with the federal government to address the
                       reduction of GHGs.
West Vancouver     •   No Comments
White Rock         •   No Comments

Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Strategy 1.4: Protect the region’s rural lands from urban development

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   Rural designation not appropriate for Anmore; suggest a “Semi-Rural” designation be
                       created and applied to Anmore.
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   No Comments
Delta              •   Does not support the Rural designation as set out in the plan – need more information on
                   •   Lands in Ladner that are shown as Rural should be shown as Agriculture.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   No Comments
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   Supports the Rural designation as long as municipalities can determine the densities
                       appropriate in their municipalities.
                   •   The Rural definition does not accurately represent the wide array of uses existing in rural
                       areas of Maple Ridge.
New Westminster    •   No Comments
North Van. City    •   No Comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Support Rural, but request adjustments to their map to include those lands designated
                       Rural Residential in the Alpine Official Community Plan along Indian Arm, and clarification
                       of definition of “low density residential.”
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   No Comments
Port Moody         •   Density in Anmore does not seem to be in keeping with Rural designation.
Richmond           •   No Comments
Surrey             •   Rural designation may limit the development of Hazelmere uplands.
                   •   Hazelmere Golf Course previously shown as Rural, now shown as undesignated.
Vancouver          •   No Comments
West Vancouver     •   No Comments
White Rock         •   No Comments

Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy

Strategy 2.1: Promote patterns of land development that support a diverse regional economy
and employment close to where people live

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   Concerns strategy does not allow for flexibility and adaptation to market forces;
                       designations would limit employment and economic opportunities.
                   •   Plan should respect the city’s designated business centre areas that accommodate a
                       range of industrial, research and development, and business and professional office uses
                       and allow for appropriate transition of lands.
                   •   Proposed strategy creates a more complex and extensive land use amendment approval
                       process, including concerns regarding TransLink’s review/ approval of development
Coquitlam          •   No Comments
Delta              •   Supports improved transportation infrastructure in support of employment and areas of
                       special activity.
                   •   Do not support TransLink and/or Province review of major development proposals.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   Emphasis on Goal 2 should be to attract investment and employment to the region, in
                       regional centres, and need more tools like tax incentives and enterprise zones created by
                       senior levels of government.
Langley Township   •   Believes methodology is too regulatory and prescriptive and impedes local autonomy.
                       The RGS should provide general direction and guidelines allowing municipalities to
                       choose policies appropriate to their individual characteristics, local conditions and
                       community objectives.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   No Comments
New Westminster    •   Support in principle for strategies that limit significant retail and office development that
                       are located out of Urban Centres.
North Van. City    •   OCP provides for mixed-use and a balance of jobs to residents which is being achieved.
                       Achieving employment growth to match anticipated population may be a challenge.
North Van. Dist.   •   Policies associated with strategy are generally supported.
                   •   Recommend that Policy 2.1.5(a), which supports the concentration of activities within
                       Urban Centres be expanded to “other local centres not on Map 2” to recognize local and
                       village centres within municipalities.
                   •   Policy 2.1.5(b) that municipalities will identify policies which prevent major commercial
                       and institutional development outside of urban centres needs to recognize and support
                       specific municipal contexts and land uses.
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   Believe restricting commercial development to the downtown would be overly restrictive
                       given the limited commercial growth potential in the Port Coquitlam downtown.
Port Moody         •   Should remove reference to TransLink in the review / approval process for major
                       development proposals outside of Urban Centres or at least better define the triggers and
                       scope of such reviews.
Richmond           •   No Comments
Surrey           •   Supports objective of ensuring an adequate supply of industrial and commercial lands
                     throughout the region to support economy, however not the proposed strategy. Also
                     object to TransLink review of development proposals.
Vancouver        •   Supports the overall regional land use concept.
                 •   Recommend identifying significant hospital/health precincts as Special Activity Areas, as
                     they are also major economic generators.
West Vancouver   •   Question TransLink’s review of development proposals.
White Rock       •   No Comments

Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Strategy 2.2: Protect the region’s supply of industrial land

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   Concerns new regional industrial land use category would result in significant lands
                       becoming legal non-conforming. Definition of industrial activities is too narrow; does not
                       allow for evolving industrial uses and may limit economic growth. Changes to land use
                       designations / boundaries will require Metro Vancouver Board approval; reduces local
                       control / autonomy.
Coquitlam          •   Need further discussions regarding implications of the proposed industrial land use
                       designations, mechanism to protect industrial lands on a regional level, and
                       appropriateness of using parcel based maps for land use designations. Suggest using the
                       term ‘employment generating lands’.
Delta              •   Support strategy in principle, however concerns regarding loss of local autonomy for
                       industrial land use decisions. Metro Vancouver’s approval should not be required to
                       change local industrial land use designations.
                   •   Request mapping changes: Pineland Peat at 5224 – 88 Street to be shown as Industrial;
                       for lands around Burns Bog, use the South Fraser Perimeter Road as the boundary
                       between Industrial and Conservation / Recreation lands; lands in the Townline Node
                       should be amended from Industrial to Urban.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   Preservation of industrial lands is too restrictive and does not allow flexibility; requires
                       regional approval for OCP amendments.
Langley Township   •   Believes Metro Vancouver should not be regulating industrial land uses.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   Believes the existing industrial land base in Maple Ridge is inadequate. The Maple Ridge
                       OCP has an objective of ensuring adequate industrial land supply for the community and
                       would like support from the RGS in identifying additional supply. Recommends that the
                       Maple Ridge Official Community Plan be confirmed with reference to the District’s pursuit
                       of employment generating lands.
                   •   Do not support TransLink or Province review of OCP amendments to review industrial
                       land, but consultation with those agencies would be appropriate.
New Westminster    •   Support strategy; policies to protect industrial lands are generally consistent with existing
                       city policies.
North Van. City    •   Generally support regional industrial land protection strategy. Concerns the proposed
                       approach of protecting industrial lands would restrict the City’s practice of mixing limited
                       commercial uses with industrial uses.
North Van. Dist.   •   The definition of Industrial lands and land use designations are generally supported in the
                       District and consistent with uses in the draft RGS. Concern about BCAA involvement in
                       developing taxation policies.
                   •   Requests strategy 2.2.3(c), bullet 1 with description of industrial uses be amended to
                       generalize the types of uses permitted.
                   •   Requests strategy 2.2.3 (c), bullet 3 “encourage better utilization of existing industrial
                       areas for industrial activities” be removed or better defined as to how it could be achieved.
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   Concerns industrial land use designation is too narrow and restrictive, reducing municipal
                       autonomy to respond to evolving conditions.

Port Moody       •   Metro Vancouver should provide only general goals for industrial land protection and
                     economic growth.
Richmond         •   Support preservation of an adequate supply of industrial lands in the region.
                 •   Concerns regarding the proposed mechanism to protect industrial lands: regulatory
                     process is ill defined and will require numerous amendments. Local government is in the
                     best position to manage these lands.
                 •   Request Metro Vancouver play a strong role in the protection of industrial lands at a
                     guideline level (research, awareness, best practices, etc) and that industrial lands not be
                     designated in the RGS on a parcel-based map.
Surrey           •   Concerns that draft RGS does not identify any new supply of industrial lands or
                     adequately protect industrial lands in all parts of the region.
                 •   Recommend against distinguishing between Industrial and Industrial/Commercial as
                     changes would require Metro Vancouver approval; additional level of regional control
                     would usurp local governments.
                 •   Request an ‘employment’ land use category to accommodate more higher use
                     commercial and industrial businesses in their community.
                 •   Concern Surrey is expected to provide lower order industrial land uses due in part to the
                     previous conversion by the region’s core municipalities of their own industrial lands. RGS
                     does not contain any eco-industrial principles.
Vancouver        •   Generally support regional industrial land protection strategy.
                 •   Suggest regional land use regulation should respect existing municipal plans, policies and
                     implementation processes underway rather than basing policy only on already built
                 •   Consider a wider range of uses for the industrial areas
                 •   Provide more clarity on the amendment process with a focus on industrial land specifically
                     for the regulatory approach, and a focus on Metro Vancouver’s role rather than the role of
                     other agencies.
                 •   Request flexibility for non-industrial uses at transit stations
                 •   Request there be a commitment in the RGS for additional work to support the industrial
West Vancouver   •   No Comments
White Rock       •   No Comments

Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Strategy 2.3: Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and encourage its use for food

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   Supports policies.
Delta              •   Metro should not be involved in identifying food production or other uses in the Agriculture
                   •   Support policies re: minimizing fragmentation of agricultural lands by transportation and
                       utility corridors; providing financial support to ensure farming remains viable.
                   •   Do not support all agricultural lands being included in the ALR; should be municipality that
                       nominates land in the Regional Growth Strategy designations.
                   •   Do not support the ALC establishing housing floor area and setback regulations; this is a
                       zoning matter.
                   •   There is no mention of agricultural lands contributing to regional conservation goals.
                   •   Southlands should be shown as Agriculture.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   Remove the agriculture designation.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   Requests acknowledgement of the District’s employment generating lands and
                       clarification of how municipalities will be compensated for positive contributions to the
                       Conservation/Recreation, Rural and Agricultural land base.
New Westminster    •   Supports policies.
North Van. City    •   No Comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Support policies to protect agricultural lands, but policies to promote farming on
                       agricultural lands are weak.
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   Agricultural designation matches Official Community Plan, but want municipal flexibility if
                       boundaries change.
Port Moody         •   No Comments
Richmond           •   No Comments
Surrey             •   Supports the Agricultural designation in the RGS.
Vancouver          •   No Comments
West Vancouver     •   No Comments
White Rock         •   No Comments

Goal 3: Protect the Region’s Natural Assets
Strategy 3.1: Protect the region’s conservation and recreation lands

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   Local parks, conservation areas, etc. within General Urban area could be misinterpreted
                       as being available for development.
                   •   Focus on ‘outdoor’ recreation and the list of appropriate uses for conservation/recreational
                       preclude ‘indoor’ recreation. If not amended, Burnaby would need to remove parklands
                       from Conservation / Recreation to comply with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Coquitlam          •   Concerned about the loss of the Green Zone title which enjoyed strong support from the
                       public – would like the existing LRSP Green Zone concept with updated revisions
                       provided by the member municipalities incorporated into the draft RGS.
                   •   Permitted uses proposed may be in conflict with certain city parks / facilities.
                   •   It would be beneficial for the Regional Growth Strategy to show existing and future
                       elements of a multi-use greenway network in the region.
                   •   Need clarity whether Riverview is in the Green Zone. If so need clarity on how to handle
                       the possible need for new buildings without an amendment process. These concerns
                       apply to golf courses, etc. as well.
                   •   Concern about the appropriateness, at a Metro level, of using parcel-based maps to
                       identify Conservation / Recreation area lands and Metro Vancouver’s role and
                       involvement in overseeing municipal land use designation processes and decisions.
Delta              •   There is no criteria for what lands should be included in the Conservation/Recreation
                       lands within the Regional Growth Strategy.
                   •   Some areas, such as many of the North Delta Ravines, are not identified on the new
                       Conservation/Recreation lands because they are largely under private ownership. The
                       “green zone” of Delta would shrink considerably under this model.
                   •   More should be done to strengthen and augment the actions under this goal. The lack of
                       attention to this important goal is a step back from Metro Vancouver’s leadership and
                       commitments as expressed in the SRI.
                   •   The Regional Growth Strategy should outline the specific areas where the regional,
                       provincial and federal governments have a strong role to play in land and coastal area
                   •   Actions under this goal should address a broader suite of environmental issues, including
                       ecological health, biodiversity and environmental quality and encourage inter-agency
                       collaboration or regional-scale solutions.
                   •   The importance of the environment as the foundation of a livable, sustainable region
                       should be addressed in public education actions.
                   •   Do not support the elimination of the “Green Zone” as a concept, it should be reintroduced
                       in some form. While not a perfect tool, it was an easily understood concept that
                       recognized the livability of the region was inextricably tied to the land base – some of
                       which must be retained in its natural state for its ecological, recreation and resource
                       values, including food production.
                   •   Map 5 includes tidal flats, coastal wetlands, and rivers/streams but it is unclear how these
                       should be addressed in a Regional Growth Strategy or who is responsible.
                   •   For lands in North Delta Ravines and Tsawwassen Bluffs, show municipally-owned
                       property as Conservation / Recreation and private property as Urban.
Electoral Area A   •   The Pacific Spirit Park Triangle is no longer part of the regional park and should be
                       removed from the Green Zone and included in the urban designation. (Submission by the
                       University Endowment Lands).
Langley City       •   Consistent approach to mapping conservation / recreation lands is required.
Langley Township   •   Support evolution of Green Zone into its constituent parts but do not use parcel-based
                       mapping but the generalized conceptual mapping used in Livable Regional Strategic Plan.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   The intentions behind the creation of the new land designations (rural, conservation and
                       recreation) are not explained.
                   •   The loss of the Green Zone concept appears to weaken the Plan and changes a
                       recognizable brand for this region.
                   •   Recommend that Metro Vancouver clearly define whether the green zone terminology no
                       longer exists and that the new terminology is conservation/recreation, agricultural and
                       rural, and that Metro Vancouver provide clarification on those three new categories and
                       how they will be applied.
                   •   That Metro Vancouver clarify what evidence will be used to implement and support
                       strategies under Goal 3 of the draft Regional Growth Plan while building an Ecological
                       Health Plan.
New Westminster    •   Support in general the goal and realize the proposed strategy provides great clarity as to
                       which lands should be included in the Conservation/Recreation areas.
                   •   Reinstate the robust “Green Zone” concept.
                   •   Review of Conservation/Recreation areas in New Westminster is still underway and New
                       Westminster will be providing further input to Metro Vancouver.
North Van. City    •   RGS’s strategy and goal on conservation / recreation lands are consistent with the City’s
                       Official Community Plan.
North Van. Dist.   •   Support Conservation / Recreation policies and maps, but District of North Vancouver will
                       be reviewing of maps and providing further input to Metro Vancouver.
                   •   The District’s position is that the appropriate uses identified are to be interpreted as
                       guidelines only, are not intended to be an exhaustive list and that it is within the
                       municipality’s purview to determine appropriate uses for these lands.
                   •   Policies to protect and enhance ecologically sensitive lands outside of the Conservation /
                       Recreation area are broad and do not incorporate the Biodiversity Conservation
                   •   Do not support loss of “Green Zone” concept because of its wide recognition.
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   Weak strategy and weakly worded action unlikely to achieve the most important goals of
                       the Regional Growth Strategy.
                   •   Object to the loss of the “Green Zone” because losing it weakens ability to protect
                       conservation/recreation lands.
                   •   Replacing “Green Zone” label to designation that more accurately reflects the range of
                       uses that occur on these lands is positive.
Port Moody         •   Requirements related to this strategy are consistent with policies in Port Moody’s Official
                       Community Plan and Environmentaly Sensitive Areas Report.
                   •   Making a number of requested changes to make sure all city parks are included in this

Richmond           •   Distinction between Agriculture and Conservation / Recreation uses in the Green Zone is
                       a positive change.
                   •   Clarification of appropriate uses within Green Zone lands is welcomed.
                   •   Provision of an updated and parcel-based map of Green Zone lands better clarifies the
                       boundary of the Green Zone but areas designated Conservation / Recreation and
                       agriculture will need to be confirmed by Richmond.
Surrey             •   Supports the protection and enhancement of natural areas through new Conservation /
                       Recreation designations.
                   •   Supports the inclusion of new Conservation / Recreation lands as requested by Surrey.
                   •   Regional Greenways Network was a useful addition to plan because it indicated how
                       major regional parks and open spaces were linked, and indicated inter-regional linkages;
                       recommends it be re-instated in the RGS.
                   •   Policy needs to be clarified to specify that appropriate outdoor and indoor recreation
                       activities and facilities be allowed in Conservation/Recreation areas, otherwise major
                       parks with recreation facilities will need to be removed.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comment
Vancouver          •   Support the concept of the Conservation/Recreation area and will be forwarding more
                       detailed comments on the designation for Vancouver.
West Vancouver     •   Cannot support Upper lands previously designated “under municipal consideration” as
                       Conservation/Recreation lands.
White Rock         •   No Comments

Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
Strategy 4.1: Provide diverse and affordable housing choices

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   Would Coquitlam’s Affordable Housing Strategy meet requirements of a Housing Action
                   •   Need more clarification on why estimates are included in the Regional Growth Strategy
                       and what the expectations of municipalities to meet estimates.
                   •   Additional information and clarification on the requirements for the proposed municipal
                       Housing Action Plans outlined in the draft RGS be provided to its member municipalities
Delta              •   More work needed to identify locations for affordable, social and other forms of non-
                       market housing within the region, based on need and location factors.
                   •   More policies relating to housing diversity needed.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   No Comments
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   That the Regional Growth Strategy more clearly identify senior governments’ role in the
                       financing of the full spectrum of transitional housing needs.
                   •   That the Regional Growth Strategy reflect Metro Vancouver’s leadership role in
                       advocating for the provincial and federal governments to address regional housing issues
                       including the provision of adequate funding.
New Westminster    •   Concern about ability to implement affordable housing strategies given the effectiveness
                       of current planning tools and lack of senior government funding.
North Van. City    •   Prefers a “complete community” approach to ensure every community in the region has a
                       balance to address inequities within sub-regions. Partnerships with senior governments
                       programs will be only way to meet low end-of-market and social housing needs.
North Van. Dist.   •   Housing estimates are too high for the District of North Vancouver.
                   •   Housing policies must be flexible for municipalities, and request changes to strategies to
                       provide more flexibility.
                   •   Regional Growth Strategy needs to be more proactive with respect to the roles of the
                       senior levels of government in housing provision.
Pitt Meadows       •   Concern about role of municipalities in providing for affordable housing.
Port Coquitlam     •   No Comments
Port Moody         •   Suggest Metro Vancouver should strengthen the role of the Metro Vancouver Housing
                       Committee to manage affordable housing units secured by third parties, particularly in
                       small developments.
Richmond           •   Support that housing and social issues are more prominent in this Regional Growth
                       Strategy compared to Livable Regional Strategic Plan.
Surrey             •   With Surrey’s anticipated growth, it will be difficult to meet the demand estimates for rental
                       housing without funding for senior levels of government, and states further work needs to
                       be done on the estimates.
Vancouver          •   There is a need for a comprehensive Regional Housing Action Plan to be prepared by
                       Metro Vancouver along with requirements for municipal Housing Action Plans through a
                     collaborative process.

                 •   Do not agree with how municipal housing estimates have been established and states that
                     they do not consider the municipal context; request that Metro Vancouver engage regional
                     stakeholders to review the estimates of future rental, ownership and affordable housing
                     demand to identify a more equitable and achievable policy direction for municipal housing.
West Vancouver   •   Recommend housing demand estimates be guidelines only.
                 •   RGS needs to recognize the limited role that municipalities can play in the provision of
                     units affordable to households with low-moderate incomes, in increasing the supply and
                     diversity of housing stock through infill, and in securing additional affordable rental units
                     through tools such as density bonusing and inclusionary zoning.
                 •   There is need to identify the responsibility of senior governments in the provision of
                     affordable and social housing.
                 •   Suggest Metro Vancouver, in its capacity of Housing Autority, needs to take a leadership
                     role in coordinating efforts with the Province and Federal government to address regional
                     housing issues.
White Rock       •   No Comments

Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
Strategy 4.3: Minimize risks from natural hazards and adapt to the impacts of climate change

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   No Comments
Delta              •   Actions should be identified for all levels of government with objective to achieving greater
                       regional coordination. Need definition of what is “adequate” protection from natural
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   No Comments
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   No Comments
New Westminster    •   No Comments
North Van. City    •   Supportive of this strategy as it is the basis for regional planning in the Lower Mainland.
                       Further the City has done work anticipating effects of Climate Change and other hazards,
                       (i.e., slope stability).
                   •   Rising sea levels is an issue that requires a regional response.
North Van. Dist.   •   Support policies in strategy 4.3.
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   Actions required are consistent with existing policies and designations in the Official
                       Community Plan.
Port Moody         •   Work undertaken for the Official Community Plan process will address many of the
                       requirements of this strategy but more work may be required for responding to Climate
Richmond           •   Minimizing risks from natural hazards are best left with municipalities who can balance
                       scientific, legal, land use and local considerations.
Surrey             •   No Comments
Vancouver          •   Suggest that Metro Vancouver take a lead role on compiling local climate projections.
West Vancouver     •   No Comments
White Rock         •   No Comments

Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
Strategy 5.1: Connect land use and transportation to support transit, walking and cycling

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   Need stronger link between Regional Growth Strategy and T2040.
                   •   Need more emphasis on walking, cycling, etc. and Regional Growth Strategy should show
                       existing and future elements of a multi-use greenway network in the region.
Delta              •   Support policies that encourage the Province and TransLink to improve transit south of
                       the Fraser and want more explicit mention in the Regional Growth Strategy.
                   •   Support policies that reduce reliance on cars and provide safe, convenient and affordable
                   •   Support policies that encourage walkability of streets, safe cycle routes, etc.
                   •   Support policies to encourage TransLink and Province to improve transit, but suggest
                       more emphasis on improvements south of the Fraser.
                   •   Support work on reduced parking standards.
                   •   Want a frequent bus concept shown for Tilbury and Annacis to North Delta and Richmond
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   “Higher order transit” should extend into downtown Langley and not stop at periphery of
                       Langley City Centre.
                   •   Langley is the only regional centre without rapid rail. Regional Growth Strategy should
                       have rapid transit to all Regional City Centres as a goal.
Langley Township   •   Should show a frequent bus concept along 264, back on Freeway, and down 200th Street.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   No Comments
New Westminster    •   No Comments
North Van. City    •   No Comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Generally support goal 5, however, policy 5.1.2 is too specific for Regional Growth
                       Strategy and District and is not supportable.
                   •   There are no specific implementation measures for TransLink to achieve the Frequent
                       Transit Network.
                   •   Request changes to the Frequent Transit Networking along Capilano Road from Highway
                       1 to Marine Drive; connection of the Future Rapid Transit alignment along Main Street
                       eastbound to access Phibbs Exchange; and identifying route in Pemberton Heights
                       consistent with existing transit service along East 17th Street and Lloyd Avenue to access
                       eastbound Marine towards Lonsdale Quay.
                   •   Strategy 5.1.2(a) on parking should be the domain of municipalities and requests strategy
                       be removed, or reworded to provide municipal flexibility to “pursue appropriate
                       transportation demand management options.”
Pitt Meadows       •   RGS needs to emphasis the West Coast Express on the maps.

Port Coquitlam   •   That TransLink be required to improve cycling capacity and safety for all existing and
                     developing regional road networks.
Port Moody       •   Support the coordination of land use and transportation, promoting walking and cycling,
                     prioritizing goods movement and transit and Transportation Demand Management.
Richmond         •   Supports the linking of land use and transportation within this plan. The promotion of
                     walking and cycling alternatives, advancing a regional transportation network that prioritizes
                     goods movement and transit, and the management of transportation demand are important.
Surrey           •   Supports the Frequent Transit Network and its relationship to increased densities, but would
                     like to see more routes, a finer grid and increased transit equity for South of the Fraser.

Vancouver        •   The RGS should identify more actions for Metro Vancouver for this strategy.
                 •   5.1.2 (b), bullet 1, should be amended to refer not only to mapping, but also refer to
                     program descriptions to indicate how land use decisions will support the Frequent Transit
                 •   Reaffirms support for the extension of the Millenium Line as a subway servicing the Central
                     Broadway Corridor to Granville.
West Vancouver   •   No Comments
White Rock       •   No Comments

Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
Strategy 5.2: Connect land use and transportation to support an efficient regional roads and
goods movement network

Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   No Comments
Belcarra           •   No Comments
Burnaby            •   No Comments
Coquitlam          •   Regional Growth Strategy needs more on transportation infrastructure required to support
                       employment and the gateway functions.
Delta              •   Support more goods movement by rail and water, but want senior levels of government to
                       demonstrate leadership.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   Should show future MRN: Golden Ears Bridge, 64th Avenue/Mufford Crescent Overpass,
                       Highway 1 and 216th Street Interchange.
Lions Bay          •   No Comments
Maple Ridge        •   No Comments
New Westminster    •   Map 7 is intended to show the road network in 2040, but TransLink and member
                       municipalities have not developed a future network yet. It is suggested that Map 7 be
                       characterized, as in TransLink’s T2040 plan, as a map reflecting today’s regional road
                       network (2009) and that a review of the Major Road Network (MRN) is currently underway
                       by TransLink.
North Van. City    •   No Comments
North Van. Dist.   •   Map 7 requires review with respect to roads in the District of North Vancouver.
                   •   Transit and goods movement priority measures need to recognize local municipal
Pitt Meadows       •   No Comments
Port Coquitlam     •   No Comments
Port Moody         •   Regional Roads Concept needs to be better defined.
                   •   Maps should identify Murray Clarke Connector on May 7 as Planned
Richmond           •   No Comments
Surrey             •   Map 7 should distinguish between provincial and Major Road Network (MRN) roads, the
                       Golden Ears Bridge Connector should stop at 176 Street, continuing as 96 Avenue, which
                       is an MRN road.
Vancouver          •   Suggest more flexibility for both people and goods movement by water be provided in the
                   •   Note that development of a goods movement strategy should also be done in
                       collaboration with municipalities.
West Vancouver     •   No Comments
White Rock         •   No Comments

Other Comments
Summary of General Comments:

Anmore             •   The Buntzen Lake power station designation should be amended from
                       Conservation/Recreation to Industrial.
                   •   East Road and Sunnyside Road should be included in the Regional Roads Concept.
Belcarra           •   Farrer Cove area designation should be changed from Rural to General Urban.
                   •   Twin Islands designation should be changed from Conservation/Recreation to Rural,
                       given that those lands are privately owned.
Burnaby            •   Changes to land use designations would require new process and public hearing, which
                       adds time to the process.
                   •   Municipalities would be required to comply with Regional Growth Strategy and Official
                       Community Plans must be consistent with all municipal actions of the Regional Growth
                   •   Municipal actions require financial and operational resources; recommend they be
                   •   Regional regulatory powers limits cities’ ability to manage and regulate land use.
                   •   Regional Growth Strategy designations would supersede Burnaby’s zoning.
Coquitlam          •   The draft is not supportable as it does not appropriately reflect and accommodate the
                       plans, policies and decisions of local governments; does not maintain an appropriate level
                       of local government land use planning and decision-making authority and undermines the
                       partnership approach to regional planning that has existed between Metro Vancouver and
                       its member municipalities.
                   •   The RGS should be based on the adoption of key regional designations, directions and
                       guidelines for recommended implementation by local governments instead of the strict
                       regulatory approach proposed in the current draft.
                   •   The draft RGS be revised to emphasize goal setting and consultation by the Regional
                       District instead of evaluation, direction and enforcement.
                   •   Strategies and actions are too regulatory for a regional plan.
Delta              •   Need more clarity on 7.1.6 – what is intent of municipality having to refer Official
                       Community Plan amendments to Metro?
                   •   Does not support the minor amendment process.
                   •   Agricultural lands in ALR on the Tsawwassen First Nation should be outside of Urban
                       Containment Boundary. Land uses for the Tsawwassen First Nation should be more
                       detailed and shown in the Regional Growth Strategy.
Electoral Area A   •   Parcels within the University Endowment Lands known as “Block F and K” should be
                       “Urban” in draft Regional Growth Strategy as per Musqueam and Province Agreement.
                       (Submission by University Endowment Lands).
Langley City       •   No Comments
Langley Township   •   Need a simplified process for minor changes, and minor changes to local plans should not
                       be referred to the region.
                   •   Do not support parcel-based mapping, rather, show generalized concepts with a list of
                       tools to be used by each municipality based on local conditions.
                   •   The amendment process needs to be simplified to allow minor changes without regional
Lions Bay          •   No Comments

Maple Ridge        •   Supports the inclusion of the implementation section of the plan, but requests better
                   •   The name “Livable Region Strategic Plan” was a recognizable brand, and new name
                       waters down the brand and is inconsistent. Recommends that the region continue to refer
                       to the growth strategy as the Livable Region Strategic Plan.
                   •   Suggest Metro Vancouver more closely link the RGS, the Solid Waste Management Plan
                       and the Liquid Waste Management Plan in the public consultation program.
                   •   Concerns with the regulatory nature of the RGS and the resulting loss of local autonomy.
                       Council resolved that the RGS clearly describe municipalities’ autonomy to determine
                       density of lands designated in Official Community Plans and be compliant with Regional
                       Context Statements.
                   •   Recommend that the introduction of further regional plans/components during the duration
                       of the Regional Growth Strategy be treated as addendums and be subject to the same
                       review process as the Regional Growth Strategy inclusive of the Regional Context
                       Statement prior to acceptance into the plan.
                   •   Recommend that Metro Vancouver identify how municipalities can be compensated for
                       positive contributions to the Rural, Conservation/Recreation and Agricultural land base.
                   •   Recommend that the Regional Growth Strategy be amended to clearly identify the roles,
                       relationships and authority of other agencies identified within the Strategy and within the
                       framework of honouring local autonomy and duly elected Councils.
                   •   Recommend that the draft Regional Growth Strategy be amended to eliminate the level of
                       technical requirements in Regional Context Statements.
                   •   Request changes to maps, as outlined in Maple Ridge’s “Review of Draft Regional Growth
                       Strategy Mapping Decisions Chart – Including Council Resolutions” May 4, 2009
                       Workshop (see Maple Ridge submission for list of requests)
New Westminster    •   Request that the Metro Vancouver Board release another draft that incorporates concerns
                       and comments submitted by all parties for another round of municipal and public review
                       prior to the initiation of the formal bylaw adoption process.
North Van. City    •   Would prefer if lands near the town centre/Marine Drive corridor be shown as “Industrial
                       Commercial” to give future flexibility.
                   •   Regional Growth Strategy is a unique document in the Metro Vancouver Sustainable
                       Region Initiative Framework “Suite of Plans” because municipalities must show
                       relationship through Regional Context Statement, and as such, Regional Growth Strategy
                       should be given priority over other plans.
North Van. Dist.   •   Request a number of changes (outlined in staff reported dated May 14, 2009) in order for
                       the District to support a new RGS.
                   •   All population, employment and dwelling unit projections should be referred to the RGS as
                       guidelines only.
                   •   Request that all strategies referring to TransLink’s role be amended so that a TransLink
                       review does not add another regional-level approval of municipal decisions.
                   •   The implementation section and request for municipalities to provide Regional Context
                       Statements identifying Official Community Plan consistency with the Regional Growth
                       Strategy should be removed as it goes beyond the provisions set out in the Local
                       Government Act, and request that each strategy be amended regarding Metro Vancouver
                       ensuring requirements of the Strategy are met in the RCS to better reflect the relationship
                       between and OCP and the RGS as set out in the Local Government Act.
                   •   The timeline is very tight and makes it challenging to incorporate the feedback into the
Pitt Meadows       •   Concerns that implementation approach will take away local decision making abilities and
                       be difficult to administer.
Port Coquitlam     •   No Comments
Port Moody         •   Heritage Woods Upland and Urban Reserve lands be included inside the Urban
                       Containment Boundary.

Richmond           •   Support overall goals and vision of the RGS.
                   •   Supports the clearer distinction regarding what actions Metro Vancouver, the
                       municipalities, other governments and agencies will each do to implement the RGS.
                   •   Amendment process is not acceptable; the implementation and amendment mechanisms
                       are not clear. There is a lack of clarity regarding the proposed decision making and
                       implementation powers by Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and other
                       governments and agencies in the RGS.
                   •   The RGS includes many items that municipalities must respond to through their Regional
                       Context Statements within two years of the RGS being adopted. . . .given this detail, it is
                       essential that it be defined when an amendment to the RCS and the RGS are triggered,
                       and evaluate whether these are appropriate.
                   •   The Feb. 2009 draft RGS does not incorporate Richmond’s concerns and suggestions,
                       and the timetable does not allow time for Metro Vancouver staff to resolve issues.
                       Therefore, request that when a new draft is prepared, that Metro Vancouver undertake a
                       new round of consultation with each municipality to resolve issues, etc.
                   •   Does not want to cede municipal control over land use.
                   •   Municipalities can manage agricultural lands.
                   •   Designations need to be confirmed by Richmond prior to Regional Growth Strategy
                   •   Industrial, Industrial/Commercial lands in Richmond should be shown as Urban.
                   •   Blundell and Nelson interchanges should be shown on Map 7.
Surrey             •   Supports the overall goals and vision of the RGS.
                   •   RGS should have a policy for annual housekeeping amendments to the RGS
                   •   The requirements for Regional Context Statements are too numerous.
                   •   Required content in Regional Context Statements will greatly increase the amount of
                       regional oversight in local land use planning.
                   •   Requests a further review of a draft RGS before the RGS is forwarded as a bylaw for
                       readings and a public hearing.
                   •   The RGS does not address financial reform, or the need to create a more balanced
                       assessment base and more equitable regional distribution of jobs to population by sub-
                   •   Recommends that Metro Vancouver’s role be to advance research and support on
                       matters of regional concern to member municipalities.
                   •   Concern about the level of detail in the parcel-based maps and the amendment process
                       that would go with it.
                   •   Does not support a stronger regional role in local government matters.
Electoral Area A   •   No Comments
Vancouver          •   Supports the goals and strategies of the RGS, as well as the overall land use concept,
                       and acknowledge that the targets for dweling units and employment are consistent with
                       Vancouver policy and note they are minimums, not maximums
                   •   Don’t support the region having decision making power on land use, and see Metro’s role
                       as monitoring, raising awareness, promoting, researching and facilitating the work of
                   •   Requests that the next draft be reviewed by member municipalities prior to Board initiation
                       of the formal approval process, and requests that the timing for approval be adjusted to
                       accommodate Olympic commitments.
                   •   Suggest a number of performance measures to consider including in the RGS.
West Vancouver     •   Request that the next draft of the RGS be reviewed by municipalities prior to the formal
                       regional plan approval process.
White Rock         •   No Comments

                                                        5.1 ATTACHMENT 2A

         Public Comments Summary on the Regional Growth Strategy
                           As of June 29, 2009

Summary of comments from Focus Groups and the Public related to:

1            Goal 1 - Create a Compact Urban Area
             - Urban Containment Boundary
             - Urban Containment Boundary and Agricultural Land
             - Urban Containment Boundary and Population Growth
             - Urban Containment Boundary / Implementation
             - Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors
             - Green House Gases Emissions Reduction
             - Green House Gas Emissions Reduction by Focusing Growth in Centres
               and Transit Corridors
             - Green House Gas Emissions Reduction and Buildings Energy Efficiency
             - Rural Land.

2            Goal 2 - Support a Sustainable Economy
             - Employment Distribution
             - Employment Distribution and Commercial Best Practices
             - Industrial Land
             - Industrial Best Practices
             - Industrial Land / Implementation
             - Agricultural Land
             - Agricultural Land and Best Practices
             - Agricultural Land and Food Security
             - Agricultural and Industrial Lands
             - Agricultural Land and Transit Corridors.

3            Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets
             - Conservation and Recreation Land Designation
             - Comprehensive Approach to Natural Assets.

4            Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
             - Diverse and Affordable Housing
             - Climate Change.

5            Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
             - Transit and Active Modes
             - Goods Movement.

6            General Comments on:
             - Governance and Implementation
             - Other.


Public Comments Summary
Regional Growth Strategy

#     Source      Comments
Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Urban Containment Boundary
1        Focus Groups    Establish UCB: Do not want more green space and farming area to be converted
                         to housing. Need it to grow our own food supply.
2        Focus Groups    UCB: Good idea to minimize encroachment which automatically happens when
                         developers are allowed to set their own rules.
3        Focus Groups    I like the idea of the UCB if it were paired effectively with increasing urban centres
                         (density), affordable housing and increased rapid transit between urban centres
                         and more bike routes and safe pedestrian routes.
4        Focus Groups    Encourages long distance commuting to areas beyond the urban growth boundary
                         (more urban sprawl than would otherwise occur).
5        Focus Groups    UCB: Boundary appears too large, i.e., more confinement needed. Areas like
                         Burnaby Mountain, Pacific Spirit Park and Deer Lake are within UCB and should
                         be excluded? Areas in SRMD and south of the Fraser designate certain areas as
                         non-conforming if outside
6        Focus Groups    UCB: Needs to be established as development needs to be contained but market
                         pressures may override this. Decisions are out of our hands depending on who is
                         in power in Victoria, municipal governments that are pro-development and can
                         affect whose density needs are met.
7        Focus Groups    Establish UCB: How is it going to affect housing growth within limited space?
8        Focus Groups    UCB: In principle I support. Concerns that entire physical region not included, (e.g.,
                         Abbotsford, Chilliwack, etc.) so not sure how successful it will be.
9        Focus Groups    UCB: How much is the boundary shown on the map a reflection of existing
                         development rather than the best plan for containment boundary?
10       Focus Groups    UCB: Provincial variability, allowances for…
11       Focus Groups    UCB: West Vancouver proposed development is not shown on urban containment
12       Focus Groups    UCB: In our discussion we spoke about going at the boundary from the other end.
                         Establishing conservation land and agricultural land and this would automatically
                         create a boundary for urban development.
13       Focus Groups    UCB: Concerned that an urban containment boundary will cause housing to
                         increase in price
14       Focus Groups    What will the impact be on the price of land?
15       Focus Groups    Theme 1: Focusing growth too much could drive affordability up. There is a great
                         need for "starter" houses for new families. All houses seem to be 3000 square feet
                         and $600,000.
16       Focus Groups    UCB: Must not ignore influences outside Metro Vancouver, e.g., newly proposed
                         Amtrak corridor connecting Metro Vancouver to Portland and Seattle.
17       Focus Groups    The danger of boundary effects - For example, the perimeter of an urban centre
                         may create ghettos surrounding more sought after centre areas near
                         transportation centres.
18       Focus Groups    Urban containment with some changes. (Co-op and other lower income housing
                         should exist and rent could go down.)
19       Focus Groups    I support urban development within the UCB, keeping safe green areas.
20       Focus Groups    UCB: Obvious benefits; to not contain growth would be foolish
21       Focus Groups    UCB: Agree. It appears to be used on Hong Kong Island and development there
                         remains mostly on the north side of the island with the southern half primarily in its
                         natural state. The Hong Kong area has a population of at least 6 million.
22       Focus Groups    UCB: By encouraging diverse business types…

#    Source         Comments
23   Focus Groups   UCB: Good idea but concerned whether it will contain growth or whether rezoning,
                    etc. will always occur.
24   Focus Groups   UCB: Agree because we need a mix of park land, work areas and housing.
25   Focus Groups   UCB: I support this idea. I like how downtown Vancouver is constructed and how
                    everything is close. I would like to see more of this in other cities.
26   Public         Urban use is not well defined
27   Public         It is the right approach. It is all about efficiently allocating our limited resources to
                    its best use
28   Public         More comprehensive policy should be designed to make more efficient use of the
29   Public         Containment essential place to start, dense centres support usefulness of transit
30   Public         Support proposal under theme 1, but concerned by the fact that urban boundaries
                    includes so much Greenfield land → many proposal are undermined.
31   Public         Caution about urban containment.
32   Public         I support the Urban Containment Boundary, it shows planning needs to be in
33   Public         Urban Containment Boundary: As we are one of only two districts with an urban
                    reserve, it is imperative that the OCP of the district respect the trigger clause to
                    develop the Thornhill urban reserve.
34   Public         Absolutely agree with having a definite Urban Containment Boundary with NO
                    EXCEPTION barring overwhelming community need.
35   Public         Establish UCB: Make a distinct boundary between urban and rural and enforce it.
                    No more urban sprawl! Don’t cave into demands of developers
36   Public         Establishing an Urban Containment Boundary means other strategies will met.
                    Theme one questions makes the urban boundary work.
37   Public         Urban Containment Boundary: Will help to protect farm land and natural areas and
                    will prevent sprawl
38   Public         Remove the solid line around the urban reserve and designate it with a dotted line
                    so that there is no misunderstanding about the future of this land use.
39   Public         An UCB is the brainchild of much smaller, better serviced European countries that
                    have had years of preparing and adapting infrastructure to support such theoretical
                    proposals. The real world requires a variety of choices. People will ultimately make
                    decisions based on their needs, not on what planners think people’s needs are.

40   Public         Compact communities are more efficient and therefore less costly to maintain the
                    infrastructure over time. Also, less energy (and less GHG) is required for
                    transportation. Leaves more green space for General living things, more
41   Public         Prevent urban sprawl
42   Public         Smart Growth: Containment prevents councils that are unable/unwilling to stop
43   Public         UCB: Concerned with sprawl within the boundary, similar to Portland, Oregon's
44   Public         Urban Containment Boundary: Absolutely necessary, municipalities should develop
                    firm containment boundaries ASAP
45   Public         Urban containment is necessary to encourage shift to transit, cycling and walking.

46   Public         Urban Containment Boundary: Employment lands must be included.
47   Public         Make the urban containment boundary a flexible one. Good development that gets
                    local support should be included.
48   Public         Drives lot prices up.

#    Source   Comments
49   Public   I understand the need/desire to centralize things but the greater mobility people
              have, the greater income potential that they have, thereby increasing wealth
              generation in the community.
50   Public   More close study for land boundary.
51   Public   Some boundaries need adjusting.
52   Public   Focus housing and job growth. Innovation and commercial centres.
53   Public   To ensure that the containment boundary is accepted, we need to ensure that the
              precise boundaries are entirely justifiable.
54   Public   Urban Containment Boundary: Necessary to focus and control growth
55   Public   Urban Containment Boundary: Great ideas as it makes sense for planning and
              implementing transit corridors, etc.
56   Public   UCB - recognize First Nation traditional territories and their government's land use
              plans for those territories.
57   Public   UCB: Lay out penalties / repercussions for moving and building outside the
58   Public   I prefer the containment that was adopted in 2004 (Burma Road Extension). P.S...,
              As I have voiced at various public meetings.
59   Public   Yes, making a defined boundary is a good idea.
60   Public   Good idea but concerned about too many high rises. Can achieve density without
              so many high-rises. Must preserve views and sense of place. Don't block out
              mountain and water views.
61   Public   UCB all depends on where the boundaries are!
62   Public   Increased density will result in increased conflict, hence a reduction in quality of
63   Public   I am against the urban boundary.
64   Public   Do not support the urban containment boundary - Concentration is not an option.
              Encourage housing.
65   Public   Containment has caused a drastic shortage of land - higher lot prices for
66   Public   Urban containment boundary: Seems redundant on top of existing measures.
              Need to explain terms in detail.
67   Public   Do not agree with urban containment as it pertains to north east Port Coquitlam,
              especially when it will have a negative effect on established neighbourhoods.
68   Public   Because unsure urban containment boundary.
69   Public   Oppose urban containment boundary: Reduces land supply and will increase land
              cost. Ignores individual land rights.
70   Public   Love urban containment and transportation corridors
71   Public   Theme 1: Essential to encouraging density and protecting natural and agricultural
              areas for food security and habitat.
72   Public   In Port Coquitlam, UCB must include the agricultural land. Land development must
73   Public   Urban containment boundary: Ensures green spaces within and without urban
              areas and diversity of uses.
74   Public   Urban containment: Don't just talk about it, DO IT! Reduce transportation, i.e.,
              vigorously promote living where you work and working where you live!!
75   Public   This is the only way to prevent urban sprawl. Having widely spread enclaves does
              not make for vibrant communities.
76   Public   Urban containment, centres and corridors need funding. (Diverse housing needs
              help to stop housing flippers, supportive transportation.) Need to set up highway
              system in City of Vancouver.
77   Public   Support strong urban containment as key element to shaping the region
78   Public   Highways in "Gateway" will undermine the containment
79   Public   UCB will be a good first step. With concentration of population, attention must be
              paid to social infrastructure and housing diversity.
80   Public   Shrink boundary as is.

#     Source   Comments
81    Public   Where and what specific lands are in or out of the boundary?
82    Public   Go back to previous plan boundaries.
83    Public   Too large a boundary.
84    Public   UCB is probably Ok in general but prohibiting growth outside the boundary is
               flawed. Policies need to be flexible to take into account individual situations and
               changing times.
85    Public   The danger is property within the boundary will appreciate in value at the expense
               of property owners outside the boundary.
86    Public   This is necessary to ensure that agricultural, industrial and recreational areas are
               also preserved….a place for everything and everything in its place.
87    Public   Protecting certain other areas will naturally create a boundary.
88    Public   Sound cost effective.
89    Public   Seems to work in Hong Kong (if they have one). The north side of Hong Kong
               Island has most of its population on it and the south side is mostly pristine. Hong
               Kong and the New Territories have a population of at least 6 million.
90    Public   Sounds like a good idea but it needs a lot of work.
91    Public   I think it’s a good idea with measures in place regarding people, taxes, etc. on the
92    Public   I agree that urban sprawl is already too great in Metro Vancouver.
93    Public   Provide a broad mix of services to satisfy local needs to encourage living and
               working within the boundary.
94    Public   Maple Ridge Urban Reserve should be removed because 1) development would
               deforest the Grant Hill bedrock aquifers watershed 2) 11 km from town core,
               encouraging sprawl 3) greatly impact Class 1 ALR land below urban reserve
               (water supply and quality)
95    Public   Ignores individual property rights. Will reduce land supply and cost of land will
96    Public   Like the ALR, all it takes is political pressure to allow "friends" to be exempt. Better
               to develop guidelines to permit development on an individual assessment basis,
               available to all land owners, not just these few.
97    Public   We cannot allow the creeping growth that is taking place today into "green areas"
               and supposed "industrial land". Developers need to give more credence to the
               need for the environment to be protected.
98    Public   Urban sprawl is too high a tax expense that we cannot afford. Traffic gridlock is
               already a problem.
99    Public   Yes, but will the Urban Containment Boundary truly protect rural lands?
100   Public   We need to concentrate development to preserve limited farm land
101   Public   Protect our liveability
102   Public   Agreed. Follow other region experiences/mistakes to learn
103   Public   Sprawl is not good
104   Public   Establish another boundary protecting undeveloped areas within the urban
               containment boundary so to encourage growth within existing developed areas.
105   Public   Isn't the ALR already and Urban Containment Boundary? There's so little industrial
               and park land in Vancouver, how relevant is a UCB semantics?
106   Public   Must overcome dispersed inertia to re-zone (spot re-zoning)!
107   Public   It doesn't seem strong enough. Maybe LRSP growth concentration areas seemed
               smaller (although you indicate it's smaller) It seems the concentration centres is
               more important.
108   Public   I'm not sure how you can do that without driving up the cost of housing, shrinking
               of public amenities
109   Public   I think it is a great concept and hope that it will retain both our parklands and
               agricultural lands
110   Public   This forces up the cost of accommodation within the boundaries

#          Source             Comments
111        Public             This would further protect encroachment or alienation into watershed green habitat

112        Public        The more density, the more importance to governmental boundaries/laws in a
113      Public          Too rigid. This will increase property values and restrict use of agricultural land
                         without helping agriculture. Noble idea but flawed.
114      Public          Good concepts
Urban Containment Boundary and Agricultural Land
115      Focus Groups    UCB: Support overall idea but have concerns about ALR that is the integrity of the
                         ALR lands.
116      Public          It is vital to ensure that urban use does not overtake land for other uses,
                         particularly agricultural and recreational lands.
117      Public          Urban agricultural land should be preserved before any growth is considered.
118      Public          I believe that we need to densify development to protect greenways and
                         agricultural land.
119      Public          Helps protect ALR/Green Zone. Perhaps look at areas that should not be
                         developed for slope, flood plane issues (e.g., too high up the hill in City of North
120      Public          Concerned about land restrictions. Dissuades innovative use of land that cannot
                         be used as agricultural/needs to be remediated. That does not fall within boundary

121        Public        Yes, please create a UCB, but consider going a step further to allow roll-back of
                         development that has occurred on agriculturally significant land.
122      Public          Areas like Westwood should not be built. We cannot continue to shave the
                         mountains and fill it in with large housing. The urban boundary also should not
                         encroach on or take over the ALR and conservation areas. DO NOT build housing
                         on ALR!!
123      Public          Set very clear definitions on what is "permitted" outside this boundary. The ALR is
                         often violated by exceptions to the rules such as "non farm uses" and infrastructure
                         that is not held to a tight footprint (like cell towers).
124      Public          Should not extend into any currently zoned ALR.
125      Public          The UCB should consider the preservation of the ALR
126      Public          UCB appears too generous, especially in the south and farmland areas.
                         Agricultural and local food supply will become more important in the future and
                         needs protection.
127      Public          Urban containment boundary: It will help with protection of agricultural lands which
                         ties in with food strategies.
128      Public          Correct the boundary for Richmond so that ALL ALR land is NOT within that urban
                         containment boundary.
Urban Containment Boundary and Population Growth
129      Focus Groups    UCB: Seems better than urban sprawl. Containment does not allocate population
                         shifts; one year population could grow and suddenly decline.
130      Public          Population growth will override any greenhouse gas reductions.
131      Public          I strongly challenge the population growth assumption that is the basis of this
                         planning process. This assumption assures that we will not do our share to meet
                         international GHG targets to avoid severe climate impacts - local forest fires, water
132      Public          Need to provide more land use guidance on churches and places to worship to
                         accommodate the additional one million new residents. Should they be on
                         residential or industrial lands?
133      Public          North Vancouver, with the current OCP, will already max the population growth.
                         We do not have services, parks or transit routes to accommodate accelerated
                         Metro Vancouver wishes?

#          Source             Comments
134        Public        More and more immigrants will come to Metro Vancouver because of the good
                         environments. The cities should be well planned because of the growth of the
135      Public          I come from a city of 6 million people that grew out of control. Here I appreciate the
                         green areas.
136      Public          Good base idea, but I believe that the inability to control population within these
                         areas potentially makes it unfeasible. I'd be afraid of the areas that allow growth
                         becoming extremely overpopulated and big/crowded.
137      Public          Port Moody has no undeveloped land except the Ioco property. If the city's
                         population grows by 60% by 2040, then where will the 60% more greenspace
                         come from? Perhaps we can't accommodate this assumed population growth?
138      Public          Concentration of population is already too much.
139      Public          As the baby boom exits the population, the smaller Gen X population will NOT
                         need as much housing, i.e., the urban footprint can shrink.
140      Public          Need to assess sustainable population, which may be SMALLER and then shrink
                         to urban area to release land for agriculture, industry and natural space.
141      Public          There should be an ultimate population number that will not be exceeded in
                         designated areas. Start off MACRO, but eventually become more discrete.
Urban Containment Boundary / Implementation
142      Focus Groups    UCB: The boundary will change and evolve (e.g., Maple Ridge with the new
                         Golden Ears Bridge) and must realize Metro Vancouver growth will occur.
143      Focus Groups    Agree on all issues but I am concerned about the actual implementation
144      Focus Groups    UCB: should not be cast in stone. Boundaries need to be changed for a host of
                         unforeseeable reasons.
145      Focus Groups    UCB: I think it’s a great idea if the containment boundary DOES NOT grow over
                         time. Otherwise I don't feel its containment.
146      Focus Groups    UCB: Need an appeal mechanism
147      Focus Groups    UCB: conceptually fine. Needs to be managed deeply at community level in
                         establishment and needs community approved mechanisms in place to evaluate
                         property anomalies especially for border or "rural" areas.
148      Focus Groups    UCB: I think it should be carefully planned as to how to involve the community in
                         decision making within containment zones. Referendum? Committee? Do citizens
                         get heard? It is a good idea I think but needs to be implemented carefully.

149        Focus Groups       UCB: Good idea, but I feel that being unable to exercise population control ruins it.
150        Focus Groups       UCB: How does this idea move through time? Flexible or a rigid boundary?
151        Focus Groups       Establish UCB: How will the bylaws be enforced?
152        Focus Groups       UCB: Concerned about how it will be managed, e.g., when a municipality wants to
                              change the boundaries.
153        Public             UCB: Agree, but requires detail negotiations with local and provincial governments.

154        Public             UCB: Structure/rules to prevent changes over time due to population, density
                              pressure and development pressure.
155        Public             Urban Containment Boundary - over time to 2040 some flexibility may be required
                              to increase the size of the development area.
156        Public             Urban Containment Area: Concerned that central planners who are not aware of
                              local issues will allocate land use without proper consideration of tax bases,
                              service provision and local needs.
157        Public             Key: Tighter containment
158        Public             Yes, support UCB but need to examine areas slated for future development which
                              are presently forested and not serviced by sewage water, etc. (e.g., proposed
                              Riverwalk development in Coquitlam).
159        Public             Urban boundaries are necessary .Consideration must be given to governance.

#     Source   Comments
160   Public   Shaping the region: Urban containment, etc. Support diversity within a more dense
               region; force density up; corridors method has merit; harder containment boundary
               should be enforced above the municipal level
161   Public   Boundaries may need to change over time
162   Public   With provisions for continuous consultation over 30 + years.
163   Public   Caution: moveable, lots of consultation
164   Public   Yes, but be sure the boundaries don't change
165   Public   2/3 weighted vote: Just concerned with the ability of municipalities to make own
               land use decisions and respect opportunities.
166   Public   Who sets those boundaries? Does Municipal Council set the boundaries?
167   Public   There should be public consultation for each city first (regarding UCB boundaries).

168   Public   Put a time limit on it, say 2025 and then re-evaluate. Require super majority vote,
               say 67%, by Metro Vancouver Board to approve
169   Public   It is the only way to ensure high density housing? Look at Melbourne, Australia.
               Five years ago they came up with Melbourne 2030 Growth Strategy which included
               a growth boundary. This has since been moved many times and the strategy has
               been abandoned.
170   Public   Caution! Actually do it, DO NOT let local government relax. STICK TO IT.
171   Public   I think that the individual municipalities should be able to amend their urban
               boundaries if required for minor adjustments.
172   Public   Local government should have more flexibility on the boundaries. They are more
               likely to be in touch with local needs.
173   Public   It is important that these boundaries be established and maintained. Council and
               mayor must not be able to adjust these at the request of developers regardless of
               the reason.
174   Public   Amendments to the UCB should be made only by those persons with NO ties to
               those who might benefit financially or otherwise from revised boundaries!
175   Public   Should be a different boundary marking for urban boundary and urban reserve so
               that it is clear for current and future residents where and when growth will occur.
               Also holds council for accountability for development beyond the boundary line.
176   Public   We need to have a UCB that we can count on. This will prevent edge creep and
               the residents within the community, newcomers and developers, will be clear about
               this boundary. There will be no need for the citizens to feel that this boundary can
               be amended.
177   Public   Any regional plan is doomed unless Metro Vancouver strongly enforces this
178   Public   The boundary should be concrete before changing the people not simply the board
               should decide. The structure of the board overpowers smaller communities where
               major growth will take place.
179   Public   Who sets those boundaries? Municipal council?
180   Public   Boundary lines need input from local government. Distant governance is not
181   Public   Must be enforced. Municipalities should not have room to expand the boundary
               without clear justification at Metro Vancouver level.
182   Public   Good idea, but will the boundaries be respected or will they move?
183   Public   What criteria must be met to change the area? Who makes the change?
184   Public   I support, but concerned that the boundary can easily be changed by the Metro
               Vancouver Board vote.
185   Public   Need appeal procedure.
186   Public   Municipalities should have the ability to make some exceptions with public support.

187   Public   Regional mandate without choice to opt out.

#          Source             Comments
188        Public             Fixed boundaries for a period of 30 years is not feasible as there has to be a
                              suitable mechanism for some form of change due to future needs, such as 1) wind
                              farms 2) central government requirements 3) future need to reduce housing cost

189        Public             No urban containment would mean nowhere to farm. Farming anyone? Urban
                              containment is an absolute necessity, but who decides (political pressure from
                              special interest groups) criteria for boundaries?
190        Public             UCB: Municipalities need to reserve a realistic supply of land to allow growth to
                              occur through the lifespan of the plan. Municipalities should consider this prior to
                              adopting the new plan as it will be very hard to amend in the future.
191        Public             I need more public consultation about municipality's "UCB".
192        Public             UCB: We give control of our community decisions away to people who don't share
                              our concerns. When the line is set we will be stuck with it.
193        Public             UCB: I support it, but not sure how the boundary will be set.
194        Public             UCB: Prevent urban sprawl (developer driven) by giving support to the original
                              OCP established boundaries, so that council cannot change it due to developers’
195        Public             Does not apply to Maple Ridge as the Municipal Council can change the OCP
                              anytime they want.
196        Public             UCB: Once set, it should be very difficult for individual municipalities to amend.
197        Public             Strongly enforce the Urban Containment Boundary. It should not be able to be
                              changes at the will of Council. Planning which involves the community needs to be
                              respected. If an UCB is enforced, all the General issues will fall into place naturally.

198        Public          Establish an Urban Containment Boundary and do not cross it, so everybody
                           knows what the rule is and edge creeping is halted
199      Public            Urban Containment Boundary: Exact limits need to be discussed carefully with
                           municipalities and neighbouring municipalities.
200      Public            Urban Containment Boundary: Should be solid, not available for variations by
                           municipal councils outside of their OCP
201      Public            Urban Containment Boundary is mandatory, but it must have some teeth. At
                           present, each municipality/city sets urban boundaries, but gives in to development
                           pressure, and only allows to be violated.
202      Public            UCB: Yes, but with the ability to amend if necessary
203      Public            UCB: Municipalities must have greater authority in decisions
204      Public            UCB: Rethink the process for municipalities to amend the boundaries after it is
                           initially set.
205      Public            About the Urban Containment Boundary: Believe it's a good idea but am worried
                           about who determines and sets the boundary more or less, and why?
206      Public            How is the UCB established and how easy is it to amend? Our OCP's are
                           continually amended so does the line keep changing?
207      Public            Urban Containment Boundaries need local input
208      Public            Municipalities should have the ability to make changes to UCB autonomously in
                           accordance with their OCP reviews.
209      Public            About establishing Urban Containment Boundary: What can Metro Vancouver do
                           when municipalities keep shifting urban boundaries to allow sprawl?
Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors
210      Focus Groups      Focus housing and job growth within urban centres. People will spend less time
                           commuting each day, less pollution, less stress, and they spend less.
211      Focus Groups      Urban Centres: Good idea, then don't have to drive or take transit to Vancouver.
212      Focus Groups      Focus growth: It's ok to develop residential densification in existing low-density
                           areas even if they are not in urban centres (low to medium not just medium to

#     Source         Comments
213   Focus Groups   Focus growth in centres: Prefer to see growth in various centres not just large
                     urban areas. Otherwise it sounds like high density housing and it becomes more
                     expensive because of demand and there can be increased crime in high density
                     housing areas.
214   Focus Groups   The concern with focusing housing and job growth within urban centres is that it
                     leads to affordability and crime problems. If a plan could be developed to counter
                     problems, they could be evaluated for soundness. Often the high density around
                     transportation also leads to less affordability and a further division in the population
215   Focus Groups   Urban centres: These create a lot of noise e.g. living along skyTrain line, living
                     along busy roads like Knight Street. Try and reduce noise during certain times.
216   Focus Groups   Transit corridors: Consideration must be given to noise for people living close to
                     corridors. Noise barriers of some kind?
217   Focus Groups   Focus housing and job growth: Yes! But with more access. RAIL and using
218   Focus Groups   Focus growth in centres: Make sure that transit corridors are not just bus focused
                     but also rail and water focused. Transit corridors should be developed in the
                     Langley area to other areas in Metro Vancouver. Rapid transit is key. More
                     community transit is also key.
219   Focus Groups   Would like to hear more pros and cons on connecting land use and transportation.
                     Not everyone can live close to their work!!
220   Focus Groups   Transit corridors with lanes for only electric/hybrid vehicles.
221   Focus Groups   Do not agree with focusing growth within city centres and transit corridors because
                     I feel these areas would become over populated and unaffordable.
222   Focus Groups   Focus housing and job growth within urban centres and along transit corridors:
                     There are job opportunities in existing areas (e.g., New Westminster) where there
                     is limited to no transit access to get people without cars to work there.
223   Public         Make sure my community is not sacrificed for Coquitlam's transportation corridor.

224   Public         Sustainability means living where we work - some need to live near industry.
225   Public         Housing and jobs should be spread out to make life easy and free of crimes.
226   Public         Urban Centres and Transit Corridors: All support and are necessary for urban
                     containment to work. Also, these supportive items must be in place or concurrent
                     with the urban containment.
227   Public         People need to work where they live or within a class 1 transit corridor. This helps
                     eliminate traffic and more need for bridges that are not cost effective
228   Public         The transit system has to support it and has to be in place so the user has a transit
                     system to support this goal.
229   Public         Prefer to stay local for my needs, but if I have to go outside my community I prefer
                     to use the transit corridors and keep out of the car.
230   Public         Support: Driving outside of the city to the Big Box stores is an abomination (and a
                     waste of a Saturday)
231   Public         I agree with this but things could change. Not a top priority to me.
232   Public         Density at the expense of a "concrete jungle". Quality of life sacrificed to transit
                     corridors. I'm in favour of increased density with a mix - uses of town homes and
                     low rises NOT hi-rises.
233   Public         Hoping that this will reduce the need for the automobile. It's worth a try.
234   Public         Same density in existing neighbourhoods good (more a car issue).
235   Public         Will reduce commuting distances
236   Public         Create more "villages" where people can access food, entertainment, basic
                     amenities locally rather than requiring a car to get groceries, etc.
237   Public         Need to find constructive ways to support growth not in these areas.
238   Public         Improves transit quality and quantity. FREQUENCY justified by high density
                     population is key.

#     Source   Comments
239   Public   Goods movement, distribution and cargo will not occur within urban centres.
240   Public   Yes, but be sure there is interconnection between the urban centres, not just into
               central Vancouver but between. i.e., make it easier to get to Richmond from
               Burnaby without a car
241   Public   This is very sensible. An excellent model to follow.
242   Public   Yes, good idea. Change property tax to encourage this. (Tax base on square feet
               of land, not value).
243   Public   Make it easier to build "community" without cars and sprawl.
244   Public   It is the most efficient
245   Public   Need to build up not out. More focus building around current transit and
               infrastructure. Developers need to work within existing infrastructure and cities
               should not build to suit developers it needs to be the other way around.
246   Public   This is okay but its cost factors are too high. It should be an individual choice. Not
               making us pay not to drive.
247   Public   Too much glass in Vancouver. Too many high rises. No architectural class.
248   Public   If housing and job growth is focused within Urban Centres, then transit can be
               planned effectively and efficiently to address the movement of people to work and
249   Public   Not only is this common sense, it is cheaper as it does not require more
               infrastructure and can be sold on basis that it will limit property tax increases.
250   Public   Housing and job growth need to be in close proximity and easily accessible to each
               other for a less wasteful and efficient community. Agriculture and conservation
               areas need their space so they can serve their purpose.
251   Public   Yes but use rail on a large scale. Utilize electric car.
252   Public   Less cars on road if workplace is closer to home. Would encourage transit.
253   Public   Concern for quiet enjoyment of homes close to transit.
254   Public   How does edge effects impact on values within urban centres? Are we creating
               ghettos on the edges of urban centers too far from transportation corridors and too
               close to industrial centres?
255   Public   Need to work on noise reduction in transit areas where people live.
256   Public   I don't think a focus on growing urban centres is necessarily a good idea.
257   Public   Always the chicken and egg scenario: Do we build transit to get the business? Do
               we build the business to get the transit? Which comes first, land use or transport?

258   Public   Encouragement of transit to keep the cars off the road.
259   Public   However, mass rapid transit (SkyTrain) needed to service these centres that can
               carry large number of commuters to avoid automobiles. Also cycling areas need to
               be allocated in all areas - throughways!
260   Public   I have great concerns that these areas could become over burdened with too
               many people and too few services in too little space. This could be critical if
               development of services and facilities does not keep up with the movement of
               people into the urban centres.
261   Public   I support aspects of residential concentration and job growth, but the plan doesn't
               recognize the dynamics of industry. The cost of office towers equals high rent and
               equals uncompetitive retail, and commercial enterprise is extremely adaptable and
               will find a new paradigm 3 times before 2040.
262   Public   Create physical town centers (like Europe has) that includes space for people to
               loiter and interact and create community.
263   Public   This will occur naturally if property is zoned correctly.
264   Public   This will improve affordability and save travel time.

#     Source   Comments
265   Public   Focusing (vs. requiring) job growth in areas well served by transit makes sense.
               Focusing high density housing in areas well served by transit also makes sense.
               Focusing low density housing in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development
               Corridors doesn't make sense. The transit needs to be in place prior to the growth.
               i.e., TransLink needs to do its bit as well.
266   Public   In consideration moving some job base to town centers outside downtown so its
267   Public   I understand why this is important, it needs flexibility to adjust to unexpected social,
               economic behaviours and growth.
268   Public   I would also like to see more mixed use development beyond urban centres.
269   Public   Built it and they will come - frequency breeds greater use.
270   Public   Stop Gateway plan! Especially highways and port development in North and South
               Delta. We need better transit corridors. It is ridiculous that the Canada Line did not
               have a cycling infrastructure built in with it. Use economy of scale when something
               is being built.
271   Public   Bring up the density at intersections to higher than the 5-6 storeys discussed here.

272   Public   Must densify urban centres - mixed use high density. DO IT.
273   Public   What types of housing, density and distribution among the urban centres? What do
               frequent transit development corridors look like? What are their standard of
               frequent transit service to ensure viability and ridership? The map shown doesn't
               seem to make this network viable through region.
274   Public   Transit should include street cars as they exist in Europe. Expensive developing an
               underground tube.
275   Public   Must match transit development with capacity to fund. Traditional funding sources
               will not sustain current plan.
276   Public   More attention for active agricultural communities that are self sustaining.
277   Public   Communal node please not too big, just right (like “Goldilocks and 3 Bears!”).
278   Public   Housing density: encouraging community nodes, but do not starve existing
               community out of existence.
279   Public   Again, be efficient with other systems that connect centers. Give people better
               working environments where they have access to other communities.
280   Public   Focussing on growth: There are existing areas that are lower density and need
               services. Growth should be permitted in those areas to ensure they are complete
               and self sufficient and don’t need to travel too far for retail/services.
281   Public   Some town centres (Coquitlam) want connections through people's
               neighbourhoods and town centres
282   Public   Some growth centres are already super congested let along adding more growth!

283   Public   When talking about the centres, it may be better to have several centres, reducing
               transportation pressure and air pollution.
284   Public   Change the wording from “urban centres” to “within the UCB”.
285   Public   Our community downtown core is dead and we need to find ways to enable
               development where they exist already.
286   Public   Develop in the downtown, up not out!
287   Public   We need the transit corridors and the network connecting to it.
288   Public   Transit needs to be in place first, not as an after thought. Development needs to be
               encouraged around existing transit and infrastructure.
289   Public   If the transit infrastructure is built (e.g. rapid transit) the development will follow the
               transit corridors. Allow market to work. Metro Vancouver needs representation on
               TransLink. The transit system will drive the plan.
290   Public   If housing is constrained, transit corridors that maximize travel efficiency are

#     Source   Comments
291   Public   The RGS needs to follow or exceed the transit corridors outlined in the TransLink
               2040 plan and its land uses. Metro Vancouver should identify logical transit
               corridors to support.
292   Public   TransLink: Frequent transit corridor plan has virtually nothing for the North Shore.

293   Public   If you permit development in transportation corridors, you may sacrifice principle of
               core developments.
294   Public   Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows should plan around a future rapid transit alignment
               east-west along Lougheed Highway.
295   Public   Too flexible. Again, it depends what exactly is meant by transit corridors. Roads
               that presently do not have public transit on them may well have in the future.
               Should these roads go through agricultural land that will be an excuse to remove
               the ALR designation.
296   Public   When proposals come forth for development in these corridors, the requesting
               municipality must provide an offsetting development proposal in transit corridor or
               request should be set aside until offset request is available.
297   Public   There should be a difference between a bus corridor and a SkyTrain corridor.
               People may live on the SkyTrain route but not have easy access to transit. These
               should not be areas of major development unless served by other transit.
298   Public   Transit corridors is the way to go; however, get that light rail in the valley and more
               frequent buses in Langley. Get rapid transit to the valley.
299   Public   Connect land use. Absolutely important. TransLink needs to be involved. Port
               Moody should have light rail service. We are building too many highways. We need
               dedicated cycling paths, not sides of roads.
300   Public   Theme 1 is difficult to disagree with but holds some contradictions. For example,
               nodes versus highway expansion. Details are needed - targets-actions-degree of
301   Public   Like the idea of nodes and corridors but can't see how highway expansion
               supports that structure.
302   Public   Important regarding transportation corridors, NOT allow extra roads put into
               rural/agricultural land to allow commercial development or housing. For example,
               Pitt Meadows land bought by SmartCentre, main client is Wal-Mart!
303   Public   Allow some flexibility around StryTrain stations, but more protection for industrial
               (i.e. no big box retail).
304   Public   No developer will want to build “off” a transit route anyway.
305   Public   Transit corridors make sense, but will be areas where densification may not be
306   Public   Needs work. Detailed consultation locally before decision on where and how wide.

307   Public   Needs work. Not happy about densification along transit corridors.
308   Public   Growth and transit corridors: Yes, but you also need to introduce local bylaws to
               allow for green initiatives and smart growth, not growth for the sake of growth
               (mainly because of growing economy).
309   Public   Transportation corridors should lead the way for development planning with transit
               receiving financial benefit from the development.
310   Public   Focusing on Urban Centres for housing/job growth: Focusing on a corridor could
               slow the corridor down, e.g., how much more load can Broadway handle, doubling
               the density along Broadway, Kingsway and Lougheed could make commutes
               nightmares if there are even more buses and people.
311   Public   Mixed use/office must go in transit corridors, but mixed use is a must to make it
312   Public   Land use and transit must be tied together. (E.g., the 200th Street Langley corridor
               can’t develop without the high quality transit in place first).

#     Source   Comments
313   Public   Transit corridors: For outlying areas, no corridors exist now, and TransLink refuses
               to build new ones. How do we service the growth that will come even without
               adequate corridor?
314   Public   This is a fantastic big step in the direction of walking the talk of a livable strategic
               region. The combination of containing the development footprint of Metro
               Vancouver with an intelligent transportation plan focused on thriving commercial
               and industrial centres is great. People deserve to live near work or amenities at
               prices they can afford.
315   Public   Support goal 1, but I am unclear about what corridor development implies.
316   Public   More emphasis needs to be placed on growth in centres and along corridors.
               Currently in our community the downtown is dead without proper infill and the
               sprawl continues with encouragement to build beyond the Urban Boundary. Our
               town will never become a special place that Metro Vancouver envisions with some
               strong language.
317   Public   Develop transit before you build community. Get light rail into Fraser Valley. Fast
               and Frequent buses needed.
318   Public   Transportation/Transit coordination must be improved - a city must know where
               the transit is proposed in order to determine where to build centres or corridors.
319   Public   I strongly support this principle (Question #2); however, it is not enough to just put
               growth in centres. We need to lobby the government (Provincial and Federal) for
               more and stronger financial incentives for transit use.
320   Public   Offset town centres with shuttle buses from community nodes to the centre, make
               sure there is free park and ride in outlying areas where rural dwellers can leave
               their cars.
321   Public   Support the nuance in the 'green zone' and would like to see similar nuance with
               centres and corridors
322   Public   Respects essential principles e.g., Protection of prime agricultural land, efficient
               urban development. Higher density centres and corridors along major transit lines.

323   Public   I question that focusing growth in centres and transit corridors actually do reduce
               gas emissions.
324   Public   Growth in centres: Definitely need growth along corridors but it should be decided
               by individual cities.
325   Public   Focus housing and job growth within urban centres along transit corridors but be
               flexible enough to allow for development in areas that fulfill the sustainability
               principles of the plan and is transit serviceable.
326   Public   I would like to see a Centre on the Scott Road Corridor at 88th Ave and Nordel
               Way. Would only support this if it encourages people to use transit.
327   Public   Housing growth should not only be limited to urban centres along transit corridors.
               Exceptions should be made (e.g., High Point in Langley).
328   Public   Housing and job growth within urban centres and transportation corridors: job
               growth and housing in urban containment; yes, but flexible if it makes sense.
329   Public   Focus on health and growth within urban centres and corridors → Move ahead
330   Public   Strongly support growth in centres and transit corridors
331   Public   The Fraser Valley was developed along the BC. ER. Inter-urban corridor. This
               corridor still exists yet has not even been recognized on the Metro Vancouver
332            Focus housing in centres I agree.
333            support notion of urban centres and corridors and creation of diverse communities.

#          Source            Comments
Green House Gases Emissions Reduction
334      Focus Groups    GHG's must be encouraged primarily by government incentives. This must begin
                         at a higher level. It is a top down issue.
335      Focus Groups    GHG's: Yes reduce at all levels of government i.e. walk-in paediatric can restrict
                         strollers or access to schools by walking not always the "district" school.

336       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: We need the infrastructure to achieve this goal so get on with it
                             and not by toll roads!
337       Focus Groups       GHG's: If you start, must complete, i.e., bike lanes should be everywhere. Do not
                             go 75% of the way and then stop.
338       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG by focusing on rail transportation.
339       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG pollution.
340       Focus Groups       GHG: Automobile roadways need deep thoughts and planning. E.g., Highways
                             less or no lights, urban areas more transit.
341       Focus Groups       GHG's: Naïve to expect someone in, say, Aldergrove to move to a corridor in
                             Metro Vancouver to cut the driving.
342       Focus Groups       Measurement of GHG's needs to breakdown person auto/commercial/transit. Also
                             needs to take into account overall education in auto emissions via better fuel
                             efficiency. What happens when we all drive electric vehicles? Now local GHG's are
                             low but what is the impact of power generation?
343       Focus Groups       There are a lot of other ways to reduce GHG effect. I feel that increasing the
                             amount of trees and making roads better for vehicles because there are electric
                             cars. Making the light be set up to get cars out and not making traffic stand still just
                             to prove we need TransLink. If we had lights set properly it would decrease GHG
                             effect. We are not focused properly and we are missing areas that help.
344       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's great yes but I have a problem with focusing growth….I voted
                             against this and I think we need smaller urban areas with services and more
                             people working from home or in commercial building in the small urban areas i.e.
                             many small centres in each large urban centre.
345       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG through growth/transit: Too singular of an approach - focused on
                             individual end user, which we often do.
346       Focus Groups       GHG emissions: the problem is that in other US states they can install solar
                             panels, wind turbines and feed excess energy back into the hydro grid and actually
                             receive a cheque. With extra electricity we can run cars and electric bikes for
347       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: of course! Focus growth in centres….there needs to be more
                             transit corridors. If there were, I would agree with this. But if all growth is
                             concentrated and INCREASED in centres, then people will continue to drive into
                             these centres and pollution will stay the same. The point is to reduce the causes of
                             GHG's; I'm not sure the current plan achieves this
348       Focus Groups       I would like to see more options to reduce GHG's other than focusing growth only
                             in centres and transit corridors. I would also like to see solutions in suburban
349       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: obvious but MORE is required outside of growth focus in centres
                             and transit corridors.
350       Public             Don’t deliberately make the GHG emissions worse! Incredibly, the Garden City
                             Lands and Department of National Defence Lands are within "urban" on the
                             current map yet they are a peat bog, i.e., carbon sink that would release huge
                             amounts of GHG's if developed (instead of filtering them out).
351       Public             Targets are VERY aggressive but the principle is good
352       Public             Increase efforts to reduce Greenhouse Gas (support Metro Vancouver's direction
                             and encourage more)
353       Public             Necessary to health of world
354       Public             We need this. Add green corridors. Improve transit - frequency and options.

#     Source   Comments
355   Public   Encourage fuel-efficient and electric cars. Provide incentives such as cheap
356   Public   Any measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be maximized.
357   Public   Yes, I support reducing GHG's but this statement says that only happens by
               focusing in centres - Not true - Too Exclusive.
358   Public   Good idea for residential use, but must not restrict the local and natural supply
359   Public   GHG reduction cap/trade more effective can get over 10x the bang for the same
               investment e.g., China.
360   Public   In principle, I do support this but the proposal is too vague to be meaningful.
361   Public   Go further. Position is weak. Meet with green groups and strengthen plan.
362   Public   Improvement must be on-going. However, reward would be better than gas tax,
               carbon tax ,etc.
363   Public   More needs to be done. This is just one small step. e.g., agricultural emission,
               waste management, existing infrastructure, energy conservation and new car
               technology/incentives ALL need to be addressed.
364   Public   One developer told me, once the electric car comes, we can build wherever we
365   Public   Must be reduced but not sure how it can be done.
366   Public   CO2 fear is a "red herring". Focus instead on nitrous gas, ash and solids pollution
               in the air. Make electrostatic process compulsory for large smoke stacks,
               hospitals, industry, etc.
367   Public   The healthy future of Metro Vancouver and the world depends on the significant
               reduction of greenhouse gases.
368   Public   Pressure federal government to legislate use of technologies that reduce GHG's.
               For example, hybrid cars and household appliances.
369   Public   Houses and automobiles
370   Public   It has not been conclusively shown that GHG's are a bad thing and that they
               contribute to global warming or that global warming is even occurring. The science
               is not settled. Ill-informed bureaucrats should butt out until scientists have reached
               a consensus.
371   Public   Yes, I support. Other outside regions must be considered. Electric rail from
               Pemberton, Whistler, Squamish, Lions Bay. Our respective air sheds will have
               cumulative effects on each other. We must regionally harmonize our efforts.
372   Public   More greenhouses and utilizing natural resources for energy sources to reduce
               GHG and power usage.
373   Public   Reduction of emissions by “electric rail” – All bridges should have LRT or
               “SkyTrain” provision.
374   Public   We should look at increasing efficiency within our existing systems to reduce
               greenhouse gas.
375   Public   Reducing GHG? Focus on reducing consumption of non-renewable resources and
               generation and management of waste.
376   Public   Aim for regional self-sustainable planning via 1) geothermal energy, 2) wave
               energy, 3) passive solar energy, 4) biofuel energy.
377   Public   I think that GHG emissions should be measured to reflect the difference between
               heavy goods, vehicles and cars.
378   Public   Need Metro Vancouver to grow a backbone and stand up to the provincial
               government irreconcilable plan of highway expansion / 33% GHG reduction by
379   Public   Better building codes to reduce GHG's and road pricing!
380   Public   Reduce GHG's by focusing growth, "live, work and play". I like this theme and
               protection of natural assets.

#     Source   Comments
381   Public   Reducing GHG's is only partial solution. Better solutions for energy
               generation/uses required.
382   Public   Reduction of GHG's must be a priority.
383   Public   We also need to be aware of prevailing winds in dealing with other pollutants as
               well as GHG's.
384   Public   Fraser River/ Fraser Valley pollutants travel from Vancouver.
385   Public   Planting trees to accommodate company offset. Be careful, mother nature doesn’t
               need much help if natural assets are protected because a natural forest
               replenishes itself with vegetation other than evergreen. Example, too many cedars
               stifle the tree canopy, contains emissions (GHG).
386   Public   Reducing GHG emission should also include Industrial and Agricultural.
387   Public   Reduce GHG emissions and focus on growth.
388   Public   GHG reduction: This proposal is only one aspect of a more comprehensive
               strategy. For example, agricultural emissions and waste to energy/industrial
               emissions would not be in centres and transit corridors.
389   Public   The plan starts with the premise of significant population growth - the solutions to
               preserving the environment. (e.g., reducing CO2 emissions are pure speculation
               with no surety)
390   Public   Metro Vancouver should do more to educate on how residents can make choices
               that would reduce our carbon footprint. We need much education on this and
               options. Metro Vancouver can help with providing some of these options.

391   Public   GHG: Definitely support but need to do more. MUCH MORE. How can we allow
               growth and still meet goals?
392   Public   Reduce GHG's: Keep green land green and brown land brown and build where we
               have already got asphalt
393   Public   Reduce greenhouse gases. Go beyond focusing growth. Let's extend and enhance
               this plan and meet with "green" groups. Strategies exist!
394   Public   Greenhouse Gas emission reduction - It just makes sense
395   Public   Greenhouse Gas emission reduction - Yes
396   Public   I support whatever measures necessary to meet GHG targets. We and this plan
               are not doing enough. We need to be more holistic and more visionary and more
397   Public   GHG: synchronise stop lights whenever possible to maximize flow and adjust as
               traffic patterns change.
398   Public   Greenhouse Gas: How will the baseline be determined and how will the results be
               tracked going forward?
399   Public   Report measurable targets for CO² reductions annually, year over year
400   Public   Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Good as far as it goes. Go much further!!
401   Public   The focus must be on cost effective ways to best increase the quality of life. Do not
               focus on one thing because it is the "cool" thing to do. There is a lot of media hype
               around GHG's, but there are scientists on both sides of the argument.

402   Public   GHG: All governments must NOT be allowed to purchase carbon credits to get
               themselves off the hook. Just planting trees to obtain carbon credits without long
               term validation and tree survival, getting 100 years credits is
403   Public   Reduce GHG emissions, focus not only on growth in urban centres but reduce
               GHG's everywhere.
404   Public   GHG issue is a red herring. Concentrate your efforts on clean air and clean water
               issues rather than beating the ridiculous issue like a bunch of non-thinking robots

405   Public   Aggressive targets for GHG reductions as stated in plan are necessary but will
               require extensive changes to be achieved.

#         Source             Comments
406       Public         Increase pollution monitoring and enforcement
407       Public         Metro structure should help general environmental issues, besides Greenhouse
408      Public          It is good to reduce GHG's, but there are also general elements that affect the
                         greenhouse effect. Can we do more than this?
Green House Gas Emissions Reduction by Focusing Growth in Centres and Transit Corridors
409      Focus Groups    GHG's: I think we need to proceed with caution - we still need to have some cars.

410       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: Good idea, hopefully this will reduce to less cars on road
411       Focus Groups       GHG's: A city has limited power in reducing GHG's. Most reductions will occur with
                             a change in how energy is produced, e.g., nuclear power for utilities. Batteries to
                             power cars both of which will do this. Focusing growth is a partial answer.

412       Focus Groups       Transportation: good idea, needs to be more accessible to everyone so more cars
                             are reduced, less GHG's, etc.
413       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's by focusing growth in centres and transit corridors. This will focus
                             us more with dealing with one small piece at a time for more control of our
414       Focus Groups       GHG's: Keep in mind some people will always need their car for work use, etc.
                             Make sure transit is THERE to get as many people out of their cars or shorten their
                             trips. Adequate parking at SkyTrain stations is needed.
415       Focus Groups       GHG's: Support. Feel that tougher restrictions on use of vehicles and providing of
                             parking spaces which only encourages use of personal vehicles.
416       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's by encouraging development of hydro produced electricity to feed a
                             "green" transit system driven by the renewable resource.
417       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG by focusing in transit corridors: More attention should be paid to
                             switching infrastructure on transportation and energy production from sources that
                             don't produce GHG's.
418       Focus Groups       GHG's: Much more required than just a focus on growth in centres and along
                             corridors. The kind of growth is vital, e.g., green development.
419       Focus Groups       Reducing GHG by building along corridors: 34% is cars so yes we need to
420       Focus Groups       Conservation: preserve but also enhance and connect conservation areas. Do
                             more than keep status quo - IMPROVE. Agree with municipal
421       Focus Groups       Good idea. Better transit system needs to be developed. Not efficient and changes
                             need to be made. More private small companies to service local areas.

422       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's but the transit system needs to be a high priority in order to
                             succeed at this. How about passenger ferries from the north shore to downtown,
                             Port Moody, Burnaby, West Van?
423       Focus Groups       Reduce GHG: a motherhood issue but there has to be political will to commit
                             money and SOON. We've seen skyrocketing costs of Canada Line because of
                             delays. Push for mini-buses to connect parking to larger forms of transit. Push for
                             more efficient corridor (all forms of public transit) in areas like Surrey
424       Focus Groups       GHG reduction via centres of growth: Agree somewhat but scale important. If
                             scale is too large, then it doesn't support walk-ability scale / local centres. "Local" is
                             more friendly to increasing population of seniors.
425       Focus Groups       GHG's: Well within a 2040 time frame automobiles powered by electricity will be
                             the norm. Your vision should include a statement on infrastructure that supports
                             these transportation technologies.

#     Source         Comments
426   Focus Groups
                     Connect land use: Yes but with changes. Obviously it is important to reduce GHG's
                     but I have little faith in TransLink to make transit affordable for all. As a student, it
                     was less expensive to take a vehicle to school (including gas, insurance and time)
                     than it was to take transit. If you limit people's ability to take vehicles and force
                     transit you must ensure all economic groups can afford it.
427   Focus Groups   Reduce GHG: projections seem very optimistic based on what we've seen in the
                     last 10 years. Transit will need to improve substantially to encourage more people
                     to use it.
428   Focus Groups   If we truly want to reduce GHG's we need a better transit system.
429   Focus Groups   Reduce GHG's: need to encourage "reliable" and inexpensive transit to get people
                     out of cars.
430   Focus Groups   Theme 3: Hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions once we put extra 250 buses
                     planned to acquire if found.
431   Public         Transit plans and funding is inadequate. Europe has a carbon footprint HALF the
                     size of Vancouver's primarily due to excellent transit (RAIL) and light rail / subway -
                     NOT BUSES
432   Public         Growth should go in centres and transit corridors but I am still not convinced that
                     the transit ridership will go to 30% by 2040. It is a laudable goal but requires
                     support including financial from senior levels of government.
433   Public         Look at Melbourne, Australia for ideas to improve commuting, reduce GHG's,
                     more transit, get people out of vehicles
434   Public         Given the expected population growth by 2040, 43% vehicle transportation will not
                     reduce the number of cars on the road/region
435   Public         Bring down number and percent of car trips will improve our general health, health
                     of environment planet. Transit needs to keep up with demand, would be easier if
                     TransLink and province would have some agenda
436   Public         Yes but ensure that a car isn't necessary for people in the area. Move trains so
                     that it is faster to get from A to B by public transport.
437   Public         Even more aggressive goals for less vehicles
438   Public         Important to reduce GHG emissions
439   Public         Meeting challenges of climate change and peak oil will be a big job.
440   Public         Absolutely - GHG Increase public transit, Decrease vehicles (33%).
441   Public         Greenhouse gas emissions and peak oil means we will need to get out of cars.

442   Public         No ten lane bridge!
443   Public         The Port Mann Bridge should NOT be enlarged (not your jurisdiction!).
444   Public         Of course! Three of the Five people at our table said they would prefer not to have
                     to have cars! If we do not reduce GHG as a society, as a total world community,
                     we will die. Talk to Andrew Weaver and learn.
445   Public         Increase rail transportation to Surrey to Richmond. Increase mass transit. Higher
                     standards for house/office insulation standards electricity energy improvements.

446   Public         Yes, also utilize waterways and rail.
447   Public         Keep in mind that some people need their vehicle for work. Also transit MUST be
                     available with good, timely connections and affordable.
448   Public         Introduce or encourage carpooling as well. Look into lots at SkyTrain stations as
                     well as off highways for people to park and ride together. Promote this - help
                     people find ride shares.
449   Public         Develop hydro power to provide electricity for an efficient, affordable and green
                     transit system using street cars.
450   Public         Similar to other concerns around transportation.
451   Public         Finish the job. Bike lanes need to be 100% complete to encourage use.

#     Source   Comments
452   Public   To do this we need to develop more transit network between communities. Electric
               car outlets needed in public areas.
453   Public   Give incentives for more people working closer to home by walking or biking. Not
               only transit credits but walking/cycling credits too. Also need more biking routes
               like transit routes.
454   Public   More public transport on waterways.
455   Public   Many things can be done other than being dictatoring above this. Cheap housing is
               not in urban; long commutes.
456   Public   At the same time, road planning needs improvement. Highways: reduce lights.
               Urban areas: increase transit!
457   Public   We still need to have some cars.
458   Public   However, TransLink Canada Line should be looped in the West end - down
               Robson to Davie with a stop on Denman to encourage ridership.
459   Public   In theory yes, but again only promoting transit if it is affordable for all.
460   Public   Coordinating traffic systems.
461   Public   Once again, we need better transit.
462   Public   Not everyone desires to live/work in a city centre and this is evident by our existing
               urban sprawl. Sure some live in the suburbs because housing costs are more
               affordable, but some choose it consciously for the lifestyle.
463   Public   MORE BUSES!
464   Public   We clearly cannot have Gateway highway expansion happening today, being
               forced on the region by the provincial government.
465   Public   Make car insurance premiums related to KM driven. Tolls on bridges, More
               SkyTrain/train to the suburbs.
466   Public   As M. Golberg states, we need to do better. Need to increase housing and
               commercial areas along north transit line. Need to increase train use, e.g., heading
               east all day not just rush hour. Need transit to go between municipalities.

467   Public   Reduction in GHG emission policies may not work as planned due to: Public
               transport not efficient.
468   Public   Density should be further encouraged. Subsidies for cars should be reduced.
469   Public   Increase dramatically public transit and improve service areas. Make it as low cost
               as possible for users even free! STOP THE GATEWAY PROJECT!
470   Public   Good luck with TransLink. I don't think they're on the same program (SFPR, GEB,
               Port Mann).
471   Public   Bike corridors and scrap car/truck programs are great.
472   Public   Use of technologies and policies can also promote goals. For example, encourage
               flexible work shifts and incentives to hire people close to work
473   Public   Reduce support for highways - better for GHG reduction.
474   Public   Transportation: more accessible transit throughout communities, alternate fuels.
475   Public   GHG strategy includes fuel source for vehicle percentage of zero emission
476   Public   As well as reducing GHG's by transit, good connectivity between bicycle routes in
               municipalities is essential.
477   Public   Reduce GHG: Transportation is the biggest sector to create GHG's, so it has the
               most potential to reduce GHG's.
478   Public   The best way to reduce GHG's is with rapid transit and public transit
479   Public   Right approach. Affordable and massive public transportation is essential to GHG
480   Public   The premier's goal is to REDUCE GHG emissions by 33% below 2007 level by
               2020….If the regional population (and associated infrastructure and cars) GROW
               by 60% by 2040 then GHG emissions will go up!

#          Source             Comments
481        Public        Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focussing growth along transit corridors
                         makes sense, and focussing finances on creating a "usable" transit system is of
                         paramount importance.
482      Public          Reducing GHG by focussing growth in centres is a “no brainer”
483      Public          Greenhouse Gas and pollution are interrelated. Therefore, determining where
                         GHG's are to be allowed, must look at wind and climate patterns as well as
                         focusing on growth and transit centres.
484      Public          GHG reduction: Growth along corridors, jobs along corridors, but not too
                         concentrated on downtown area - already too crowded.
Green House Gas Emissions Reduction and Buildings Energy Efficiency
485      Public          Having an electrical energy supply that meets current and future needs is key to
                         economic and social health of the region. Discussions and consideration of our
                         energy needs and how we will meet them should be part of our long term planning.
                         BCTC is developing long term plans for the electrical transmission in Metro
                         Vancouver, Fraser Valley and other regions in the province. We will be engaging
                         with the public and communities to make them aware of the growing need and how
                         we can meet it.
486      Focus Groups    Housing: Better house planning and development. More green initiatives into how
                         houses are built and run. Hi-rises need better heating and cooling systems - these
                         give off lots of GHG's.
487      Focus Groups    GHG's: I'm not sure that focusing growth to the centre will do enough about this
                         issue. There needs to be more incentive to pursue low emission cars or alternative
                         methods for heating houses and also producing them.
488      Focus Groups    Reduce GHG's: Yes! By focusing growth in centres and transit corridors but don't
                         forget the emissions from heating our houses, there could be an incentive for
                         improving into more efficient ways to heat
489      Focus Groups    Use geo thermal energy: A central one connected to several residences.
490      Focus Groups    GHG emissions from housing could be greatly reduced with stricter zoning laws
                         and building codes.
491      Focus Groups    Encourage building environmentally efficiency in new homes and renovations.
492      Focus Groups    GHG's: Focus on emissions by houses. Also unless you live near the centre you
                         do not need transit but if forced to move or ride transit, you're back to square one.

493        Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: Need a much broader view and not only look at focusing growth in
                              centres and transit corridors. e.g., use of energy in homes which was 3rd in GHG
494        Focus Groups       Attention should also be focused on reducing emissions from homes. 31% comes
                              from how we heat our homes as well.
495        Focus Groups       Reduce GHG's: Increase growth in centres. Decrease in energy used to heat and
                              cool homes. Decrease use of automobiles. GO FOR IT!
496        Public             District Energy…
497        Public             District energy/heating requires a review at the regional level as to when it works
                              (density levels, location) how it works (applications) and the cost/benefit analysis
                              (upfront costs versus savings).
498        Public             Please include green building standards to reduce GHG's Need careful thought
                              on how to develop corridors - could be a type of sprawl (strip malls).
499        Public             Promote green rooftops (as the Vancouver Library has already begun to do).
500        Public             Much more is required. Green procurement requirements in Metro Vancouver;
                              bylaws that require energy efficient housing.
501        Public             Energy efficient housing would help.
502        Public             We also need to focus on the 31% GHG's being produced by housing.
503        Public             We need to also consider household emissions.

#         Source   Comments
504       Public   Make it easy. Learn from Australia. Energy audit/conversion of neighbourhood.
                   Door knob poster announcing government initiative and workers will arrive on
                   weekend. Two man team arrives. Door by door offering. Lead man does audit and
                   second man follow's with conservation tasks. Truck has supplies and they do it on
                   the spot. All is free for residents. Results in high success and energy conservation.
                   Small sign on lawn to promote they have greened their home creating new "social
505       Public   Right direction. Not strong or fast enough. Need more energy conservation,
                   alternative energy and district energy.
506       Public   Solar hot water increase.
507       Public   Geothermal increase.
508       Public   Open green roofs
509       Public   Metro Vancouver needs to regulate building codes since homes are the second
                   largest contributors to GHG.
510       Public   Reduce GHG emissions by focussing in growth, need to focus on housing equally.

511       Public   GHG reduction: not just about limiting sprawl, need more in plan to support green
                   building policy, both for municipal buildings and for new private development.

512       Public   Reduction in GHG emission policies may not work as planned due to 1: Building
                   codes not up to target
513                I chose red for this initiative because 31% is from HOUSING. Why is there no
                   talk/focus on initiatives to reduce emissions from houses? There are many
                   excellent strategies and possibilities for this.
Rural Land
514       Public   ALR and conservation/recreation boundaries are well established, however, a
                   detailed assessment of "rural area" designations is required. Langley's "rural plan"
                   for example does this already.
515       Public   Perhaps you need two designations for rural #1: a) Rural/Agricultural and; b)
                   Rural/Environmentally Sensitive/Recreational
516       Public   Anmore should stay "rural" or perhaps a "semi-rural."
517       Public   Anmore is under huge development pressure: Over 70% of people in Anmore want
                   to maintain and/or enhance the rural density and protect this recreational gem.

518       Public   Rural Lands: green zone requires 2/3 weighted vote – No rural lands
519       Public   Agree with protecting our “rural” aspect with conservation and recreation areas, i.e.
                   Jackson Farm would be a REAL asset.
520       Public   Must protect rural lands. Boundaries appear well defined.
521       Public   Also protect rural lands from urban development and industrial development

#     Source     Comments
Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Employment Distribution
522     Focus Groups      Office/Retail: The way of doing business is changing so rapidly that planning for 40
                          years seems futile.
523      Focus Groups     UCB/Job growth/Connecting transportation: I think you're right on the mark.
524      Focus Groups     Office Retail: People should be able to choose where they to do their business.
                          Will downtown become a ghost town after everyone leaves for the suburbs if there
                          is no place for residential development?
525      Focus Groups     I do not agree to encouraging commercial uses in centres because I feel they are
                          providing jobs for us. They should have choices plus TransLink is mainly making
                          the choices.
526      Focus Groups     Encourage growth in centres: Encourage people to walk to work and shop/recreate
                          in their communities. Less stressful to population. Encourages sense of social
527      Focus Groups     Commercial use in centres: Let us not forget that this means people who don't live
                          in centres have to come to those for many things. Roads needed and parking
                          needs to be improved to accommodate them as much as transit.
528      Focus Groups     Housing and job growth: Encourage equal growth in all industry so as to allow each
                          community to grow at the same rate.
529      Focus Groups     I disagree with #1: There should be office/retail in all centers.
530      Focus Groups     Encourage commercial uses: Use more centres with multi-use rail lines, e.g.,
                          outside of major centers like Vancouver.
531      Focus Groups     Encourage office/retail uses in centres.
532      Focus Groups     Housing and job growth in centres: Should look at encouraging job growth in
                          centres outside Metro Vancouver, e.g., give tax advantage (all governments) to
                          businesses established in such centres as Abbotsford, Chilliwack, etc.
533      Focus Groups     I feel some office/retail would be needed very near industrial areas to help reduce
                          traffic issues and commuting.
534      Focus Groups     Commercial uses in centres: How is this to be encouraged when land/development
                          is so dependent on the economy?
535      Focus Groups     Don't restrict office/retail.
536      Focus Groups     Retail centres are okay as long as the economic sector they are in is successful.
                          But they can turn into white elephants like "e-bay" in North Burnaby.

537      Focus Groups     Use centers for MAJOR retail and commercial. Use transit corridors for SMALLER
                          retail and commercial. Both are needed.
538      Focus Groups     Discourage "drive to it" styles of commercial, office and retail, i.e., discourage low
                          density single use business parks. I am in favour of mixed-use and walking
539      Focus Groups     Encourage office/retail/commercial centres: Encourage, but also have hierarchy
                          including local commercial, office and retail incorporated into residential areas to
                          create local communities.
540      Focus Groups     Job growth, etc., along urban centres. If this is pursued then there MUST be many
                          more centers (local centres), otherwise hierarchal planning will lead to urban
                          sprawl (arterial neighbourhood, local means more travel within region).
541      Focus Groups     Encourage commercial uses: Be more creative about incentives but also require
                          that businesses contribute to beautification, parks, etc. More financial incentives.

542      Focus Groups     Encourage commercial uses: Depends upon forms of encouragement and
                          discouragement utilized. Many of these areas are existing development. Major
                          office/retail often find current facilities/land not practical for purposes.

#     Source         Comments
543   Focus Groups   Encourage office/retail uses in centres. Also encourage homes to be built allowing
                     office/home based businesses to help contain those types of commercial
                     businesses even more.
544   Focus Groups   Commercial centres: I think each community should have their own commercial
                     centres. If everything is crowded into already crowded areas, the "commercial"
                     areas won't have any room for these businesses and the less populated areas
                     won't grow.
545   Focus Groups   I would not discourage major office/retail employment generators outside centres
                     and transit corridors. People should have employment options close to where they
                     live and ways to get there.
546   Focus Groups   Job growth: A change is needed for companies to want to be in BC and in urban
                     areas. Grants (like other provinces) to get companies to spend dollars to be in
                     major urban centres. It affects their bottom line.
547   Focus Groups   Housing and Job Growth is great as long as we get buses etc to go to existing
                     business parks.
548   Focus Groups   Office/Retail: Limiting may raise the cost of goods and services and may
                     discourage businesses to locate and grow.
549   Focus Groups   Increase ratios of home offices and internet communication
550   Focus Groups   Focus growth in urban centres: This kind of job growth is vital - high paying jobs,
                     "new economy" or green jobs, not old economy jobs.
551   Focus Groups   The economy and market development will dictate how and where business
                     services will be located. The value of a business product, e.g., hi-value/hi-tech
                     versus lumber and fish processing. Possibly previous studies have not been
                     specific enough concerning complex issues of hi-tech.
552   Focus Groups   Anything that discourages business is not a positive choice. Putting jobs where
                     people live and making shopping available is positive. Its already often a match of
                     affordable housing/jobs. Cost of land, parking availability, taxes, etc. for major
                     business to set.
553   Focus Groups   Job Growth: Reduce commuters by supporting job creation in the communities
                     where people are living. Period.
554   Public         Develop industrial planning, public discussion and cultivate wanted jobs.
555   Public         Need multifunctional tool and multipurpose zoning for the integration of
                     industrial/commercial/agricultural areas.
556   Public         Keep agriculture, cluster office retail, protect industrial lands
557   Public         More efficient to concentrate commercial uses in centres.
558   Public         Good principle but I oppose "discouraging office and employment uses
559   Public         Creating job centres will isolate neighbourhoods and leave them empty for longer
                     periods of time increasing crime during the vacant periods.
560   Public         Allow for adequate commercial uses in present neighbourhoods, e.g., Fraser
                     Heights in Surrey.
561   Public         Don't like implications of wording "discourage major office/retail employment
                     generators outside of Centres and Transit Corridors". Need to allow for office uses
                     elsewhere. Don't ignore market forces!!
562   Public         What kind of job growth? Industry or commercial?
563   Public         Why discourage employment in local neighbourhoods? This is not in line with
                     live/work in your neighbourhood. It is self serving for transit purposes
564   Public         Yes, need strong policy on this. Stop business park development that are
                     disconnected from transit.
565   Public         Efficiency for employers and users
566   Public         Office uses should also be permitted in the municipal town centres.
567   Public         This plan is essentially a plan for the de-commercialization and re-industrialization
                     of North Vancouver. As a local business owner, I have a BIG problem with that!

#     Source   Comments
568   Public   What is definition of major generators - This could conflict with lands/Metro
               Vancouver has identified industrial - as new economy emerges will find industrial to
               be major employment generator. Should we not encourage these employees to
               also use transit?
569   Public   Support though some commercial functions (office) can be useful if located near
               production functions
570   Public   No, central business districts need to grow outside of transit corridors.
571   Public   Need affordable commercial space as our economy is very dependent on start ups
               which are smaller businesses with little financing.
572   Public   I would suggest affordability for business/office use. Drive office/retail to outskirt
               areas. So long as "encourage" does not mean "restrict".
573   Public   Office uses should be encouraged adjacent to rapid transit stations. Office park
               tenants will not locate in regional city centres as they need to be near road / transit
               corridors - consider this use for municipal town centres and along corridors -
               Economics is a factor.
574   Public   This plan would tend to remove commercial zones from North Vancouver. That
               would strangle the future growth of my business unless I leave North Vancouver.
575   Public   Commercial traffic should be contained within commercial centers without
               disrupting non-commercial corridors.
576   Public   I would love it if I could find a job in North Vancouver so I didn't have to drive
577   Public   Important to make transportation and diverse job opportunities available in urban
               centres and allow for growth.
578   Public   Good seminar: Must have resolve and collaborations with economic development
               to create employment and incentives for industrial, agricultural improvements and
               protection issues in place.
579   Public   Need for jobs spread evenly over the area to minimize work related travel.
580   Public   Commercial, office and retail needs to be accessible by walking, cycling or transit
               for all residents. In Maple Ridge, this should be possible because it’s stretched out
               from east to west. Light rail transit would provide better access for residents to
581   Public   Protection of agricultural lands and reserving areas for industrial is important,
               however in other areas mixtures of low-impact jobs and residential may be
582   Public   A key principle is MIXED use both with industrial lands as well as commercial or
               retail. Need to BLEND industrial-commercial-retail-residential.
583   Public   More thoughtful planning for jobs and living spaces.
584   Public   Conversion of Industrial lands to commercial, how to address the inequitable
               distribution of business park development in region?
585   Public   We need a commercial/residential mix. Commercial at street level with residential
               above. No need to drive to a Mall all the time.
586   Public   Office worker can support retail during the day.
587   Public   Better for interconnectivity between businesses and retail
588   Public   Make it cost effective for commercial development in the downtown core area
               where we have vacant buildings and property.
589   Public   Encourage commercial in centres: critical to support concentration of employment
               in transit-accessible areas. Need to strongly discourage creation of “employment
               generating lands” that are not in central cores.
590   Public   Office / retail employment generators should also exist in residential areas.
591   Public   Allow flexibility of use between industrial and commercial areas. If not, you will only
               drive more business to Mission, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
592   Public   Commercial uses: Not all commercial uses can be accommodated in urban
               centres. Larger commercial is required outside of core in low density communities
               to serve existing populations.

#     Source   Comments
593   Public   This seems like the right direction in terms of land-uses but a second layer of
               policy programming is needed (for example: to ensure a diverse economic mix) on
               top of these land-use considerations.
594   Public   How do major commercial uses fit within the general urban designation? Cannot
               limit major commercial to simply one defined urban centre.
595   Public   Merge commercial with other functions! Consistent with transportation.
596   Public   Have shopping close to residential areas and provide good cycling infrastructure.
597   Public   Currently only about one-third of residents of Port Moody actually work in the city.
               The rest commute to other municipalities. Port Moody does not have any
               commercial or industrial land area to increase "internal" employment. So how can
               Port Moody's population grow by 60% AND achieve this goal? They're
598   Public   Job growth in urban centres: There must be accommodation of job
               creation/commercial activity throughout existing communities that are under-
               serviced, which may mean some growth outside of urban centres.
599   Public   Business parks are a social blight which do not positively contribute to the region.
               Industrial lands need to be used for industry. Office based occupants of business
               parks belong in commercial office areas.
600   Public   Allow to develop retail only in proportion for industrial areas to support workers.
601   Public   Like centralizing main commercial so it is easily supported by transit.
602   Public   Commercial uses in centres along transit corridors; not sure if single use, (multi-
               purpose) areas are the way to go.
603   Public   Yes! Encourage commercial centers. Distinguish between light purple and dark
604   Public   Business parks in the middle of nowhere are a disaster. Business is drawn to
               cheap land with no regard for transit and people. (Make sure good connections for
               movements of goods)!
605   Public   Put commercial where there is public transportation.
606   Public   Discourage business parks outside centres and transit corridors.
607   Public   Size of commercial entity is a concern.
608   Public   Support but have to recognize need for small retail/commercial outside of centres.

609   Public   Ensure that small retail and office space remains mixed with residential land.
610   Public   Office/Retail - need strong incentives for office - more so than retail to make sure
               that change does happen. Need more employment in Regional Town Centres.

611   Public   Good idea but a lot of incentives will have to be given to businesses to develop in
               the core areas.
612   Public   Encouraging office/retail is essential.
613   Public   Re: office/retail I think there needs to be some flexibility.
614   Public   Encouraging office/retail use in town centres will create greater opportunities for
               rapid transit.
615   Public   Encourage commercial development in centres. This makes sense to me since
               investment has been made on transit to support centres.
616   Public   Jobs in centres - will require a strong regulation approach
617   Public   Office/Retail: Do not forget existing centres, e.g., Moody Centre, East Hastings,
               Austin Ave., etc.
618   Public   Connect land use and transportation with reservations because we want
               communities where you can work, shop and live within a certain radius from the
               town centres. This would help cut down on commuting.
619   Public   Office and retail should be encouraged in town centres.
620   Public   Office and related commercial spaces must be on transit corridors.

#          Source              Comments
621        Public          Offices along transit corridors do not build up along all corridors. For example,
                           South Perimeter Road through ALR in Delta should not be developed into a
                           commercial/industrial area.
622     Public             We need to focus the development of large commercial centres in the centres not
623     Public             Commercial Centres ok, but reasonable regional nodes centres of reasonable
                           (large) size ok as well.
624     Public             Skilled workers often have to travel further for work whereas lower paying jobs are
                           closer to home. Need to encourage high-speed light rail.
625     Public             However, also encourage more work from home.
626     Public             Support in principle but the reality is that we have high home ownership which
                           means that travel to work (and higher education) can vary greatly in a person's
                           work life. With high home rental, there is greater chance of being able to work
                           close to home (and reduce daily travel).
627     Public             Job growth is welcome because this will indicate the economy growth.
628     Public             Housing for seniors will not depend on job growth. Have people work where they
                           live is good.
629     Public             Rethink: All workspaces must incorporate greenspace, grass and trees. High-
                           rises, filing cabinets and cement are not the correct vision.
630     Public             More residents living closer to their jobs reduces commuter congestion.
631     Public             Emphasis on job growth adjacent to housing centers - discourage commuting.
632     Public             Jobs not in urban centers also need housing near it.
633     Public             These are crucial to provide a diverse dynamic economy that isn't crowded out by
634     Public             Highly recommend that employment activities penetrate the residential areas.
                           People shouldn't have to travel to work. Emphasizing urban centres is a first step
                           but not an end point.
635     Public             Municipalities and cities face too much pressure to convert industrial and
                           agricultural land into residential. Having a strong regional strategy to maintain
                           industrial and agricultural land bases will keep the region strong.
636     Public             Support a sustainable economy: Would like to know what methods will be used to
                           encourage/discourage this.
637     Public             All themes are contingent on economic growth.
638     Public             Intelligent land use is key to the emergence of a sustainable economy, which must
                           recognize that we need a diversity of land uses to generate the diversity of
                           products and services we need and provide employment.
639     Public             Generally support goals. Need to coincide economy and jobs in the long term.
640     Public             General support for directions
641     Public             Keep urban development within the boundary - have to make sure jobs are not
                           only concentrated on certain town centres.
642     Public             Focus on housing and job growth within urban centers and along transportation
643     Public             Focus on housing and job growth. Port Coquitlam has very little area along
                           Lougheed Highway with the C.P.R. line along the south side of it.
644                        Encourage commercial uses in centres.
Employment Distribution and Commercial Best Practices
645     Focus Groups       Conservation: Reduce commercial fishing, crabbing, shrimping within Metro areas
                           such as Deep Cove
646     Focus Groups       Use more original thinking outside of the box for retail generators and limit parking.
                           Build on top of building.
647     Focus Groups       Encourage commercial uses but discourage the amount of retail generators.

#         Source          Comments
648       Focus Groups    Don't just grow to grow. Attract GOOD business that matches Metro Van's
                          personality. The green spaces and upscale lifestyle is what attracts people to the
                          area in the first place! Let's continue to let the market decide what types of
                          people/businesses make.
649       Public          Eliminate developments that make us completely car dependent, e.g., big box
                          stores, big parking lot development.
650       Public          Not just any kind of jobs; high paying and green economy jobs.
651       Public          With emphasis on green growth and proper policing.
652       Public          Nor more one story mall/sprawl industry.
653       Public          Commercial uses: Focus more on those which keep money in the area. Not big
                          box stores like Wal-Mart which send projects out of the country to say nothing
                          about human rights abuses in sweatshops overseas and very poor treatment of
                          their employees here.
654       Public          Be careful not to shut out big box retail that is not welcomed downtown (e.g. Wal
Industrial Land
655        Focus Groups   Protect industrial land: It's crucial, however its also important to make sure that
                          industries are supported in other ways so they can continue to provide jobs. Not
                          just protect the land. An empty industrial land is useless land.
656       Focus Groups    Protect industrial land to handle the increased production, distribution and
                          warehousing. This land is being sold out to developers who are forward on housing
657       Focus Groups    Protect Industrial: These areas are needed and should be protected. Need a
                          balance of industrial and commercial.
658       Focus Groups    Industrial land use: Extreme care taken with higher density residential areas -
                          communication, safety, evacuation in place between various government and
                          industrial parties.
659       Focus Groups    Protection of industrial lands is vital to economic growth of the region.
660       Focus Groups    Protect industrial lands: Key to future growth as many of these sites are at capacity
                          or at risk of being sold for profit.
661       Focus Groups    Protect industrial lands: Yes, but outside of already congested areas. Use rail to
                          open possibilities of connection to more centres.
662       Focus Groups    Industrial: Need to increase manufacturing industry, i.e., we lost seven refineries,
                          three distilleries, paint plants, and sawmills that provided jobs and export

663       Focus Groups    Protect industrial lands because once they are gone, there is no way of getting
                          them back.
664       Focus Groups    Protect industrial land: Good in theory but too many factors to be so simple.
665       Focus Groups    Protect industrial land: How can it be protected if so much of the manufacturing is
                          being moved off shore? E.g., China: If not being used for industrial, it should be
                          able to be converted.
666       Focus Groups    Protect industrial lands: Within reason. Our province has to be able to maintain
                          industry in order to protect it.
667       Focus Groups    Protect industrial land: Sounds like central planning economy. Let market forces
668       Focus Groups    Protect industrial lands: Allow for new growth of industrial/retail to possibly create
                          new centres.
669       Focus Groups    If you protect industrial lands you need a tax regime to support industry.
670       Public          Some heavy industry does not always have to be located in the Metro area. E.g..
                          sawmills and large paper plants. Could be located further away up island or coast
                          where barging of finished products might make more sense.
671       Public          Yes this is important yet it must ensure that naturally biodiverse areas are not
                          compromised. e.g., Campbell Heights Industrial/Commercial area South Surrey.
672       Public          If industrial is in the middle of nowhere it does not encourage transit use and
                          causes traffic jams.

#     Source   Comments
673   Public   Too restrictive. Too late in many ways. Protect port lands, yes; protect a parcel
               surrounded by residential, no!
674   Public   This should be further defined as some industrial lands used for non-industrial with
               excellent location, may be need go through rezoned by municipal to change use to
               other uses which is win-win situation.
675   Public   Industrial lands must be provided for and this may provide a base for "heavy"
676   Public   We have exported so much industrial activity. Are we going to get it back?
677   Public   In principle, but A LOT more work/research required before move to specific
678   Public   I noticed most industrial land in the plan is located along waterways. Rising ocean
               levels will wipe out this plan.
679   Public   Need continual public education why industrial lands are important for all of us.
               Encourage industry to use their land more wisely. Some multi-storey rooftop
               parking, etc.
680   Public   Hard to sell to the public but I think makes good planning.
681   Public   Industrial land use policy needs further teething on densification and beautification
               on river.
682   Public   We need to attract business initiatives
683   Public   As a land use that is guided by private market conditions, this should not be more
               forward. Municipalities should be in control of this land use decision as it relates to
               their unique visions and direction of their residents and business.
684   Public   Turn office parks and big box retail back to manufacturing and warehousing.
685   Public   Definitely not retail, occasionally offices in certain functions (i.e. high tech).
686   Public   Protecting industrial lands depends on their location.
687   Public   Prefer this but not a top priority.
688   Public   Promote efficient use of industrial areas through densification of shops and plants.

689   Public   Otherwise industry will move onto agricultural land.
690   Public   Yes need more specifics on rail versus truck goods movement on these industrial
691   Public   Is manufacturing and production a viable use?
692   Public   Agree that this is an issue but not certain whether office spaces should also be
               included especially green shifts in the nature of employment in knowledge
693   Public   Depending on economic drivers in the region, could be tourism versus production

694   Public   Stop new re-zoning of industrial land
695   Public   Putting housing within industrial areas is a mixed use strategy i.e. Europe. If
               industries are clean, could have places for workers within industrial areas. Big one
               area focus by zones is not always a smart move.
696   Public   We must preserve industrial lands to ensure availability for future uses and
               possibilities for needs for new industrial uses. Its key to the region's long term
697   Public   Protect and promote efficient use of existing industrial lands near corridors to
               make alternative forms of transportation viable.
698   Public   Contain, save, monitor.
699   Public   Yes but educate the public. They see the industrial base as just "dirty jobs".
700   Public   Contrary to Question # 2: Allow housing adjacent to jobs to reduce necessity to
               commute and what is new about this idea of industrial areas? Old planning
               strategy always designated industrial corridors or parks adjacent to ports, railroads
               and highways.

#     Source   Comments
701   Public   No industrial protection. No industry reserve. Let ports buy their own land like
               everyone else. Reserves lower value of the land reserved and increase all other
               land. As all other land increase, affordability and homelessness will increase. GET
               RID OF THIS CONCEPT!
702   Public   Ioco is industrial and developers are planning high density housing developments.
               Anmore should stay "rural" or perhaps a "semi-rural" recreational designation.

703   Public   Support, with the exception of the extra process for Metro Vancouver to approve it.
               Proposals should just go through initial assessment that already accounts for this.

704   Public   Do not make new ones. Reuse the old. We have large industrial areas in Langley
               and that is enough.
705   Public   Good planning is the key to the successful health of a community. Yes, industrial
               areas should be established for industrial purposes. This will stop, for example,
               agricultural lands from being removed to satisfy the needs of a community. Hodge
               podge development not based on sound planning and discussion with the
               community but to satisfy the pressure of special interest groups can only hurt a
706   Public   Need to be clear about what is an industrial use. Where does light industry fit? Can
               a municipality still rezone from heavy to light?
707   Public   Mixed industrial/residential development makes sense for clean industry. People
               walk to work!
708   Public   Absolutely! However, such industrial lands need to be dispersed; closer to various
               urban centers. A really poor example of an Industrial Estate is Gloucester Estates
               in the Township of Langley which is miles from any urban centres with no buses
               AT ALL. Every employee has to go there by car. Build multi-story industrial
               buildings instead of like most that are single story on vast acreage with a lot of
               asphalt for car parks.
709   Public   Industrial lands keep jobs local.
710   Public   Make sure industrial land is near proper roads as goods movement is very
               important. We don't want to force truckers through 50 km per hour zones with a lot
               of stops and starts at lights. This benefits their efficiency (and sanity) and reduces
711   Public   Maple Ridge does not have sufficient industrial land. This is putting pressure to
               convert farming land to industrial use to allow more jobs to be created locally to
               reduce commuting.
712   Public   Secure higher, non flood plain property for industrial. Reverse riverfront plans.
713   Public   Lost 7 refineries, 3 distilleries, many sawmills in the Lower Mainland. They
               provided good paying jobs and export. Need to refocus.
714   Public   Would appreciate a definition of "industrial lands" (light, heavy, etc.)
715   Public   Yes, but expand access. Accessible with multi-use rail lines.
716   Public   Protection of industrial land protects jobs.
717   Public   Transit must still be considered to get workers to and from these industries.
718   Public   Need to maintain if not grow ports!
719   Public   Difference between service industry and production industry. Using rain to
               transport people and goods to the industrial parks.
720   Public   Don't want industry to have to move causing higher prices.
721   Public   Vital, or commuting to work just becomes greater.
722   Public   What about housing for people working in industrial lands? Would it be
               inconvenient for them to commute to that area?
723   Public   Should do this, however, need a blueprint of boundaries of industrial lands. If
               population gets too big, need to know if possibility of expanding within industrial
               area. e.g., Marine Drive from Victoria to New Westminster has expanded with
               malls and before it was just industrial.

#     Source   Comments
724   Public   I think it is fine to have light industrial. Housing and industrial.
725   Public   I support but what are the exceptions by the board?
726   Public   This is vital to help the economy of each urban centre thrive and to provide
               employment for the increasing numbers of people coming into the Metro
               Vancouver area.
727   Public   NO! This will result in industrial ghettos and prevent innovation. Enterprise will find
               its equilibrium.
728   Public   May penalize one group and reward another group.
729   Public   Industrial areas can become residential as density grows.
730   Public   Establishing industrial reserves is flawed. I have yet to hear or read any reason
               why industrial land needs to be maintained. It seems to be taken as a given, just
               like climate change (for which the science is most definitely not decided, there is
               active debate by very qualified scientists as to whether or not it is actually
               occurring) What needs to be maintained is employment. Industrial is not more
               valuable than general office employment. Average office space per employee is
               around 200 square feet I don't know what it is for industrial but I'm sure its much
               higher, so isn't it better to encourage more office development for higher density
               more jobs?
731   Public   What's the demand?
732   Public   I more support mixed use areas.
733   Public   ONLY if industry isn't developed in one story SPRAWL. Make industry take full
               responsibility for waste.
734   Public   Industrial lands are undoubtedly necessary for economic success, but what is
               wrong with mixed use residential developments? Segregating industrial lands
               creates a workforce reliant on cars/transit. Restricts opportunities for Brownfield
               Remediation Redevelopment.
735   Public   The definition of industrial should be modernized to include IT, etc.
736   Public   Industrial lands conveniently located throughout the region are vital for our
               economic/competitive health. These lands should be preserved for potential new
               industries in the future.
737   Public   I agree with protecting industrial areas but 100% oppose the establishment of
               areas without flexibility. Great communities have come about because of
               "flex"...False Creek, Cole Harbour, Steveston, Fraser Lands. Local municipalities
               need the power to decide.
738   Public   It does make sense to separate industrial from residential not necessarily
               commercial. It does not make sense to put greenhouses in industrial areas. High
               tech, e.g., Richmond could be more mixed use, and have transit connections!

739   Public   Define industrial. There are large pockets of underused or unused industrial
               parcels now. Why is this? Protect riverfront industrial (large) parcels from loss to
               non river depend uses. Protect rail corridors for freight and transit use.
740   Public   Industrial land use needs change over time. An industrial land reserve is a very
               bad idea that should not be locked in time.
741   Public   I favour mixed use whenever possible.
742   Public   Diversity economy is good for develop of a district.
743   Public   Like the idea of mixed uses like the Europeans.
744   Public   Okay if it does not lessen agricultural land.
745   Public   Take into consideration change in new industries and creation of False Creek on
               industrial island.
746   Public   Protect industrial access to water routes for future transportation requirement
               (peak oil) designating riverfront as industrial
747   Public   Warehousing and heavy industries could be located in multi-story facilities near
               highways, rail service and waterways.

#     Source   Comments
748   Public   I have a concern about where industrial lands are located. They should be closer
               to transportation corridors
749   Public   Protect industrial lands, existing use of industrial lands has to be densified and
               better utilized
750   Public   Industrial lands should have high-rise housing.
751   Public   Perhaps the location of industrial lands and other land use decisions should be
               made based not only on transportation, urban centres but also
               watershed/biodiversity considerations
752   Public   We have underutilized industrial lands
753   Public   Industrial parks could be better identified.
754   Public   No to protecting industrial land: Definitions are not broad enough. No room for
               flexibility of market decisions.
755   Public   Industry should be out of populated areas.
756   Public   As fossil fuels are depleted, exports from off shore will become more expensive
               and there will be repatriation of industry and employment. We may need to
               demolish some marginal residential areas in order to gain more industrial sites.
757   Public   Sounds good but what is it going to look like? Local decision. Trend for us to
               export our heavy industry to other places on the earth. Will demands for land
               usage for heavy industry decline?
758   Public   Yes! Protect industrial lands but are they in the right place? If not, allow to move
               through exchange. e.g, Industrial areas between Mary Hill By Pass and Pitt River.
               These are industries which don't use the waterfront and could be anywhere but
               why are they on waterfront property? Why have a parking lot by the shoreline? Do
               a land swap!
759   Public   Important to protect industrial but recognize the reality of need to shift/adapt with
               changes already in the region
760   Public   Educate the public about industry. Many see it just as "dirty jobs".
761   Public   Industrial lands need to be protected, monitored and maintained for SAFE
               industrial use. Mind the environment - easier if contained.
762   Public   Also protect industrial lands for industrial
763   Public   Industrial land for large industry. Smaller industry within local communities
764   Public   Agree with concept but difficult for City of North Van (limited industrial, need to
               maximize best use)
765   Public   Industrial lands - Need to be clear about what is "industry" - What uses, what form
               and what is industrial/commercial - is commercial an accessory use or a big box
766   Public   Industrial lands - Have to determine economic targets to judge supply of industrial
               lands needed
767   Public   Industrial lands - Where does light industry fit?
768   Public   Protect industrial land - I support this - It won't be possible to achieve the
769   Public   I don't fully believe that the changing nature of industry has been fully explored.
770   Public   Some ability to remove land for industrial should be allowed for on lands near
               roads, rail, ports (as there is a limited amount - once residential it will not change).

771   Public   Protect rail and road corridors and adjacent lands.
772   Public   Port land must be maintained as we are a Canadian Port.
773   Public   Industrial lands must be protected to preserve jobs and the port but maintain
               buffers to other uses.
774   Public   If a buffer zone to transportation between industrial and residential within the urban
               area is defined then okay, i.e., no manufacturing next to residential if possible

775   Public   Around Royal Oak/Rumble area. I deem this south-facing slope is very valuable,
               liveable for huge apartment building blocks. Hence move those garage/warehouse
               to other place.

#     Source   Comments
776   Public   Make it a priority to do a more economic analysis to support industry as it changes

777   Public   Including Japan-style high rises in industrial zones (least amount of commuting).

778   Public   Industrial land must be protected but some of the current areas need to be
779   Public   Langley City is already negatively impacted by industrial land in our neighbouring
               municipality. I don’t support an industrial land reserve.
780   Public   Industrial lands face challenges to (re)develop. Industrial lands are more likely to
               be contaminated, thus require remediation, which is costly and inhibits
781   Public   Protect industrial lands. If there is a reason for these lands to be industrial then it
               should be protected.
782   Public   Need municipalities to straight up ban non-industrial uses (other than café and
               food for workers) in industrial designated land.
783   Public   Protect industrial lands for production, agree there is potential lack of industrial
784   Public   We need an industrial land reserve. Even the private sector is asking for this
               (make it like the ALR).
785   Public   Industry structure is changing and requires new location/close to good
               transportation connection.
786   Public   Protect industrial lands. I there are always exceptions that make sense
               vis a vis transportation./access/ etc.
787   Public   Industrial: Yes, this is needed for jobs.
788   Public   Encourage increased development in existing industrial areas before creating new
               ones (e.g., River Road)
789   Public   Protect industrial land.
790   Public   Protect industrial lands: It is important to maintain our industrial lands for needed
               jobs. Some industries are being phased out. There are needs for future industrial
791   Public   Industrial areas should not be hidden sources of allowed pollution, otherwise
               industrial areas are great, need to be regulates and encourage clean tech.
792   Public   Industrial lands need to be protected from alternate development
793   Public   Agree: Protect industrial lands.
794   Public   Encourage certain pockets of compatible, industrial office, residential use.
795   Public   OK, plus reinforce: Try protecting industrial lands with an ALR type model?
796   Public   Preserve industrial land base - essential in long term.
797   Public   Preference on waterfront for industries that require waterfront.
798   Public   Need to modernize definition of industrial zoning: Jobs in new economy, define by
               impact (noises, smell, toxics)
799   Public   "Protecting Industrial Land" is too vague: just having the land available does not
               mean it is suitable for industry. There could be more economic incentives to
               "encourage" certain kinds of uses (i.e., agricultural).
800   Public   Approve of strategies but don't understand why heavy industry has to be available
               at all industrial zoned sites.
801   Public   Secure industry on waterfront as water transport if most effective and does not
               increase truck traffic.
802   Public   Agree with protecting industrial with a % rate of industrial per residential.
803   Public   If industry is essential, could an "industrial land reserve" be modelled on the ALR?

804   Public   Protect current stock of industrial lands in the region.
805   Public   Don't completely separate out industrial zones. Allow some residential and offices
               in upper floors - keep place alive and community like 24 hours per day.
806   Public   Encourage mixed use, i.e., some residential and commercial in industrial areas.

#         Source            Comments
807       Public            Integrate industry with residential and commercial where compatible.
808       Public            We need an industrial base and place too. Perhaps with the incentive of lower
                            taxes for locating in that area.
809       Public            Due to high profitability of rezoning industrial land to residential, then there is a
                            huge economic incentive to rezone. We need a capital gains tax on real estate
                            transaction to discourage land flipping (and to gain revenue for affordable public
810       Public            We should be very wary of municipal tax rates which deliberately discriminate
                            against particularly industrial. Residential rates "subsidize" a conversion to
811       Public            As is, some municipalities have much larger developed areas than others, Would
                            that affect economic parity between municipalities?
812       Public            Inequitable tax revenue, related - inequitable distribution of tax impact of ports
                            buying industrial land (punishing those who protect industrial land)
813        Public           Tax sharing from industrial lands between municipalities may be an answer
Industrial Best Practices
814        Focus Groups     Have strict regulations for industry to prevent pollution
815        Focus Groups     Industrial lands: Very important to influence what kind of industry, i.e., support
                            green industrial, not old economy.
816       Focus Groups      The formation of an ALR type body to govern the allocation of industrial lands but
                            with input to allow local say in governance of activities. For example, Nexen
                            Chlorine Plant operations directly impact nearby residences and should be
                            governed accordingly.
817       Focus Groups      Industrial lands: Big box retail and the like (even home depot) do not belong in
                            industrial lands. Allowing them in creates an unfair competitive advantage until the
                            competitors all move in then its gone.
818       Focus Groups      Protect industrial lands: Yes, but with allowance to re-evaluate whether the industry
                            is still located in a good area considering the growth around them - sometimes it
                            may be wise to re-locate an industry. Sometimes related industries could be
                            grouped closer.
819       Focus Groups      Encourage commercial uses. Commercial space are not being used efficiently in
                            space use. For example, "ports" containers being loaded on ships is one at a time.
                            In other countries they can load four or six containers at once.
820       Public            Small industry is the back-bone of business in Metro Vancouver and should be
                            encouraged by facilitating the laws, rules, etc. and lowering taxes.
821       Public            Increased safety concerns for increased density.
822       Public            Have regulations to control pollution.
823       Public            Very much depends on what kind of industry permitted. Encourage new green
                            economy jobs not old economy and no port expansion.
824       Public            Unused industrial land for prolonged periods should be able to be leased out for
                            office parks until an industrial company requires the land.
825       Public            I think you need to have more human elements in industrial areas.
826       Public            Need to see intensive use on these lands. Need to include greenhouses in
                            industrial zones. Greenhouses kill the agricultural land underneath them.
827       Public            We do need to protect our industry but make land use for some "extremely"
                            efficient, with strict guidelines and effective rules.
828       Public            Yes, land should be dedicated to industrial but ideally that should be combined with
                            an effort to encourage higher density industrial. Density should be pushed, not only
                            for residential but also for employment. In Singapore/Hong Kong they stack factory
                            floors in multi-story factory buildings. We should find a way to do that here.

829       Public            Industry must retool their assets to become environmentally friendly and
                            implement added value technology for their waste to develop power and so on.

#          Source              Comments
830        Public            Yes in principle, but industries are often near rivers and housing; they MUST
                             operate under the triple bottom lime.
831        Public            Protect industrial land BUT! Encourage green roof technology. Greenhouses as a
                             second story in industrial parks
832        Public            Reduce export of raw logs and increase manufacturing of wooden items such as
                             doors, windows, furniture.
Industrial Land / Implementation
833        Public            Municipality concerns have to be included in this.
834        Public            Industrial land uses should be established and changed at a MUNICIPAL LEVEL,
                             with regional consideration.
835        Public            It is likely that municipalities will not relinquish land use authority. Suggest Metro
                             Vancouver seek direct provincial government involvement in this issue. Align Metro
                             Vancouver with the province not municipalities
836        Public            Link your industrial strategies to be more inline with senior government policy.
837        Public            The mix of industrial and industrial/commercial changes through urbanization - The
                             RGS needs to show flexibility so it can adapt while still protecting regional jobs and
838        Public            Vancouver Port Authority has FAR too much control over industrial land in North
                             Van. Our local council has no control or even much opportunity for having input.
839        Public            The municipalities should be able to amend their industrial lands on their own if
840        Public            Those occupying industrial lands should be REQUIRED to maintain environmental
841        Public            Protect industrial land but there should be a comprehensive regional industrial
                             strategy to determine what industries are a benefit to the region. Then determine
                             what cities are situated for particular industrial uses. Then take an inventory to
                             determine if there is presently zoned land for industrial and protect it.
842        Public            Industrial land control must be in the context of evolving economic uses. Flexibility
                             definition of industry must be examined.
Agricultural Land
843        Focus Groups      I think it is so important to protect our ALR land. Kids need to see farms, cows,
                             chickens, how vegetables and fruit are grown.
844        Focus Groups      ALR lands: Living in Richmond, we believe it is wrong to destroy agricultural assets
                             such as land.
845        Focus Groups      ALR lands: Protecting these must be at the top of the list. Its our very existence for
                             us and our children.
846        Focus Groups      Protect ALR: Loss of this valuable asset would cause increased unemployment
                             and resultant economic (negative) impact on our community.
847        Focus Groups      Agriculture: Protect every bit. California drought, Richmond, marine drive were
                             excellent all year round production
848        Focus Groups      Essential to avoid encroachment on green/agricultural use
849        Focus Groups      Yes we need to protect our lands and what we have left of our natural agriculture.

850        Focus Groups        Agricultural lands are precious - see Richmond example of what can go wrong.
851        Focus Groups        Agricultural land: To my mind this is a commitment worth making regardless of
                               economic forecast. This is the right use from a sustainability perspective and once
                               these lands are gone, you can't get them back for this use.
852        Focus Groups        Agricultural land is highest priority because it can NEVER be replaced once
                               converted to another use.
853        Focus Groups        Protect supply of agricultural land: CRUCIAL to protect this to ensure we make use
                               of our most fertile lands for farming. It is a natural resource that needs to be
                               protected in order to be sustained.
854        Focus Groups        Agricultural lands: Farmers are not making money due to labour cost. They should

#     Source         Comments
855   Focus Groups   Farming is an ESSENTIAL job. We must do everything we can to encourage and
                     support this career choice because it benefits everyone as well as the
                     environment. Farming families should not be forced to close up shop because
                     municipalities don't protect them
856   Focus Groups   Protect ALR: perhaps buy out empty housing or warehouses, etc. Noticed that
                     Whalley had a lot of abandoned looking houses.
857   Focus Groups   Protect ALR: Save the little that we have.
858   Public         Yes, yes, yes. We need to reserve our agricultural land and parks for this is one of
                     the our greatest resources; the beauty of our province.
859   Public         We must keep the ALR lands intact. It seems that it is a simple process to have
                     ALR lands removed from the reserve!
860   Public         Need more focus on how agricultural land use will be linked to the regional
861   Public         Conserve all agricultural land.
862   Public         Respect small farmers by calling them farmers and not growers and by providing
                     solutions to their conundrums - not ignoring them.
863   Public         ALR lands small parcels should not be limited.
864   Public         Yes, we need to strengthen ALR and stop provincial government nonsense such
                     as Delta Port Expansion, SPFR and Port Mann Bridge Expansion. Currently, ALR
                     is a farce. It needs teeth.
865   Public         Densify what is already developed and aggressively protect ALR and recreation
                     and conservation areas.
866   Public         Agricultural lands are already in ALR + green zones. This designation should not
                     be revisited.
867   Public         Preserve all farmland (in and out of ALR for food production).
868   Public         Port Coquitlam ALR lands SHOULD NOT be removed from the growth
                     concentration area. WAS NOT in green zone. Poor land 3w to 5w Wet Land North
                     of Fraser River NOT farm based businesses in Port Coq, but service on street next
                     to ALR.
869   Public         The past system for classifying farmland was badly flawed. Flood plain does not
                     automatically make good farmland.
870   Public         How do you farm 1 acre and 2 acre, 2.5 acre partitions of land?
871   Public         Protect farm land in general but Port Coquitlam has 1 acre and 5 acre parcels -
                     Poor Land - Wet. No support to farm land.
872   Public         Reclaim agricultural land from other uses whenever possible.
873   Public         PROTECT agricultural land! PROMOTE agricultural capability! Enough talk
874   Public         I like the agricultural land to be protected but there must be strong political will to
                     implement this strategy
875   Public         Agricultural land must be protected for the future
876   Public         Defend agricultural land and capacity! With EXTREME vigour
877   Public         Real agriculture should be encouraged in all ways. The ALR protects agricultural
                     lands and we don’t need anymore government control to trump the ALC.
878   Public         ALR retention: Farmers should be able to make good living: How to support?
                     Taxation? Other ways ?
879   Public         Regional designation not needed- duplication of ALR
880   Public         The ALR MUST become irreversible, or NO exclusion to enable housing /
                     commercial growth etc.
881   Public         Protect agricultural lands. It is important to keep agricultural land
882   Public         Help save Jackson Farm.
883   Public         No more land should be removed from the ALR in Metro Vancouver
884   Public         Agricultural land must be protected
885   Public         Agricultural land needs to be protected from developers.
886   Public         Agriculture: Yes but harmonize with the ALC.

#     Source   Comments
887   Public   We definitely need to preserve our agricultural land, and even land that is, at
               present, borderline.
888   Public   Agricultural lands are already protected via ALC, Metro Vancouver needs to stop
               politicking and leave along.
889   Public   Too much land is being used for speculative purposes and not be encouraged to
890   Public   Make it more difficult to take land out of the ALR – Discouraging purchase of ALR
               designated land, on spec. for residential development.
891   Public   We need to protect Agricultural land and not allow or encourage lands to be taken
               out of the ALR. Agricultural Lands should be clearly designated.
892   Public   Protect our agricultural land from developers, speculators, reallocation and
               municipal hall.
893   Public   Stop urban sprawl; protect agricultural land.
894   Public   Protect scientifically proven good ALR land only.
895   Public   Metro Vancouver should state that Metro’s 1st priority is there will be no net loss of
               agricultural land.
896   Public   Agricultural land must be protected
897   Public   Yes, we most certainly should be protecting our agricultural lands and encouraging
898   Public   Agricultural land should be graded and true productive land should be never used
               for anything, but poor land should be graded and out when appropriate.
899   Public   Protect Agricultural land for now and the future and ensure that any upland hillside
               development such as Silver Ridge (Portrait Homes) does not compromise the
               downstream ALR.
900   Public   Agree wholeheartedly with protecting agricultural lands through regional
               designation. However, the region needs to compensate / have offsets for
               municipalities with agricultural land for not changing them to other uses.
901   Public   Policy 2.3.4. takes land that is not in the ALR and proposes to return it to the ALR
               even if it is in UCB and/or not appropriate for farming (otherwise how did it get
               removed from the ALR?)
902   Public   Policy 2.3.3 Obligates municipalities to spend tax $ to improve any land that may
               never produce viable product
903   Public   Maple Ridge has insufficient industrial land, yet needs it to create more local jobs.
               There is pressure to change agricultural (ALR) land for industrial park. It is a
904   Public   Laws to protect land that cannot be changed by corporation / developers
905   Public   Imperative to protect agricultural land !
906   Public   Very supportive. Need policies to support small-holdings for agriculture. Currently
               only support "corporate" farming.
907   Public   Incentives needed for current farmers as well as new!
908   Public   Don’t impose conditions on farmers who are doing well. For example, there was
               complete disrespect shown when productivity and history was ignored in place of
               road through farmland (Laity farms). Farming is hard enough, don’t make it harder!

909   Public   What is mechanism for protecting agricultural lands and encouraging farming?
910   Public   No "mega houses" on agricultural land!
911   Public   Protect agricultural land
912   Public   Yes, but strong directives need regarding land and agriculture protection.
913   Public   Some agriculture land still targeted for rural or urban
914   Public   Protect agricultural land regionally, but allow municipalities control over agricultural
915   Public   Consider growth in other regions, link regions, ensure liveability within urban cores,
               green space food production, distribution etc.

#          Source              Comments
916        Public           I would like to see more cooperation between municipalities on this. Our area
                            (Maple Ridge) is an agricultural area. This should be preserved but we should get
                            compensated for not developing industrial land but keeping it as agricultural.
917        Public           Encourage small holdings with tax and other incentives to keep the price of the
                            food affordable while allowing the farmers to prosper.
918        Public           Government needs to support this fully. We need to keep our agricultural land. Tax
                            breaks and less buying from USA. Sustainable farming. Food we grow needs to
                            stay in the province.
919        Public           Need to have tax credits for people to expand farm land. Either it be property tax
                            break or business tax break.
920        Public           Region needs to lobby federal government to make agriculture more viable and
                            profitable to encourage agricultural production
921        Public           I would like to see some mechanism where cities, on areas which are better
                            suitable for agriculture, can get credits for keeping the agricultural land and
                            foregoing revenues from industrial use (Kind of like transfer payments between
                            provinces). In the future, when agricultural land becomes more valuable for food
                            security, these “ transfer payments” may not be necessary anymore.
Agricultural Land and Best Practices
922        Focus Groups     ALR land must not only be protected but included in any major development.
                            Speaks to community local goods from and for local people.
923        Focus Groups     Protect ALR: Would like to see more support for local farming/produce
924        Focus Groups     We must protect ALR lands. Slow Food Movement and air pollution.
925        Focus Groups     Good sustainable farming is essential for a healthy community.
926        Focus Groups     ALR: Government NEEDS to protect this land. More tax breaks and less building
                            on land. Less export and import to/from USA/NB. Keep the food we grow, stay in
                            province, jobs developed to process food.
927        Focus Groups     Protect agricultural land: The only thing I would add is to encourage positive
                            environmental farming as much as possible. I strongly oppose of more agricultural
                            land being sold for residential.
928        Focus Groups     ALR land: Greenhouse farming is an industrial use. If you are not using the ground
                            you're on (till the soil, etc.) you're not farming. Golf courses are not agricultural
                            uses, they are the encroachment trigger for residential development.
929        Focus Groups     Integrate co-operative land use with both agricultural and industrial value to
                            producers and consumers.
930        Focus Groups     Protect ALR land: Much more stringent enforcement. Greenhouses should be
                            industrial land not agricultural.
931        Focus Groups     Our diverse agricultural land needs to be protected at all costs! Local food should
                            be encouraged as well as growing organic. If the future of food source is
                            unpredictable, then maintaining our land is important for our community.
932        Focus Groups     Protect ALR: Good if ALR lands are used for local food production. Bad if only
                            used as a hobby farm for someone's pet pony. Think of 100 mile diet. Local food
                            production reduces transport of food and makes local food affordable.
933        Focus Groups     Agricultural land cannot be reclaimed after development and a need to produce a
                            sustainable food production must be protected.
934        Focus Groups     Keep urban sprawl contained to allow us to have a 100 mile diet.
935        Focus Groups     Protect ALR: Encourage increased production through technology and new
                            farming techniques. If we increase residential density, why can't we do the same
                            with agriculture?
936        Focus Groups     Protect ALR: Support farmers and local sustainable farming (i.e. organic), less
                            produce imported, more local grown.
937        Focus Groups     Encourage creation of community gardens: growing vegetables, etc.
938        Focus Groups     Protect ALR: At some point we must provide locally grown food for our community
                            to survive. We are already poor in available agricultural land. It must be USED not
                            just enjoyed.

#     Source         Comments
939   Focus Groups   Protect ALR: encourage active farming.
940   Focus Groups   We MUST protect our agricultural lands and encourage active farming. Families
                     are more and more looking to find healthier choices for their families and this is a
                     positive way to answer that. It will also boost the local economy by providing
                     ongoing jobs.
941   Focus Groups   ALR land must be protected. The key I think is ACTIVE farming.
942   Focus Groups   Protect agricultural lands and encourage active farming.
943   Public         ALR…what population size could be sustained on a "100 Mile Diet"?
944   Public         As fossil fuels are depleted imported food will become much more expensive.
                     Food production may plateau from lack of fossil fuel based fertilizers and
945   Public         All agricultural land must be protected. All ALR land can be enhanced - There is no
                     such thing as POOR LAND - so go ahead and build a facility. Land should NEVER
                     EVER be TAKEN OUT. One day we will have to feed our own
946   Public         Yes, with a "buffer" zone between them (urban / agricultural).
947   Public         Protect agricultural lands but good agricultural land. There is no good agricultural
                     land in Port Coquitlam. They are wet, small land holdings anywhere from 1/2 acre
                     to 15 acres. Too small. Agricultural land needs to be protected by the government
                     if they want to protect these lands.
948   Public         Do not support small parcels in wet lands - land that is not farmable.
949   Public         In Port Coquitlam, Agricultural Land does not support itself or the families that live
                     on it. It is subsidized by other incomes or monies. OUR LAND IS NOT SUITED
                     FOR FARMING.
950   Public         Protect from pollution as well.
951   Public         Protecting and preserving agriculture and biodiversity are crucial! These don't
                     necessarily go together, e.g., greenhouses.
952   Public         Make sure health concerns are fully addressed on livestock raising in urban areas
                     (For example, chicken by-laws in the City of Vancouver)
953   Public         It’s a better policy to depend on local production than on imported materials and
                     agriculture. We could have better control on kinds of products.
954   Public         Become leader in sustainable farming, subsidies.
955   Public         Agree. Producing goods that we can consume locally rather than import and also
                     protect green spaces. Question: What is the incentive for farmers though when
                     they "cash" out when their land is converted for residential use?
956   Public         We need to produce more of our own food locally (as more and more people wish
                     to purchase food grown locally).
957   Public         Develop more community gardens.
958   Public         Encourage community gardens in public spaces.
959   Public         We should encourage environmentally friendly farming. The more local products
                     we can produce, the better.
960   Public         This is a must, especially if a sustainable food supply system (100 mile
                     diet)/practice is promoted or adopted.
961   Public         Situate composting facilities in agricultural areas.
962   Public         Allow frontage development 160 feet only.
963   Public         There already is an agricultural land reserve. Do not change it unless there is
                     some evidence that it needs extending in some areas. It does make sense to
                     coordinate infrastructure. For example, drainage. But this also needs to be linked
                     to health and safety of what is running into rivers from drainage especially from
964   Public         No greenhouses on agricultural land. Need to find new land to move to agriculture.

#     Source   Comments
965   Public   Should be strengthened. What info is missing? Would like to know what key info
               would help make this argument more compelling. What is local food? Not milk,
               eggs and most of fruit or vegetables we see in stores. Vacancy rate of agricultural
               land/economic value.
966   Public   Regarding venue: 100 mile diet? Exotic fruits in winter equals bad.
967   Public   Protecting agricultural lands is essential. We can’t keep importing our food from
               across the globe. It’s crazy!
968   Public   Treat small farmers with respect. Richmond currently treats them as "hobby
               farmers" In the city government view, only large farming operations are "bona fide".

969   Public   Agriculture - Encourage organize farming as revenue from organic is 3 to 7 times
               the revenue as conventional farming.
970   Public   Encourage organic farming. Pesticides, fertilizers and chemicals are turning green
               areas into dead zones.
971   Public   Protect farm land if good land to produce and large enough to make a living.
972   Public   Agricultural land is necessary to protect but the land review must be done to
               determine what the land is good for, i.e., What type of farming, if not then remove
973   Public   Yes! Protect agricultural lands but ensure this is soil based agriculture and don't
               have hog barns and mushroom farms next to residential areas.
974   Public   Create a food system based on local sustainability.
975   Public   We need to feed ourselves. Protect agricultural lands and discourage greenhouses
               built on these lands.
976   Public   Protection of agricultural land must be a major priority. So little land is arable that
               where available it must be utilized. Greenhouse farming should not be done on top
               of arable land.
977   Public   Take greenhouses off agriculturally designated lands and move them to
               commercial land.
978   Public   Could also involve residents in smaller green practices such as encouraging home
               grown food items (not just farming).
979   Public   Greenhouses aren't really agricultural in the sense that true agriculture has
               conservation/biodiversity benefits. Greenhouses DO NOT. Therefore they are
               really an industrial/agricultural blend.
980   Public   Agricultural land must be defined. What is it specifically used for? Agriculture can
               play a significant role in an ecosystem if done in the right way. Land must be
               reserved for this industry. Combine industrial land/greenhouse agriculture easily.

981   Public   Greenhouses glass on concrete may not be true agricultural use of land.
982   Public   Highly important to protect agricultural land. Especially practices that allow for
               biodiversity preservation (not more recreation or greenhouses).
983   Public   Grow more valuable products like blueberries, cranberries, strawberries and fancy
               food (special mushrooms, etc.) to enhance values.
984   Public   Yes, protect agricultural lands - these need to be protected from more than just
               land grab but also from environmentall factors - pure and clean and with
               sustainable chemical-free agricultural practices.
985   Public   I support that we can grow food within the region to encourage food supply within
               neighbourhood and it ties in with reduction of GHG's, e.g., transporting food from
986   Public   Grow hemp for cement instead of this 20% pollution method. It eats pollution and
               makes stronger cement.
987   Public   Encourage organic zone areas and overall natural farming producers. Use rock
               dust fertilizers and not incomplete chemical mix or endocrine disrupters.
988   Public   Incentive programs for new farmers sounds good but where/what are the details?
               Right now it’s only large corporations who are getting into farming.

#          Source             Comments
989        Public           Another layer of detail required: 1) Sustainable local purchasing network, 2)
                            economic diversification, 3) encourage correct types of industry and agriculture -
                            sustainable, clean, diverse, etc.
990        Public           Self sustaining in food production and that it's diverse and not monoculture.
991        Public           Reduce beef production / dairy as green house methane gas is extreme: 27 times
                            more damage than a car.
992        Public           Encourage 100-mile diet crops such as legume and nuts (protein sources).
993        Public           Increase policies to support farmer's markets and CSR - community Supported
994        Public           Protect agriculture lands and reduce GMO/pesticides.
995        Public           In fact I think we need to go beyond "protection" and start clawing back productive
                            land and support urban farming.
996        Public           Allow more urban farm areas and support urban architecture that incorporates
                            urban farming.
997        Public           Encourage farming within higher density residential areas.
998        Public           More support needed for urban agriculture (gardens growing food).
999        Public           Must protect ALR and encourage and support urban areas growing food.
1000       Public           Support agriculture lands for large farming but also support urban farming.
1001       Public           Need more emphasis / support for urban agriculture.
1002       Public           Encourage as much urban agriculture as possible.
1003       Public           Agricultural lands - incorporate urban and community farm space.
1004       Public           Encourage urban agriculture with 1) Single family home gardening 2) hi-rise etc
1005       Public           Create food in urban areas. Create food gardens on boulevards. Green cityscape
                            with indigenous plants such as salad equals creating food.
1006       Public           Increase agriculture and urban gardening with city centres as well as preservation
                            of ALR and other agricultural areas.
1007       Public           Make municipal land available for long term urban gardens.
1008       Public           How does Metro Vancouver "encourage" active farming on low productivity land?
                            There should be mechanisms to implement this objective - connect with the
                            farming community and municipalities.
1009       Public           Give teeth to protecting the ALR and encourage local farming.
1010       Public           Definitely protect agricultural lands and encourage active farming.
1011       Public           Active Farming - Yes but put it in places where there is good farm land and lower
                            the taxes on it.
1012       Public           Active farming should include affordable housing for workers or cooperatives.
1013       Public           Active farming – YES !
1014       Public           Agricultural lands should be encouraged for active farming to discourage pollution.
1015       Public           Absolutely, absolutely encourage active farming. Another key to sustainability .
1016       Public           re: encourage active farming Yes! Small neighbourhood farms should be
                            encouraged, particularly in densely populated Vancouver/Burnaby/Coquitlam.
Agricultural Land and Food Security
1017       Focus Groups     Protect ALR: Need to encourage more local food production (people are looking to
                            buy locally and support their communities).
1018       Focus Groups     Protect ALR: I believe it is an excellent proposal to protect the land and at the
                            same time make products grown in BC more affordable than products brought in.

1019       Focus Groups       Protecting industrial and agricultural business/production is paramount to a
                              healthier Greater Vancouver rather than having to depend on imported agriculture
                              and business.
1020       Focus Groups       Definitely should protect agricultural land. With population expected to increase by
                              1 million people by 2040, the demand for locally grown produce would increase.
                              Locally grown produce is also economically more preferable than imported

#           Source              Comments
1021       Focus Groups       Protect ALR: encourages growth and consumption of produce locally.
1022       Focus Groups       Protecting agricultural lands is most important so we are able to support ourselves
                              and not rely on other countries.
1023       Focus Groups       Protect agriculture. 14 days with no food and you're dead!!
1024       Focus Groups       I grew up watching farms disappear. We need to keep our farms to grow our own
1025       Focus Groups       Protect ALR: need to allow for flexibility of land use especially if agriculture is less
                              of an economic impact on region. Also we may be more dependent on importing
1026       Public             Food security needs to be a priority as more people are seeing the cost to the
                              environment and our health and jobs by importing our food.
1027       Public             Food security. Ambiance - Farmers Market/100 mile diet
1028       Public             Important for food security and decreasing GHG's from transportation.
1029       Public             We already can't sustain our population with locally grown food.
1030       Public             Food security is going to be more important.
1031       Public             We must be able to grow our food locally to ensure our food supply.
1032       Public             More emphasis on food security.
1033       Public             We will eventually need to eat local foods. Getting peas from China (as we do!) is
                              unacceptable and the plastic packaging is non-recyclable - even worse. Eventually
                              we will have to learn to feed ourselves and without land it’s a no go.
1034       Public             We cannot expect the rest of the world to feed us, not only due to an intense
                              population (worldwide) but also when making allowance for the climate change!
                              Protecting our agricultural lands has to be a # 1 issue in the Fraser Valley.
1035       Public             Above all, agricultural land should be preserved. Changing economic conditions
                              will influence industrial and commercial activity. EVERYONE NEEDS TO EAT.
1036       Public             Is there room for growth? Where is the technical report to assess our future food
                              self sufficiency?
1037       Public             Farming and food security are very important. IF we do not protect our farm land
                              how can we have any food security? Where will all the food grow if everyone does
                              not protect farm land.
1038       Public             Develop a regional food security strategy and develop mechanisms to implement.
                              e.g., need money , best practices.
1039       Public             Agricultural Land: I believe we need all the protection we can get for the ALR.
                              Many parcels of land are being taken out of the ALR at a local level (Township of
                              Langley in Langley Council) bend to the request/bribes of housing developers and
                              industry. We have to eat; we need fertile Fraser Valley farm land.
1040       Public             Consumers (90%) just look at the prices of food. If we import cheap food too
                              much, we become vulnerable as a society.
1041       Public             Agricultural land must/should be protected for food safety.
1042       Public             Save agricultural land even if not currently being used as we can not afford to lose
                              any more land or we lose the ability to feed ourselves.
1043       Public             Agree - encourage food production (diversity and supply needs of region).
1044       Public             Like protecting the local food source available from ALR lands.
1045       Public             Protection of ALR / local food production - becoming major issue.
1046       Public             Food security critical in future.
1047       Public             Protect rural lands: How self sufficient will we have to be in food production by
                              2040? Do we have enough agricultural land to achieve that? Does more
                              agricultural land need to be transformed from currently developed land?
Agricultural and Industrial Lands
1048       Focus Groups       I agree to protecting industrial lands. Agriculture protection should be a big #1
1049       Focus Groups       Protect industrial/agricultural lands: These lands cannot be easily returned to these
                              uses once they have become higher density/higher land value uses. They must be

#          Source              Comments
1050       Focus Groups        Protect industrial/agricultural lands: Once these are put to other uses, its nearly
                               impossible to convert them back.
1051       Focus Groups        Protect ALR land: Tables stakes for a viable future. Farming however should
                               require tilling the land. Tracts of greenhouse complexes for purposes of the vision
                               should be considered industrial and be encouraged in industrial lands.
1052       Focus Groups        UCB: While expanding boundaries would create more spacious communities, I
                               don't feel we can encroach upon the environment any more than we already have.
                               We also need to be careful not to replace industry with residences or there will not
                               be enough business
1053       Focus Groups        Voted green encourage office/retail incentives. Protect industrial land. Protect
                               agricultural land.
1054       Public              Need to reserve even more so than industrial lands eliminate the land speculation.

1055       Public              Protecting industrial lands seems as important as supporting agricultural lands.
                               The goods and services provided by both are needed greatly.
1056       Public              Highly support protection of agricultural and industrial areas.
1057       Public              Do not support protecting industrial lands if agricultural land is "converted" to
1058       Public              Too many examples of industrial going commercial or residential then panic as out
                               of industrial land. Silly stupid - must protect them but don't take them out of ALR.
                               NO big box development in ALR or in converted industrial park (No big box
1059       Public              Preservation of industrial and agricultural lands must be stronger.
1060       Public              Don't sacrifice agriculture for industry.
1061       Public              Although farm land is very important, when there is a shortage the least farmable
                               land must be evaluated for other uses. Farming is valuable so is industrial and
                               residential, etc.
1062       Public              ALARM - not enough enforcement! See No 8 Rd, Richmond - 200 acres of prime
                               farm land has been bought for future industrial purposes. This is criminal! Next is
                               Barnston Island!
1063       Public              Agricultural, some agricultural land needs to nominated to industrial and other
1064       Public              I can support maintaining existing Industrial land, but we should not be converting
                               ALR land to Industrial.
1065       Public              Industrial and agricultural lands: Loss of flexibility in determining these uses locally.

1066       Public            Municipal bylaws already control usage. Stricter enforcement?
1067       Public            Seems restrictive from a development perspective. Constraints will force decisions
                             that may be erroneous.
1068       Public            No industrial parks in ALR
1069       Public            Agricultural land must not be used for industrial designation.
1070       Public            Industrial land should be looked at regionally so agricultural land is not converted
                             into industrial just to generate tax revenue for the municipality .
1071       Public            Goal 2: Not strong enough to protect the region's supply of industrial land or
                             agricultural land.
Agricultural Land and Transit Corridors
1072       Public            A transportation corridor was built through agricultural land in Maple Ridge/Pitt
                             Meadows. Is this now supposed to become a built up corridor?
1073       Public            You need to keep as much ALR and greenspace as possible, but when you make
                             a road for the new developments, don't encroach on established communities, you
                             need to keep a green space.
1074       Public            Do not have Gateway go through farms and ALR.
1075       Public            Corridors through ALR are inappropriate. Highlight that portions are only a means
                             of connecting town centres.

#      Source   Comments
1076   Public   My agricultural is not someone else's possible transportation corridor. It should not
                be treated as if it were!!
1077   Public   Growth along transit corridors is a good concept if it does not encroach on
                agricultural land.
1078   Public   One of our transit corridors goes through agricultural land. I would not agree with
                developing this corridor for urban use.
1079   Public   Transportation Corridors should not allow development if it encroaches on the

#     Source      Comments
Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets
Conservation and Recreation Land Designation
1080      Focus Groups     Conservation: PUBLIC LANDS ONLY
1081      Focus Groups     Conservation/Recreation: Kind of on the fence, need to know more info on its
                           intent and rules governing such action. It’s a good thing if done properly.
1082      Focus Groups     Natural conservation: Public lands - how can we force private? Also, industrial
                           responsibilities towards areas such as Barnet.
1083      Focus Groups     I support the recreational and conservation designation because we have great
                           wildlife and also live in a beautiful city when it comes to nature. So this is the best
                           approach for that and to protect it.
1084      Focus Groups     Protect natural assets: yes but a bit concerned about concentrating activity to small
                           areas as population grows.
1085      Focus Groups     They're both good ideas but aren't regional conservation areas already protected?

1086       Focus Groups        Protecting natural assets: IF they are already designated as protected
                               areas/conservation areas, are they not ALREADY protected? How can they be
                               expanded without encroaching on existing commercial/residential zones?
1087       Focus Groups        Is the conservation and protection question providing justification for increased
                               government bureaucracy within Metro Vancouver to manage protected areas
                               outside its jurisdiction, i.e., parks created at the provincial and municipal levels?
1088       Focus Groups        Regional Conservation Designation - Not sure what this means.
1089       Focus Groups
                               We should be protecting our natural assets but my concern is that we haven't
                               been. Brown water in our municipal water means that we have not protected our
                               watersheds. Natural habitats for migratory birds have been encroached upon. Not
                               protecting the eagle's nesting etc - Don't forget tourists are a big BC industry!!
1090       Focus Groups        Protection of natural assets primarily through conservation / recreation: Yes! Not
                               only to lighten our footprint on the environment but also as tourism is an ever
                               growing element of our economy it is crucial to preserve the natural beauty tourists
                               are coming to see.
1091       Focus Groups        Plant more trees. Natural assets should be protected. I'm not sure why they have
                               to have a specific designation.
1092       Focus Groups        Protect natural assets…… A designation alone may be insufficient to provide
                               sustainability and care for long-term. What will be the secondary means to support
                               conservation / recreation areas?
1093       Focus Groups        How to ensure the conservation / recreation assets remain as such? i.e. what
                               prevents the municipality from changing the designation?
1094       Focus Groups        We shoul protect regional conservation to maintain air quality and natural city
1095       Focus Groups        Protect natural assets but be wary of what kind of recreational designation is used
                               (i.e. golf courses, sports centres, go carts)
1096       Public              Efficiency! Conservation of healthy environment.
1097       Public              Ensure that these areas are protected and cannot be used for other means. Do not
                               allow tree cutting for parking lots, campgrounds, golf courses, playing fields, etc.

1098       Public              Implement recommendations from Metro Van's strategic directions for biodiversity
                               conservation. There needs to be sustainable connections between
                               Conservation/Recreation areas throughout the region. Better communication with
                               provincial and federal governments on this goal!
1099       Public              Need to keep the ecosystem working as mother nature intended, changing natural
                               waterways makes a negative impact on the ecosystems.
1100       Public              Probably the region's greatest asset!

#      Source   Comments
1101   Public   Must look at all municipal protection areas, along with estuaries, protection buffers,
                restoration/rehabilitation of estuaries
1102   Public   This is hugely important. Not at least for the North Shore. Would prefer to see the
                wording strengthened if possible at all. This point is of paramount importance.

1103   Public   Can you keep the conservation areas available to all - not just well off people, e.g.,
1104   Public   Must have light rail, trains to access recreational lands. Much of this land is on the
                North Shore and TransLink shows NO plans to improve transit to the North Shore.
                Squamish, Whistler ferries, etc. In the low carbon future, people will not be able to
1105   Public   I agree with protecting natural and environmentally sensitive areas but am
                uncertain about protection of recreation lands - Does this mean active parks like
                golf and formal gardens? Hard boundary requires board approval to move.
1106   Public   Have natural assets not already been protected by other authorities?
1107   Public   More important than the economy. Make it a priority.
1108   Public   The quality of our environment and the public health is essential to the quality of
                life of the region
1109   Public   We need green spaces and we need to preserve natural habitat.
1110   Public   We are going in the right direction with conservation but lets make sure that we
                protect what's been accomplished.
1111   Public   Why is Pacific Spirit Park not included?
1112   Public   Recreational areas need to be protected from emissions.
1113   Public   I do not think regional government has a legitimate say in what happens in our
1114   Public   These two (#7 and #8) are inter-related, e.g.. conservation of the Deboville Slough

1115   Public   Continue to be firm with districts wanting to take property from green zones and
1116   Public   Protection of watershed and aquifer (groundwater) resources.
1117   Public   No commercial and mining etc. in parks.
1118   Public   Providing the lands are correctly identified.
1119   Public   For over a century, wiser planners and leaders have had the foresight to set aside
                conservation and recreation lands. Stanley Park, Central Park, Green Timbers,
                Minnekhada, etc., but now the urban dwellers (whose homes were built upon
                forested lands) want to impose THEIR needs for green space on those on the
1120   Public   Yes, and the government should own them to protect them.
1121   Public   Anmore/Buntzen Lake/Sasamat Lake: They have been huge developing problems
                in the past few years. Clear cuts, wash outs, steep slope development. PLEASE
1122   Public   Totally support this.
1123   Public   Redundant. Existing measures already have designations. Not useful unless more
                protected areas will be added.
1124   Public   Make sure that the protected conservation lands are fully protected from creeping
                urban development. Set DEFINITE boundaries. Don't forget to keep wildlife
                corridors fully protected also.
1125   Public   Make certain that no industry no matter how benign does not occur. E.g., Private
                power projects without the consultation of ALL the citizens in the Metro Vancouver
1126   Public   Yes! Protect, protect, protect green spaces. Stop the building of housing that is far
                off the shopping and transit lines. Enough done up mountains to last years!!

#      Source   Comments
1127   Public   It goes without saying that these lands provide the kind of respite that we require
                as our population grows. We need to protect watersheds and parks to provide
                cheap clean drinking water and encourage agricultural viability.
1128   Public   What does recreation include? Can a person still develop land for an intrusive
                recreational use e.g., Mountain biking versus bird watching)?
1129   Public   Not protect but INCREASE these lands!
1130   Public   Absolutely! If we ignore the natural world around us we do it at our peril. A
                balanced human society requires contact with the natural world, with space, and to
                erode our conservation and recreational lands is to erode our humanity.
1131   Public   There are places we must save for our own spiritual and mental well being. This
                may not be looked upon as having any material value, but a healthy and
                prosperous society isn't just about that.
1132   Public   Jackson Farm in Maple Ridge is a natural asset, please protect and preserve it!
1133   Public   Yes, but don't overload small areas with growing population.
1134   Public   Our conservation and recreation lands help make Metro Vancouver what it is -
                recognized around the world as a great place to live.
1135   Public   Absolutely, way to go.
1136   Public   This is a must.
1137   Public   We also need to look at promoting growth.
1138   Public   Review fee for use, modest but may help offset cost.
1139   Public   Very important part of the quality of life in Vancouver is to have recreation lands
                and of course don't forget to protect our ecology.
1140   Public   If we did not have our trees due to how poor our transit system is, we would be
                living in such poor air quality that our respiratory needs would strain our health
1141   Public   Have to enhance the conservation and recreation lands.
1142   Public   Allow flexibility.
1143   Public   These areas must be protected for the coming generations to enjoy and to protect
                natural sensitive areas (flora and fauna) that have tended to get gobbled up by
                frantic urban sprawl.
1144   Public   Should be larger areas and wider set-backs from key environmental areas.
1145   Public   A major part of our economy comes from tourism. We must preserve our natural
                assets for personal and tourism purposes.
1146   Public   We need to keep our green areas green.
1147   Public   Do a better job!
1148   Public   What is conservation land? You are leaving the doors wide open for municipalities
                to do what they wish with conservation lands. Outdoor recreation (e.g., soccer
                fields) are NOT conservation.
1149   Public   Where? Distribution throughout region, public access and use?
1150   Public   Vital to our quality of life.
1151   Public   Keep the green zone strong.
1152   Public   Any significant highway expansion (except HOV lanes?) is incompatible with this
1153   Public   Don't agree with protecting the regions' conservation and recreation lands if that
                impacts privately held land. IF it's public land then okay.
1154   Public   No to green zone or conservation designation on privately held land without
                owner's consent.
1155   Public   Protect natural assets primarily through a regional conservation: We need to
                protect MORE land not just what has been currently designated.
1156   Public   Protect natural assets primarily through a regional conservation: Needs to be
                through local municipalities.
1157   Public   Conserve every bit of green space for future generations PLEASE!
1158   Public   "We only borrow it from our children" PROTECT ANMORE

#      Source   Comments
1159   Public   Control development, conserve, protect, police, sustain habitat, protect flora,
                fauna, fish, wildlife
1160   Public   Good first step but not aggressive enough. Needs more challenging goals.
1161   Public   We must and need to support natural assets.
1162   Public   Segregation of parkland/recreational areas by providing regional protection creates
                a better enforcement and lower likelihood of subsequent conversion to other use.

1163   Public   Designation may not be strong enough/too late.
1164   Public   Yes, protect natural assets. I don't think Metro Vancouver is doing enough with
                lobbying provincial and federal governments to help protect our environmentally
                sensitive areas.
1165   Public   Conserve the forest at UBC area!!! Avoid constructing more private residential
                units there.
1166   Public   We need to look at tools beyond protected areas and look at tools that can be
                used on all areas.
1167   Public   Conservation areas: If we don’t rigidly retain green lands, many more species of
                birds/animals/plants will disappear (quality of life deteriorate), and WE disappear.

1168   Public   Protect natural assets. BC has the beautiful nature that attracts people to live here
                or visit
1169   Public   Protect natural assets through recreational designation, good point, has this been
1170   Public   Not sure if conservation and recreation are always compatible, or if recreation is
                conducive to promoting biodiversity.
1171   Public   Need a firm robust concept of a green zone, kept in the plan to help protect it from
                political erosion.
1172   Public   Local governments lack the will and resources to protect conservation/recreation
                areas. We need help from Metro Vancouver.
1173   Public   No! I feel it is an erosion of the responsibility of municipalities.
1174   Public   Protect natural assets through Regional, not municipal.
1175   Public   In order to protect the region’s natural resources, Metro Vancouver should state
                that its primary value and goal is to increase the amount of protected conservation
                and recreational land.
1176   Public   High supportive of conservative areas as this should be one more opportunity to
                review any development proposed that would ADVERSELY EFFECT THE
1177   Public   Agree with conservation/recreation green zone.
1178   Public   Protecting conservation/recreation land is important for tourism and a healthy
1179   Public   Strongly support protection of natural assets through conservation/recreation
1180   Public   Is it necessary to take conservation / recreation lands out of the hands of
                municipalities? They do a good job of protecting them now.
1181   Public   These broad goals/ ideals are great and appreciated. They just need details and
                substance now.
1182   Public   I think it’s important to have regional protection of conservation/ rec. areas
                because there is too much pressure from developers in municipalities, which city
                councils often cannot resist.
1183   Public   Doesn’t seem very concrete → not clear what a “designation” would accomplish
                and what implications.
1184   Public   Perhaps regional designation to protect conservation / rec. areas will protect areas
                from “small town” developers.
1185   Public   I still have concern about the re-designation of green zone to conservation and

#          Source            Comments
1186      Public         I am very much in favour of designating conservation areas and especially
                         acquiring them.
1187    Public           Like the directions - add some details and more aggressive targets.
1188    Public           More land protection.
1189    Public           Generally supportive - just want more conservation.
1190    Public           Innovation in protecting green places (not just municipalities).
1191    Public           Approve designation of conservation areas/land acquisition.
1192    Public           Goal 3: Agree strongly with protecting natural assets!
1193    Public           There does not seem to be enough awareness of the perverse incentives inherent
                         in the system of re-zoning privately overhead land and not recovering the publicly
                         created land value increases.
1194    Public           Establish natural protected habitat that never allows access to humans.
1195    Public           Social and Environmental goals should be explicit.
1196    Public           Need to integrate human or social performance with environmental discussion.
1197    Public           Yes, but it's more man time to identify specific measure and to achieve your 2040
1198    Public           Density hubs support conservation of green space.
1199    Public           Preserve forests and natural environmental habitats.
1200    Public           Conservation of green space is vital to reduce our impacts and begin restoration.
1201    Public           Reserve open spaces for future generations.
1202    Public           Some are growing by expansion into green areas (mountain sides) and densifying?
                         Equal? Fair?
1203    Public           Protection is paramount… let's find a way to enforce protection bylaws and
1204    Public           Need more FIRM designation of Conservation / Recreation areas and they must
                         not be allowed to be easily violated..
1205    Public           I would like to see us ensure adequate protection of green zone and I'm still a bit
                         worried about only needing a 2/3 Board vote to make changes.
1206    Public           Land acquisition and protection has been effectively done by non-profits (i.e.,
                         T.L.C..) and should be encouraged.
Comprehensive Approach to Natural Assets
1207    Focus Groups     No consideration of the effects of city "island heat blooms". Not a GHG issue
                         directly but negative environmental effects. Need to minimize heat effect of cities.

1208      Focus Groups       Protecting natural assets: This is not enough. Unless there is a restorative plan as
                             well. Ex Everett Crowley Park. Conservation sites must increase as the population
                             increases. Otherwise what we do have will be over used and therefore less
                             accessible and less of a positive impact compared to the negative.
1209      Focus Groups       Protect natural assets: For sure, but that may not be enough over time as the
                             population grows we need even more parks, campgrounds, etc.
1210      Focus Groups       To also be able to protect the agriculture and wildlife so we still have air and
                             natural beauty within the city but need more of that.
1211      Focus Groups       Protect natural assets through agricultural conservation. I believe that Vancouver is
                             a nice place to live and we can enjoy the nature and the fresh air. Keep safe green
                             areas. No pollution.
1212      Focus Groups       Protect all of our parks and make space for many more.
1213      Focus Groups       Protect the region's natural assets: insufficient measurement goals (how many
                             trees etc) the goal should include protection of agricultural lands/rural lands as
                             natural assets. Goals of urban greening need to be included, e.g., trees in the city.

1214      Public             But I also support protecting greenways.
1215      Public             If making municipalities more dense, need to maintain/increase accessible natural
                             assets within municipal boundaries.

#      Source   Comments
1216   Public   North Vancouver has local parks, green space and scenic views. VIEWSCAPES
                have not been incorporated into the categories of "natural assets".

1217   Public   Looking forward to 2040 is good but we need to protect and design the city for long
                range 100 years out. Preserve recreation and transportation corridors that can be
                expanded. Rail network expansion. Need to look at wind turbines on agricultural
                land to make us more energy sustainable.
1218   Public   What about rivers and ocean - run-off, streams, beaches? Can we have a policy
                on this? Clean the waters.
1219   Public   Yes and ensure natural connection between conservation areas, e.g., establish
                Greenways that encourage public walking and biking and also protect biodiversity.

1220   Public   We need green corridors for urban agriculture and wildlife. Permeating the urban
                areas. Food security!! How can this work in a low carbon future without much more
                light rail?
1221   Public   Stop sending garbage outside of the region. Find a way to set up more composting
                and recycling.
1222   Public   Also independent power projects do not look at ecosystems and these need to be
                halted. Regional planning is very important and relying on municipal governments
                is not enough.
1223   Public   We understand it takes a healthy holistic watershed to raise a healthy collective
                community and a healthy community to raise a child.
1224   Public   Do not find more ways to use waterways like M Geller would have, they are very
                important to ecosystems.
1225   Public   I do not see strategies for waste reduction included in these plans for growth
1226   Public   Must harmonize best practices. Must start drafting our prayers of apology to our
                future generations because we have already under out watch destroyed any
                watershed sustainability of our region watersheds.
1227   Public   But will waterways be protected?
1228   Public   Also bylaws on tree removal for new developments. Must protect our grasses and
                old trees that keep our air clean!
1229   Public   Park costs have risen exponentially and the burden of cost is mostly borne by new
                home buyers. What is the plan to fund park protection/acquisition?
1230   Public   I think our current idea of open grassy fields as recreational land is flawed. I think
                it's a waste of space. For example, they are not places you want to be in when it's
                hot or rainy. We need more smaller more diverse spaces.
1231   Public   Needs to be linked to Metro Vancouver needs. For example, sewage and
                agricultural run-off infrastructure. NO logging near watersheds. Conservation
                needs to include tidal flats, wetlands as well as shore line. BE BOLD AND USE
1232   Public   Conservation is critical of all the ecology and less recreational. Impact is better for
                the natural environment. Must also develop and implement protection containment
                boundaries to protect fish and wildlife boundaries.
1233   Public   Need more small parks, greenspace, and community gardens.
1234   Public   Yes, but need to think of other uses that protect the land.
1235   Public   If we are more concerned with the conservation and agricultural land, it would be
                by default to create a boundary
1236   Public   Yes, I support but unfortunately fish and wildlife do not understand this UCB!
                Federal and provincial legislation regulations and policies must be strengthened
                and adhered to when any species they are responsible for are impacted. A CEAA
                and BCEA must be implemented with the financial capacity to conduct the
                appropriate due diligence. They can not shirk their fiduciary obligations.

#      Source   Comments
1237   Public   Encourage expansion of scrap car program.
1238   Public   More could be added such as urban environmental features / amenities and green
1239   Public   Protect watersheds and encourage roof water catchments.
1240   Public   Region's environment: More can be done! Solid waste management/incineration?
                Recycling. Air Quality. Encourage/mandate higher standards!!!!!!

1241   Public   Natural assets: Are you going to increase designated areas? How is it different
                from existing green zones?
1242   Public   Natural assets: yes definitely but increase in size, recognize importance as carbon
1243   Public   Theme 3: Expand these, cross-connect greenways, importance of green areas as
                a carbon sink, concern with provincial and federal overrides.
1244   Public   Protect all park areas and recreation areas.
1245   Public   Protecting natural assets go hand in hand with protecting ALR.
1246   Public   Need to protect environmentally sensitive/recreational "rural" areas from industrial
                and intense housing development, e.g., Anmore/Buntzen and Sasamat Lake.

1247   Public   I agree in principle, but disagree with the implementation of protecting natural
                assets. Need much stronger initiatives, the plan proposed is lukewarm.
1248   Public   I would like to see rivers/wetlands included on the regional growth map so
                plans/conservation can go hand in hand.
1249   Public   Conservation/recreational must be extended throughout other areas not just
                designated areas. Watershed impact must be well thought out before
                development. Many rivers and waterways are not being taken into consideration.
                Regulations must be tightly followed when looking at agriculture/industry.
1250   Public   Protecting biodiversity (rivers and wetlands especially) is paramount. Recreation
                does not equal conservation necessarily.
1251   Public   Why is there logging in the so-called protected watersheds? Is this not protected?
                Stop this!
1252   Public   How do we protect our natural assets? We need innovative ideas not just
                conservation and recreation.
1253   Public   I don't want to see forests and parks disappearing!
1254   Public   Including entire ALR, in containment zone include Garden City lands and
                Department of National Defence lands.
1255   Public   Regional Conservation needs to include other types of lands and with local
                community council voting.
1256   Public   Conservation designation must be guided by the ecological health plan, which is
                based upon sound science and ecological values.
1257   Public   Conservation/Recreation design; good to see the big picture across the 24
1258   Public   Conservation: Recreation areas need protection especially watersheds which
                provide quality potable drinking water as well as for the support of agriculture
1259   Public   Protect groundwater and watershed.
1260   Public   How do you protect drinking water from agriculture side-effects like pesticides,
                herbicides, diesel and manure?
1261   Public   Recreation: Still work to do to create green spaces and rec. areas within urban
1262   Public   Are there designations possible that would be helpful other than conservation/
1263   Public   Is there another way to protect natural assets than via a “designation”?
1264   Public   Our conservation efforts should include urban areas and not be restricted to “out
                there” in conservation areas designated as such.

#      Source   Comments
1265   Public   When designating conservation areas, we should add a strong component of
                conserving our natural assets (flora and fauna), by means of urban spaces (e.g.,
                Urban parks and gardens).
1266   Public   All natural assets and conservation areas should be protected with good
                determination of what conservation is.
1267   Public   Add redevelopment / reclamation of green areas - don't stop at conservation.
1268   Public   Promote interconnectivity of green areas, use wildlife corridors.
1269   Public   Plan using watershed - drinking and conserving.
1270   Public   Bring "eco" piece into all land zones - industrial, commercial, etc.
1271   Public   Needs to be expanded, include urban environments.
1272   Public   Approve of strategies but encourage particular attention to achieving ecological
1273   Public   Make sure we value riparian areas.
1274   Public   Place more emphasis on the quality of conservation or recreation lands. Whether
                that is quality from the point of view of users or animals, the focus should be on
                quality over hectares.
1275   Public   Stop exporting large volume of water to US.
1276   Public   Need to protect parks.
1277   Public   Good to protect habitats and expand park system.
1278   Public   Stop sprawl into Thornhill, protect its unique ecosystem and aquifer.
1279   Public   Recreation must respect farm operations.
1280   Public   Important to incorporate greenspace into office/retail for workers - so centres are
                not cement, filing cabinets….unhealthy spaces
1281   Public   Protect natural assets – agree with protecting and connecting – however, must
                address vermin overflow to neighbouring areas and the use of green ways for bike
                and runners.
1282   Public   Conservation/recreation: Very important for Metro Vancouver to continue to invest
                in recreational corridors.
1283   Public   Include building of Richmond dykes and respect GHG sink called Garden City
                Lands and Department of National Defence Lands.
1284   Public   Protect conservation/recreation, preserve existing trees and add more trees to deal
                with greenhouse gases.
1285   Public   increase green roofs for stormwater abatement, reduce urban heat effect, support
                habitat, air quality, stop cutting trees on highway on-ramps and other municipal
                lands, increase policies for energy conservation primarily in existing and new
                building, protect 30% of land base as indigenous green areas, protect 30% of
                water areas including ocean, estuary, lakes, creeks, ponds. Economic incentives,
                economic dis-incentives. Streamline/facilitate sustainable courses/programs,
                example, no available daytime energy audit or class available. Takes 3 years to
                create large market demand for employees. More "Green Collar" jobs. Co-
                ordinated education resources and plans, more natural habitat at schools for
                shade clean air, remediation planning, rainwater catchments and massive water
                conservation social marketing.
1286   Public   UCB: Concerns over the proposed area. I feel it does not take
                environmental/stream concerns into consideration

#     Source     Comments
Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
Diverse and Affordable Housing
1287      Public           Need to ensure economical and assisted housing for those on tight income or
                           health issues. Allows better transit use and more walkable communities. Need
                           safe bike parking in community centres to ensure people can ride bikes all over -
                           Need more policing - safety in dense core.
1288      Focus Groups     Housing Diversity and Affordability: Yes, however I think in general certain areas
                           the price of rent and cost of a home is not flexible.
1289      Focus Groups     Housing Diversity and Affordability: Care must be taken in not creating a bad mix.
                           All must be kept at a reasonable affordability.
1290      Focus Groups     Housing Diversity: Only if development is planned in a way that encourages
                           community, e.g.,Champlain Heights.
1291      Focus Groups     Affordable Housing: Extremely important if people who are working in high density
                           centres can't afford to live there (I'm not talking about high paid professionals) this
                           is not going to work
1292      Focus Groups     Housing diversity and affordability: Lack of trust on original plans and development
                           being adhered to. Too many zone changes appear to be allowable.

1293       Focus Groups        Housing diversity and affordability: Require a portion of development to be smaller,
                               lower cost and not deviate from this like the Olympic Village.
1294       Focus Groups        Housing diversity and affordability: Put in measures to make sure it takes place.
                               Maybe base it on incomes. Places for seniors that can't afford other housing.

1295       Focus Groups        Diversity: I support - good idea. Affordability is essential
1296       Focus Groups        I feel there needs to be more affordable housing to help clean the downtown
1297       Focus Groups        Housing diversity and affordability: Need to create fairness. If there are certain
                               areas that are for less fortunate, need to figure out percentage and designate
                               suites and hopefully not affect the more fortunate in the building.
1298       Focus Groups        Affordable Housing: Because young families, singles, seniors need housing that
                               allows them to have value of living. Government needs to put resources into this
                               area for affordable housing for all.
1299       Focus Groups        Not enough low cost housing (quality)
1300       Focus Groups        Housing: Must be affordable and green - "energy efficient"
1301       Focus Groups        Housing diversity: Focus on the homeless we have now as opposed to worrying
                               about future problems. How can you make right in the future what you cannot get a
                               handle on now after 10 years of trying?
1302       Focus Groups        Housing diversity: I support this in theory but history has shown that money is the
                               deciding factor in how well this is achieved.
1303       Focus Groups        Housing: Too many developers are after fast cash and in respect of all housing
                               options should be available to each upon their own decisions.
1304       Focus Groups        Affordable Housing: Define affordability. What is affordable to one is not to
                               another. I would like more defined percentages for housing.
1305       Focus Groups        Focusing housing and job growth along transit corridors I feel will only make
                               affordable housing along these areas impossible due to desire to live there.
1306       Focus Groups        Housing diversity: Not sure that the strategy of only different types of buildings will
                               help affordability.
1307       Focus Groups        Housing: Would like to know more about affordable housing.
1308       Focus Groups        Diversity and affordability: This needs senior government help. Can't do it alone.
1309       Focus Groups        Encouraging housing affordability: the market isn't going to do this, the government
                               needs to.

#      Source         Comments
1310   Focus Groups   Affordable housing is of paramount importance. We are in danger of making
                      Vancouver a city for only the rich. Many people are only two pay checks and a
                      credit card away from being homeless. Everyone needs a home!!!
1311   Focus Groups   Housing Diversity: Provide more mixing of density so there are pockets of greater
                      density even within single-family zones. How to make housing affordable when
                      most cost is in land costs without starting with cheaper agricultural and industrial
1312   Focus Groups   Housing Growth: Maximize land usage of single family dwellings already
                      established regardless of urban centre location.
1313   Focus Groups   Housing diversity and affordability: How will this keep crime to a minimum?
1314   Focus Groups   Affordable housing: spread it out within the region AND within the municipality.
1315   Focus Groups   Housing diversity and affordability: This is very important. We are a community of
                      varying levels of income and family diversity. I would love to be able to afford to
                      rent in the same city I live in (North Vancouver!) Too many young people I know
                      are leaving.
1316   Focus Groups   Affordable housing needs to be well integrated within the whole community,
                      instead of creating pockets.
1317   Focus Groups   Affordable housing necessarily includes rental housing which must be encouraged.
                      We need not follow the American model of everyone owning their own home to the
                      detriment of the economy at large. Good landlords are an important part of viable
1318   Focus Groups   Housing diversity and affordability: Yes! Encourage municipalities to allow more
                      density in single family lots to encourage 1, 2, 3, generations under one roof - give
                      tax breaks to encourage!
1319   Focus Groups   Encourage housing diversity and affordability: this is too broad an issue to cover by
                      Metro Van Region - should be looked at closer by individual
1320   Focus Groups   Start cleaning up unused or abandoned lots/spaces to build the much needed
                      affordable neighbourhoods. This kills two birds with one stone - Cleans up the
                      areas and makes use of existing land without creating further sprawl and also
                      provides options for low income families - CLEAN UP THE DOWNTOWN EAST
                      SIDE. Government has sat back and done nothing about this for too long and now
                      it is out of control. Don't just hold their hands. GIVE THEM THE MEANS TO HELP
                      THEMSELVES!. But DO NOT force them onto the rest by your so-called high
                      density / diverse growth in centres. You can't cram more people into a small area
                      until you clean up and make productive use of what is already here.

1321   Focus Groups   I don't agree with housing affordability and diversity. Let the market decide. People
                      have the right to surround themselves with like-minded people and financial
1322   Focus Groups   Housing Diversity and Affordability is great as long as they ask us what we
                      consider affordable.
1323   Focus Groups   Encourage housing diversity and affordability by using all communities with all
                      incomes and ethnic groups. To bring more social housing to existing communities
                      (eliminate 2 year wait list for families in need).
1324   Focus Groups   Housing diversity and affordability: Let the market decide.
1325   Focus Groups   Housing diversity and affordability is certainly most important direction to proceed.

1326   Focus Groups   Encourage housing diversity and affordability: We live in a multi-cultural society, I
                      agree with this plan. Affordability is important to address with a plan.
1327   Focus Groups   Housing diversity: Encourages single and family units to diversify communities
                      thereby allowing for diverse socio-economic growth.
1328   Focus Groups   Diversity and affordability: Look at total costs. City government has raised permits
                      and fees to astonishing levels!

#      Source   Comments
1329   Public   OUTLAW rental restrictions in strata complexes metro wide. Over 20% of condos
                are empty.
1330   Public   Affordable Housing: Remove all Single Family Dwelling zones make them into
                flexible residential and allow owners to provide rental unit.
1331   Public   We need your support on the capital gain rollover.
1332   Public   There needs to be a good integration of social housing into the overall urban
                centres. Need to prevent social housing from becoming "ghetto".
1333   Public   Mixed market housing is the best way to build healthy communities.
1334   Public   Need provincial support and money!
1335   Public   Capital gains tax rollover to stimulate rehousing.
1336   Public   Housing is a market, it will be very hard to go against free market.
1337   Public   "Job growth" is limited along the main transit corridors. Also wages, retail mainly, in
                the North Van corridors of Lonsdale and Marine Drive do not allow workers to
                purchase homes/condos or to afford the market rents.
1338   Public   Do not know how realistic this is without the full support of senior levels of
                government. It appears to be wishful thinking since the markets (usually) dictate
                the affordability.
1339   Public   Only achievable with senior government contributions and public education
                (massive) and municipal commitment re density and other strategies.
1340   Public   With regards to targets, not sure how these will be applied or reached.
1341   Public   Need green building standards on a regional basis (or province) so municipalities
                can move towards sustainability together. Buildings are very big GHG users.

1342   Public   NOT POSSIBLE AS PLANNED. As you concentrate people into boundary areas,
                law of supply and demand, prices will go up! This is exacerbated with growth.

1343   Public   More density (totally) required.
1344   Public   Important for socially diverse communities. Important for people to have the option
                to remain in their own community.
1345   Public   Not clear on how affordability is achieved in a cost effective manner.
1346   Public   How to "encourage" housing diversity?
1347   Public   Need to support middle class families in larger housing options in most expensive
                areas on transit corridors.
1348   Public   To ensure that all residents can live and work locally, avoid low paid having to
                commute in from cheaper housing areas.
1349   Public   Because monotony and excessive costs is stupid.
1350   Public   Yes, but ensure affordability. A homeless person sleeping behind and apartment
                complex is not housing diversity.
1351   Public   For our children's prospects of ownership in 20 years.
1352   Public   We need housing diversity so we avoid having ghettos. Affordability is a good goal
                but how will this be attained?
1353   Public   There needs to be greater thought to the integration of social housing into the plan.
                A major problem right now is the homeless people that gravitate to these areas.
                Hence some thought needs to be given to ways for inclusion of this segment of our
1354   Public   Social housing must be an important aspect on focused housing along with dealing
                with Not in my backyard NIMBY.
1355   Public   We need larger lots in addition to the high density developments.
1356   Public   Affordable housing should not be levied on the new development industry as this
                cost should be borne by all residents in the region.
1357   Public   I have three children aged 2, 17, 19. I would like them to have the chance to live
                here. Now I am personally better off if my house is assessed at $1 million plus, but
                my grandchildren grow up in Chilliwack because my kids can't afford to live here.

#      Source   Comments
1358   Public   How does encouragement look? How to achieve diversity? Affordability by whom?

1359   Public   Yes, through sustainable housing. No more 4000 square foot houses on small lots.

1360   Public   Better building codes.
1361   Public   All governments must work together to create the right incentives and choose the
                correct locations.
1362   Public   This is a bad policy. Diversity of housing should be determined by the multiple
                municipalities. If you want a housing choice, you should be able to choose to live in
                an area that has approved that type. E.g., British Properties, Yaletown and Hobby
                Farm in Langley.
1363   Public   Not at the expense of destroying established communities.
1364   Public   Illegal suites are everywhere - amnesty
1365   Public   Diverse is good, affordable is necessary.
1366   Public   Trying to dictate the market may have adverse effects and increase detached
                house prices in other areas.
1367   Public   Before changing density, need to have community input. Not a quick one minute
                discussion at a council meeting.
1368   Public   The farther housing is from the town core, the higher (seriously higher) the annual
                taxes should be. Affordable, centrally located housing is essential!
1369   Public   In our area of Maple Ridge, there is an imbalance of single family residences
                because the bulk of the investors invested in rural lands that has led to urban
                sprawl. We need more diverse and affordable housing choices in Maple Ridge. I
                support this initiative throughout our region.
1370   Public   Very important to work towards on a regional basis. All municipalities need to do
                their part to address affordability issues.
1371   Public   The federal government and the province need to be harassed to do more!
1372   Public   We can't look after our homeless now. Are we so self centred that we are unwilling
                to care for our fellow man or woman? Mostly we are greedy. Some are just lucky
                but we need variety because we are a variegated species with different needs and
                different resources both material and mental.
1373   Public   Accessibility is extremely important as well for Persons with disabilities, families
                and seniors.
1374   Public   Sprawling 1/2 million and subdivision housing is the wrong way to go.
1375   Public   I support encouraging more diverse housing choices. I support allowing more legal
                basement suites and laneway housing. Allow the private sector to innovate with
                less regulations and the "invisible hand of the free markets" will find the solution.
                Less regulation is the answer, not more, which is what this plan proposes.

1376   Public   I am opposed to more social housing. Focus on making people more productive
                rather than asking all taxpayers to subsidize them. The easier you make it for
                people to depend on the state, the more they will depend on it. Stop making people
                addicted to government dependency.
1377   Public   Many people support it but it doesn't seem to happen. I would like to see 10-20%
                requirement of low cost housing in any development. Could be administered by co-
                op or non-profit organizations.
1378   Public   With effective crime management support.
1379   Public   But meet needs of individual community by involving local planners.
1380   Public   Challenging to implement.
1381   Public   Need affordable housing for low income and seniors. Should be based on income
1382   Public   Approach with caution and build this housing in conjunction with transit.
1383   Public   Only with approval of local residents.
1384   Public   We need the provincial and federal governments involved to do anything here.

#      Source   Comments
1385   Public   Based on demographics. If I pay 800k for a condo, why should someone on social
                assistance live in the same building?
1386   Public   More co-op housing is needed. More tax breaks for Metro Vancouver housing (i.e.
                stores on bottom, condos on top).
1387   Public   Affordable, yes, but also green and energy efficient housing should be mandated.

1388   Public   It seems that in the future we may need to condense lands in order to have
                affordable housing.
1389   Public   I feel there needs to be more money available to social housing and be able to live
                together as a community and put affordable housing all over the province, as well
                as be able to protect families.
1390   Public   Need starter houses for new families.
1391   Public   I think boundaries and policies need to be established if low income people live in
                suites and will not lower value of middle class people buying within same area.

1392   Public   I would seek to know the definition of affordable. Does the board think there is a
                current shortage or abundance of affordable housing? What would the strategy be
                for providing this housing?
1393   Public   Sounds good in theory.
1394   Public   Define affordability.
1395   Public   And retain what is provided! Manufactured home parks need to be an option and
                not turned into hi-rises!
1396   Public   Affordable housing should not be combined with regular market housing. Areas
                should be established and maintained for affordable housing.
1397   Public   Metro should stay out of housing.
1398   Public   There are a lot of challenges here! How do you amalgamate all of the various
                housing need types successfully into each urban area so that all the residents are
                reasonably happy? History says it can't be totally done!
1399   Public   Encourage and legislate rental housing, affordable housing, and social housing.
1400   Public   Making sure there is affordable housing for all social and economic groups.
1401   Public   They need to ask us what we consider affordable.
1402   Public   More low rental apartments AND homes.
1403   Public   We need institutions to supply social housing.
1404   Public   Include recycling facilities in housing developments.
1405   Public   Inclusionary zoning increases housing prices and defeats the purpose of ensuring
                housing affordability across the board. Need to consider how the policies within
                this plan will affect land and subsequently housing prices. Encourage innovative
                housing types.
1406   Public   I don't agree with having taxpayer subsidized housing in areas where housing is
1407   Public   Needs to include ALL communities - West Vancouver, Dunbar, Kerrisdale.
                Integrating lower income families with higher will help break trends and hard zone
                such as Vancouver downtown eastside.
1408   Public   Motherhood statements. HOW to do this when we have a provincial government
                that has sold our rivers and secretly takes away agricultural land.
1409   Public   Yes, need many options including secondary suites and with funding from
                provincial and federal governments.
1410   Public   Diversity is an excellent goal. Getting rid of parking and amenity requirements
                should help this. Affordability will follow. There is no way to regulate this (other than
                subsidizing housing).
1411   Public   Needs to be age-friendly communities and neighbourhoods given our changing
                demographic. Housing should have universal design features.

#      Source   Comments
1412   Public   Social affordable housing is essential. Vancouver Native Housing is doing a great
                job with the City of Vancouver however we must develop more for aboriginal
1413   Public   Develop enforceable housing policy introducing permanent provisions for
                affordable housing. Focus on need of seniors.
1414   Public   There has to be better regional integration of municipal, provincial and federal
                policy. We are fast moving to the City of Vancouver as a wealthy exclusive.
1415   Public   Housing will be an extreme problem.
1416   Public   Municipalities should be given guidance on building requirements/standards that
                can be changed to encourage more affordable housing (such as suggested in
                report with reduced parking standards).
1417   Public   How do we know how/why/where growth will go until 2040? The boundary doesn't
                account for housing costs.
1418   Public   Market will drive housing diversity.
1419   Public   Housing diversity/affordability - cannot be achieved under the current economic
                system - need tax incentives to create more affordable rental housing like in the
1420   Public   Don't use transit as substitute for affordability in reach of every neighbourhood.
1421   Public   ALL 3 levels of government need to work together to build affordable housing.
1422   Public   Affordable housing strategy is important for the region - must have teeth -
                Provincial government must change legislation to ensure strategy is implemented.

1423   Public   Encourage housing diversity and affordability. Get senior levels of government to
                step up to the plate on this issue.
1424   Public   Housing diversity - Necessary to accommodate controlled growth. Will require
                different municipal / provincial/federal funding models.
1425   Public   Very important for liveability and aging in place to create diversity and affordability
                of housing stock.
1426   Public   Encourage housing diversity and affordability which is critical to a safe, healthy,
                inclusive community.
1427   Public   What would be Metro Vancouver's role in encouraging housing diversity and
1428   Public   Make rental apartments much more available to reduce commute. Given people
                change jobs frequently in modern times.
1429   Public   As the population ages, we seem to be seeing a second class society with older
                and younger at the payer ends of the spectrum - need to be sure that all who have
                lived here can afford to stay here.
1430   Public   I like that most municipalities have a diversity of housing, e.g., single family,
                townhouse and apartments
1431   Public   Encourage housing diversity and affordable housing. People have to realize that
                affordable housing has to come from all 3 levels of government not just local.
1432   Public   Resolving homelessness needs to be addressed better.
1433   Public   Including rezoning for in-law suites and rentals to double density with no effort.
1434   Public   Housing needs are best met by the free market. Central Planners may need to
                focus on some regional aspects of service provision but economic and societal
                decisions should not be taken away from individuals.
1435   Public   Housing: Multilevel governments’ involvement is required.
1436   Public   Housing diversity: How do you encourage people to move to dense centres, away
                from single family homes to condos? Economic factors, e.g, Yaletown equals a lot
                of money, Langley/Surrey equals moderate money.
1437   Public   I feel housing in Vancouver is too expensive, so we need more affordable housing.

#      Source   Comments
1438   Public   Housing diversity/affordability: need to expand Metro Vancouver Housing Corp's
                role in providing non profit housing. It is better postponed. The municipalities to
                achieve the targets.
1439   Public   Housing choice and affordability (Questions) How will the region deal with "Nimby"
                municipalities? How successfully has affordable housing been distributed in the
                region in the past.
1440   Public   Housing diversity and affordability: What is affordable? How do you drive the
1441   Public   Grants for home upgrades.
1442   Public   Building standard and codes: Water saving toilets, taps, etc; water heating devices
                taps, more efficient houses and cars and better habits.
1443   Public   Housing diversity needs to be decided by individual municipalities.
1444   Public   Housing diversity and affordability: Yes, of course.
1445   Public   Housing: Absolutely essential to do whatever we can to create affordable options.
                Key to sustainability.
1446   Public   Housing must be accessible for seniors to be able to stay in their housing as they
                age, and so young couples may remain when they have children, and for the large
                population of people with disabilities who severely lack housing.
1447   Public   More needed on affordable housing component.
1448   Public   How to achieve affordable housing seems more difficult issue.
1449   Public   Even with the current slowdown, housing is really out of reach for purchase for
                newcomers. Not convinced this won't worsen under the strategy.
1450   Public   Encourage adding a second family in current single family homes.
1451   Public   Limit square footage to residential units i.e. apartments at 590 square feet.
1452   Public   Housing diversity and affordability: Who will pay for affordable housing?
1453   Public   Encourage housing diversity and affordability.
1454   Public   Apartment building need education / greening.
1455   Public   Retrofit existing buildings for environmental performance more important than new
1456   Public   Protect individual / commercial by adding affordable housing. (Business parks
                should get additional density for residential uses).
1457   Public   Unaffordable housing in Metro Vancouver necessitates 2+ income households
                which means that at least one worker will have to use a car to get to work. Unless
                housing affordability is seriously addressed, then cutting car use is a pipedream

1458   Public   Increase laneway housing, adaptive housing (all life cycles in 1 neighbourhood),
                limit immigration, green building regulations, intensive support.
1459   Public   In order to minimize travel people need to be able to afford to live as close as
                possible to centres where their work, school, social services or hospitals are
                located. This means that low income people (young families, students, seniors and
                people with no income) often have to live in traditionally expensive areas. This
                move means healthier living conditions (walking and cycling is possible), more
                personal time for recreation and healthy activities (time with children and do
                volunteering etc), reduced use of non-renewable resources, better air quality and
                less GHG's.
1460   Public   Try to maintain affordable housing.
1461   Public   Creating density will make more walkable communities, greater efficiencies, better
                transit, less need for single occupancy vehicle transportation. Try to maintain
                affordable housing.
1462   Public   This is the most efficient use of transit. However, will the market value of this land
                increase making it more expensive for business to do this? How can we help
                people who live in outlying communities to get jobs there?

#         Source   Comments
1463      Public   Housing and job growth within urban centres, affordable housing and reduced
                   vehicle use is very much needed for future planning. I can't tell how but experts
                   should work to make it happen.
1464      Public   Housing on transit corridors; need clarification on what transit corridors are, some
                   communities have a hold pattern.
1465      Public   Housing diversity: Conflict with developing urban centers (single family, affordable
                   housing, land price, land use and transportation). Control of growth rate to match
                   with infrastructure.
1466      Public   I like having compact and efficient urban areas/centres, they work well, I don't
                   know how the affordable housing will be achieved because land values will
                   increase at centres.
Climate Change
1467      Public   Climate change threatens everyone. We must do our part.
1468      Public   Climate change should be one of the top priorities of this plan.
1469      Public   *Emergency preparedness and responses to disasters using distribution systems.

1470      Public   Sea level rise needs to be a stronger focus.
1471      Public   There is not enough planning for: 1). Ocean level rise: Roads, marine terminals,
                   farmland and urban areas will be under water in many places. 2). Climate change:
                   Where farming of traditional plants will not be possible. 3). Peak oil: Oil will be so
                   expensive in several years so that cars will not be affordable, massive increase in
                   public transit and movement of goods 4). No plan for massive migration (legal and
                   non): To Canada and to B.C. from southern climates that have warmed to the point
                   where food production does not support their population.

1472      Public   Focus on continued consumption and growth is wrong headed given our climate
                   change pressures.
1473      Public   Ocean level rise needs to be considered. Port Man Bridge expansion soon.
1474      Public   Accommodate sea level rise to growth. Set up a planning system structured
                   similar to the UK.
1475      Public   Consider lack of oil and gas starting in next few years.
1476      Public   Why is both federal and provincial governments providing incentives to switch gas
                   engines to natural gas engines?
1477      Public   How does the RGS address climate change (rise in sea level) impacts? Especially
                   given current status of dikes within the region.
1478      Public   I do think that renewable energy considerations need to show up a lot more
                   strongly in this plan - particularly when there are major land-use implications -for
                   example for wind energy on the North Shore.
1479      Public   More distributed energy.
1480      Public   Metro structure plan meaning isn't clear - does it include advocacy for incentives
                   (tax) for green tech adoption?
1481      Public   Government guarantee for new "sustainable" energy companies on stock
1482      Public   Education for new energy auditors.
1483      Public   Failure to achieve GHG reduction goals will result in ocean flooding of Richmond
                   and Delta. The populations of these cities will have to be relocated within Metro
                   Vancouver. Urban boundary will be lost in the South West part of the region.
1484      Public   Climate change is of critical importance to regional planning. The inter-
                   governmental panel on climate change IPCC is beginning to tell us that they may
                   have seriously under-estimated sea-level changes. This is serious for any growth
                   in Richmond.
1485      Public   Some consideration of where growth should be, should be focuses around the
                   region. Some communities should slow down growth because they are more
                   susceptible to climate change.

#      Source   Comments
1486   Public   Support for broad direction - like to see more emphasis on climate change
                adaptation (what should be done / by when) and mitigation.
1487   Public   As fossil fuels are depleted over the next 30-50 years, we will have to transform
                our house heating, food cooking, and mobility to electricity. Will we have enough
                for the current population (let alone 1.4 million more people)? If not, what is a
                sustainable regional population in a carbon-constrained world?
1488   Public   Proposed plan is good but very lukewarm and does not build resilient communities
                in face of peak oil and climate change.
1489   Public   Necessary, not sufficient density hubs and sea level rise, global warming, crisis
1490   Public   Concerned with rising sea levels/migration

#     Source     Comments
Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
Transit and Active Modes
1491      Focus Groups     Connect land use: While I agree in theory, any plan to reduce use of autos must be
                           well thought out. For example, removal of auto lane on Burrard Bridge is foolish.
                           Rather try limiting each pathway to bikes on one side, walk on the other.

1492      Focus Groups     Connect land use and transportation: This is an absolute necessity.
1493      Focus Groups     Connect land use: Good idea but need better and safer roads for both pedestrians
                           and cyclists.
1494      Focus Groups     Its important to focus on rapid transit as well as to encourage walking and cycling
                           but it's important to consider people who will or need to use their car. Attention to
                           better roads, bridges, etc. must also be considered.
1495      Focus Groups     Outside of Vancouver City where it is so tightly designed for walking, biking, it is
                           going to take a lot of incentive to change in township areas.
1496      Focus Groups     Connect land use: Public transit is more important than for example cycling (not
                           everyone is going to use bicycles) Efficient public transit will get people to where
                           they want to go without wasting hours at the bus stop.
1497      Focus Groups     More trips on transport cycling and walking is very good for the ecology. Better for
                           one's health also.
1498      Focus Groups     Transit/Cycling: Cycling areas need to be improved and widespread to protect
                           cyclists. TransLink routes need to be mass transit with quick commutes.
1499      Focus Groups     Have better bike routes as well as transit links. Reduced parking costs in urban
                           areas if car pool. Incentives to work closer to home so people can find a job closer.
                           For example,. if work in a hospital, change to hospital closer to home.
1500      Focus Groups     Reduce vehicle use: Tax credits for less use. Music on mass transit - make the
                           trips more enjoyable on SkyTrain, buses etc. WI-FI if possible. Better design and
                           aesthetics. Also need cycling lanes and more green walking paths.
1501      Focus Groups     Shift trips to transit, cycling and walking. Encourages health and fitness and less
1502      Focus Groups     GHG's: Support but TransLink needs to complete the Canada Line to loop around
                           the West End with a stop on Denman to encourage people to use mass transit
                           rather than driving. The current buses in West End are POOR.
1503      Focus Groups     Transit corridors: Need parking close to SkyTrain station to encourage at least half
                           use. Use the carbon tax for more buses. Iit's terrible to be middle age or elderly
                           and to go on the crush of buses.
1504      Focus Groups     Connect land use: Strongly encourage residential zoning to encompass home
                           based office and light workshops to reduce road use.
1505      Focus Groups     Transportation: Very difficult to restrict people's movements. It’s a society built
                           around the car unfortunately.
1506      Focus Groups     Transportation: How will you reduce vehicle use?
1507      Focus Groups     Land use and transport: WE NEED LESS VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.
1508      Focus Groups     Transit for people working in these industries must be a consideration.
1509      Focus Groups     Transport: Increase rail transport between centres.
1510      Focus Groups     Increase rail/transport usage between centres.
1511      Focus Groups     Connect land use: Reduce vehicle use.
1512      Focus Groups     Transportation really needs to be reorganized.
1513      Focus Groups     Connect land use: Makes most efficient use of transit
1514      Focus Groups     I support reducing vehicle use so we can cut down the pollution and help to make
                           a healthy environment in our city.
1515      Focus Groups     To increase transit use, expand transit to rural areas. Make it more affordable.
                           Buses running more frequently. 24 hour SkyTrain. Needs to be more transit
                           bringing people into the city not more transit in urban areas.

#      Source         Comments
1516   Focus Groups   Transportation: Which comes first? Land use or transit? We don't have density for
                      good urban transit.
1517   Focus Groups   Transit: SkyTrain running 24 hours would increase use.
1518   Focus Groups   Theme 2: Any existing transit corridor that connects to an urban centre today was,
                      initially, reached via automobile. Tomorrow's vision must utilize alternate public
1519   Focus Groups   To connect land use is an excellent outcome to pursue, howeve, Metro Vancovuer
                      needs to convince the various constituents that TransLink is an accountable,
                      governable partner in delivering critical transportation infrastructure.
1520   Focus Groups   Connected land use: I do not agree with this proposal because I feel that
                      TransLink has got too much say in the matter. I feel the municipalities should work
                      together to figure this out and TransLink can propose but the municipalities to
                      make the final say.
1521   Focus Groups   TransLink is now in the real estate business. They will own all the properties on the
                      transit corridors. What about Joe and Jane Public?
1522   Focus Groups   Connect land use: all these strategies depend on transportation working -
                      TransLink HAS to be forward thinking and efficient and not hijacked by political
1523   Focus Groups   Transportation: Corporate accountability / incentives to provide working
                      environments that support transit use.
1524   Focus Groups   Question #4 Encourage business accountability for work scheduling to encourage
                      bus transit. Power needs to stay with the people not the businesses.
1525   Focus Groups   Transit should be invested in heavily. Build it and people will use it.
1526   Focus Groups   Focus housing and jobs in centres: Transportation, transit system needs to be able
                      to reach all areas and housing around transit stations. Transit needs to be
                      accessible. We should look at other countries who have high populations and learn
                      from them such as Hong Kong and Japan.
1527   Focus Groups   # 4: Support increased transit.
1528   Focus Groups   Connect land use and transportation. Even with rapid line additions the time it
                      takes to commute is too long and too expensive. There needs to be a better price
                      and decrease in time.
1529   Focus Groups   Improve transportation between areas. Give people the choice to live where they
                      want to live according to their lifestyle/financial situation by providing transportation
1530   Focus Groups   Connect land use and transportation: Use trains, ferries, as well as train tracks that
                      are already there and not being used.
1531   Focus Groups   Connect land use and transport: This seems to be a catch-22 situation. There is a
                      NEED for better transportation but until there is, the less populated areas will not
                      grow. Until they grow, the transportation will not comes. Transportation needs to be
                      there FIRST.
1532   Focus Groups   We definitely want better transit connections to be able to get to locations easier.

1533   Focus Groups   Reduce GHG's: Transit needs to be way more accommodating and flexible.
1534   Public         Transportation/Land use, they should be integrated and geared towards the same
1535   Public         Encourage sustainable and active transportation choices.
1536   Public         Frequent transit network isn't well connected to many communities. Regional
                      cycling standards for roads are essential and targets for cycle mode share must be
                      higher than 5%. Why not 20%?
1537   Public         Must have bike paths/lanes. I did not see a plan for this. Biking with traffic is
                      dangerous. Aging population is unlikely to bike/walk long distances. We NEED
                      more/better transit. Reduce transit prices. Provide separate bike lanes/paths so we
                      can bike EVERYWHERE EASILY.

#      Source   Comments
1538   Public   Agree but lets be realistic about cycling in a hilly Metro Vancouver area! Also
                aging population. Would like to see SkyTrain routes be designated as dedicated
1539   Public   Policy seems biased towards cycling with excessive influence by cyclists that DO
                NOT represent what the vast majority of people want. In Metro Vancouver, weather
                not conducive to biking, cycling does not work for seniors and biking is not an
                efficient use of roadways .
1540   Public   Huge potential for active transportation in lower mainland with climate, etc.
1541   Public   More off-road bicycle routes. Greatly expand ferry services across Burrard Inlet to
                provide better connectivity between North Vancouver and Vancouver and reduce
                stress on Lions Gate and 2nd Narrows Bridges.
1542   Public   More walkways! Also get rid of the green arrows for cars prior to allowing
                pedestrians to walk.
1543   Public   Also better transit use and more walkable communities. Need safe bike parking in
                community centres to ensure people can ride bikes all over.
1544   Public   Need to develop bike lanes in all urban areas to encourage use.
1545   Public   Many bike designated areas are needed. This in my opinion is key to shifting
                thoughts on modes of transportation.
1546   Public   Need to establish an effective cycling route. Transit needs to be mass such as
                SkyTrain, not just buses.
1547   Public   I think the priority should be walking first, then cycling, then transit. Transit is good
                but it was the streetcars that got us into this urban sprawl mess in the first place.

1548   Public   Needs to be stronger. Need to move away from the car NOW. WE need much
                better and more cycling infrastructure and need to increase density so people can
                walk. Take bold action like Portland's last mayor and close car lanes for bikes and
                link cycling lanes.
1549   Public   Where appropriate, with an aging population and Metro Vancouver weather, I do
                not see a rush to the walking shoe stores.
1550   Public   Transportation critical (need significant improvements to decrease vehicle use:
                proper pricing and improved bicycling).
1551   Public   Too many municipalities don't even have sidewalks for pedestrians when coming
                into suburbs!
1552   Public   Local community encourages walking to work.
1553   Public   Cycling and walking in clean air will impact the health care costs.
1554   Public   Including bike sharing programs.
1555   Public   Yes to more cycling paths.
1556   Public   We need wide enough residential, major streets to accommodate two way traffic
                and bikes.
1557   Public   Sidewalks are needed in areas where student need to walk to get to school, needs
                to be clearly written in Metro Vancouver Plan.
1558   Public   Connect land use and Transportation: Connect walking and cycling is not
                necessary the most beneficial mode of transportation → must be appropriate for
                area and application.
1559   Public   Higher targets for active transportation.
1560   Public   Cycling and walking shares will increase - can cycling increase to 10, 15, 20 %?
                (e.g., Copenhagen)
1561   Public   Small grocery stores need to be throughout residential areas at walking/ cycling
                distance for everyone. Biking and walking are often not very pleasant, because you
                have to bike/walk along busy roads. Direct short-cuts/routes would be good.
1562   Public   Greenways for bikes, walking, etc. Linked to parks itself everywhere in the region.

#      Source   Comments
1563   Public   Rural designation in Anmore needs transit and road support - ** over 1 million
                visitors every year to Buntzen Lake. Keep rural or semi-rural and add bike trails.

1564   Public   Very important to have compact communities to encourage cycling, walking and
                encourage transit.
1565   Public   Not aggressive enough on transport mode share. 10% minimum for cycling where
                15% is preferable.
1566   Public   Theme 1 is important in order to make transportation more efficient and shorter
                distances. This will make walking and cycling much more attractive. These
                transportation options are non polluting and will improve health.
1567   Public   Please be sure to include Anmore in public transportation. Build bike paths.
1568   Public   Transit/Cycling and Walking: High priority to make the region more liveable -
                reduced smog, increased sense of security, better health for citizens with active
1569   Public   Reduce car dependence, increase mode split is good for health of environment
                and people.
1570   Public   Increase cycling and walking, and transit are essential. Peak oil is here or near and
                we can’t wait with changing our ways. Apart from transit, cycling infrastructures is
                lacking in a big way. People are not going to bike if it is unsafe. It needs to be
1571   Public   Encouraging people to cycle, walk, and take transit when the transportation
                network is available is multiple win-win. Community health improves, less pollution,
                less waste of natural resources.
1572   Public   Land and transportation → reduce vehicle use and shift more trips to transit,
                cycling and walking.
1573   Public   Alternatives to auto need funding.
1574   Public   To get people out of their cars we must focus density and development within
                walking distance of SkyTrain stations. Bus transit is much slower than driving.
1575   Public   Will work if TransLink comes to the table (include bike routes in corridors), "urban
                development" works when there is room to play (plus work and live).
1576   Public   Don't just think local, also regional (high-speed rail to Seattle)
1577   Public   All of us need transit which is 24/7, cheap to use, PLENTIFUL. Why are we
                spending so much money on convention centre/Olympic venues and NOT
1578   Public   Free parking for 50 CC scooters and experimental fuel vehicles (e.g., Tap Water
1579   Public   Allow electric bikes to charge in SkyTrain stations which have outlets.
1580   Public   Need better coordination with BC Transit Auth. Need to have better incentives for
                the use of public transit e.g. stop raising fares. Make SkyTrain more cost effective
                by installing ticket gates like all other transit systems in the world!
1581   Public   To provide more convenient and frequent transit. The only way to make people
                use them instead of car.
1582   Public   Furthermore train transit to rural areas such as Squamish and Whistler and past
                Metro Vancouver to valley - rapid transit to Abbotsford/Chilliwack.
1583   Public   Develop more light rail rather than buses. Ensure that transit is FASTER than cars.
                Buses are too slow.
1584   Public   (Lack of any reorganization of the existing BC Hydro rail corridor) Yes connect land
                use but understand that busy congested roads with high traffic is not an inviting
                area for bikes - safety and also noise pollution for everyone. People want fewer
                traffic delays but lights are set up for cars not bikes. Need safe places to lock up
                expensive bikes.
1585   Public   This will get people out of their cars. South of the Fraser does not have an
                effective transit system.
1586   Public   In the areas that you can, but what about the other areas?

#      Source   Comments
1587   Public   Needs better communication between BC transit authority.
1588   Public   Light rail (inter-urban rail) would be an asset to encourage land use and
                transportation connection.
1589   Public   Good luck! Need strong cooperation with TransLink and provincial government.
                Don't base the plan on assumption for transportation that aren't achievable.
1590   Public   North Vancouver deserves better improved transit without the PENALTY of hi-rise
1591   Public   Great idea as long as funding can be provided but can the municipalities afford
1592   Public   Efficiency - Volume demand creates efficiency.
1593   Public   Some of the transit that you have identified seems to be hard lines. Is this where
                local communities want transit? Where growth is?
1594   Public   Doesn't this already exist in many areas? Natural topography of area will always be
1595   Public   Communication with Squamish/Lillooet and Fraser Valley regional districts in
                realization of this objective.
1596   Public   This of course makes sense but don't understand the meaning or mechanism of
1597   Public   Reduce road for private use by 10% per year. START NOW.
1598   Public   TransLink needs to do more.
1599   Public   Is "bus" treated the same as rapid transit?
1600   Public   Frequent bus concept doesn't reach many communities and town centres (e.g.,
                West Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Maple
                Ridge, most of Surrey, White Rock, Richmond and Burnaby).
1601   Public   Mass transit connectivity rules.
1602   Public   TransLink is building bridges and highways. Recently raised transit fares. This is
                diametrically opposed to your vision.
1603   Public   Develop the BC ER inter-urban corridor and include Abbotsford and east to
                Chilliwack in the planning.
1604   Public   North Vancouver has little or no part in the frequent rider network thus we will
                NEVER have decent transit service while paying considerably more than our share
                and unless changed, will never change for the better.
1605   Public   Yes but don't compromise neighbourhoods for "transportation corridors".
1606   Public   Remember that regions are very different and cannot all meet the same goals,
                especially regarding transportation.
1607   Public   More rapid transit to outlying areas.
1608   Public   Maple Ridge needs to plan for rapid transit along Lougheed Highway and plan for
                the development of the Thornhill Urban Reserve.
1609   Public   Simple, get the cars off the road. Provide cheap, timely transit. Stop the buzz word
1610   Public   People should feel free to choose without being fined if they choose their own
1611   Public   Mass transit should be provided (GOOD mass transit).
1612   Public   More faster and better connected transit.
1613   Public   Develop more rail service to and from the Fraser Valley/Vancouver. Not only
                Monday to Friday but as well on weekends. The weekend service can be on a trial
                basis. Once in the morning and a return trip in the evening, e.g., West Coast
1614   Public   Now move transit hubs along river to link industrial and commercial.
1615   Public   NO! TransLink plans do nothing to help commuters from Maple Ridge to get to
                Vancouver. Bus lanes do not provide a long term solution.
1616   Public   Why would you want to close the Port Haney West Coast Express station and
                move it to the outskirts of Maple Ridge?

#      Source   Comments
1617   Public   We need more buses that are near where we live and more parking for cars near
                the SkyTrain station. Lougheed has no parking for cars. People can take the bus
                only if the bus service is near where they live.
1618   Public   We need more/better rapid transit.
1619   Public   Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge needs to plan for rapid transit along Lougheed Highway
                from the Pitt River bridge east to Mission.
1620   Public   It will never work until the provincial government stops the politically necessary
                policy of giving in to the demands for vehicle road building, contrary to Question #
1621   Public   We need rail as a viable option!
1622   Public   Build bike trails in Anmore. Provide public transportation, roads and parking for
                Anmore recreational gem.
1623   Public   Need more transportation/mode shift in city centers and connect it to rural areas.
                Need to connect and provide incentives.
1624   Public   Residential development in outlying suburban areas should be heavily taxed to
                support good transit options and parking facilities near train and SkyTrain stations.

1625   Public   Better services from outlying areas to Vancouver. Express bus from Maple Ridge
                that does not have to go all the way around and about Pitt Meadows. Have a
                connecting bus from Pitt Meadows to Lougheed Highway.
1626   Public   The cost of fossil fuel will reduce the amount of motorized vehicles and consumers
                will shift their mode of transport and frequency.
1627   Public   TransLink needs to work much more to improve transport in Langley to and from
1628   Public   I think that Vancouver is a good example of this shift being successful. We need to
                again plan our roads to support the dependence on the automobile particularly in
                rural areas.
1629   Public   Obvious, but provincial law required to commit percentage of new transportation
                costs to cycling infrastructure - 1% would be wonderful but unlikely to happen!
1630   Public   A no-brainer! Peak oil is here. Climate change is now. Our societal demands for
                more and bigger toys which employ fossil fuels are out dated environmentally and
                we should treat them like the Dodo Bird!
1631   Public   I find it much safer and appealing to walk and cycle on lanes that are away from
                vehicle traffic. After experiencing good transit, even in cities like Santiago Chile,
                and Sydney Australia, it is a pleasure to use.
1632   Public   Consider the advantages of single/double passenger narrow lane vehicles and
                effects on traffic congestion/movement/air quality benefits.
1633   Public   But only within the community. Cycling from Maple Ridge to Coquitlam is a no go.
                TransLink refuses to provide transit to Maple Ridge - the whole plan fails!
1634   Public   This sounds viable in Vancouver but what about the outlying areas like Maple
1635   Public   Transportations is lacking in Maple Ridge.
1636   Public   I'm a cyclist and fear for my safety often.
1637   Public   Why is TransLink so under funded if this is our goal? Why are we building a 10
                lane bridge across the river instead of rapid transit?
1638   Public   Bicycling is not an effective people mover.
1639   Public   Transit services in Maple Ridge are not sufficient. 60-70% of working population
                commutes. Metro Vancouver will need to support better rapid transit (trains/buses)
                to reduce individual car/truck use.
1640   Public   Looks good. More security expanded to blocks around SkyTrain stations.
1641   Public   Transit options being taken are based on bus lanes. Growth is taking place in the
                suburbs. Transportation is far behind the growth.
1642   Public   Need multiple transit choices.

#      Source   Comments
1643   Public   Why does transportation to a ski area get priority over transit to communities in the
                outlying areas? Why is a 10 lane bridge being built instead of rapid transit or
                SkyTrain? Why was a corridor built through organic farms?
1644   Public   Over 1 million visitors come to environmentally sensitive Anmore (designated
                rural). Regional support will be needed for roads and transportation. Protect the
                environmentally sensitive area.
1645   Public   I would also point out that transit occurs in motorized vehicles so your proposal is
                poorly worded, unless you are suggesting that we change our transit system to
                bicycle taxis and rickshaws. (Regarding Question # 5)
1646   Public   There should be more reference to rail, e.g., the Arbutus line, the rail up Howe
                Sound, the rail out to Abbotsford (through Cloverdale).
1647   Public   We need to better link regional goals with incentives and penalties to achieve
                these goals (e.g., parking, high density near SkyTrain stations).
1648   Public   What about more parking near SkyTrain stations. At least then people who don't
                live near the bus stops or on infrequent bus routes can get to use the SkyTrain.
                Use carbon tax to supply funds for transit.
1649   Public   Make cars more efficient rather than limit their use. North America depends on
                cars and that mentality will not change.
1650   Public   My support of this would be in conjunction with the style and amount of alternative
                methods of people movers. Perhaps reduction in overall parking spaces should be
                considered. A tough one!
1651   Public   Just get on with it (Transportation improvements that is).
1652   Public   Yes, more green alternatives. More focus on developing infrastructure.
1653   Public   Agree: All of these proposed policies are excellent but will be expensive to
                implement. Can we provide incentives for people to live in denser areas?
1654   Public   The closer everything is to your home, the less you will be in your car.
1655   Public   Public transportation must be convenient and accessible for people to make use of
1656   Public   Do no punish auto use. Give incentive to those who walk, cycle etc. Develop new
                safe routes.
1657   Public   Any talk of transit use must take costs to riders into account. Affordability plays a
                large part in usage.
1658   Public   Include water based transportation services.
1659   Public   Government needs to financially support alternative modes of transportation: Rail -
                we need other forms of electric such as damming. Why this has happened is a
1660   Public   Increased ferry traffic is important. We need to use our waterways much more as
                part of our public transit system.
1661   Public   Must go all the way with a cycling path i.e. don't start and stop. The path must be
1662   Public   This is great as long as people live close to work, but for shopping and
1663   Public   Anytime you can reduce travel/time and distance to work or food is good.
1664   Public   Incentive for people living within 15 km of work. Give a tax credit for example.
1665   Public   The way to encourage transit use is to take it into less urban areas and connect
                municipalities better.
1666   Public   If this is done, there is no guarantee it will attain the results. You can't make people
                take transit.
1667   Public   Again it sounds good in theory but need more information.
1668   Public   We still need to have some roads.
1669   Public   WE still need our vehicles. Don't block vehicle access.
1670   Public   I support this concept, however,, given the nature of our social and economic
                lifestyle, I cannot see how this approach will be adopted to any great extent within
                the next 30 years. We are a motorized vehicle oriented society. The alternatives
                we have are not creative at this point..

#      Source   Comments
1671   Public   Cuba after peak oil experienced an 80% reduction in oil use. We will be there at
                some time in the future. Therefore massive integrated (small buses, numerous
                buses, bike routes separated from cars, light rail) transit systems must be
1672   Public   Ensuring that transit is affordable to all, unlike current transit costs.
1673   Public   May create a very boring society!
1674   Public   Just as long as we get a better transit system.
1675   Public   Don't forget about automobiles and how they get around.
1676   Public   Would not support if a money penalty system runs concurrently. The needs of the
                worker/commuter are often ignored.
1677   Public   I don't support policies which are aimed at forcing people to do something against
                their free will. Totalitarian states. I do support better transit and encouraging higher
                density developments around transit centres. I do support higher density
                residential close to higher density office areas. That gives people the option (but
                doesn't force them) to walk, cycle, transit or drive. I walk to work a lot by choice. I
                don't want to be forced. Secondly, cycling will never be a mainstream form for
                transportation in Vancouver. Distances are significant in Lower Mainland. Plus the
                climate is inclement. Cycling year round or cycling in from Coquitlam to North
                Vancouver for example, won't happen.
1678   Public   Sounds great, I take the West Coast Express. The major problem is the schedule.
                We need more rider times making it flexible if you don't have a 9-5 job or weekend
                visits to Stanley Park.
1679   Public   Connecting land use and transportation is a sort of misnomer. Transport choices
                adapt to land use and infrastructure provided. Provide dense development
                guidelines and bike routes and people will bike/walk. It all comes down to density!

1680   Public   We need more drastic change to support and implement this objective.
1681   Public   Need to reallocate more existing road space to transit and cycling. Eliminate
                minimum parking standards.
1682   Public   How? What will it look like?
1683   Public   The fare fee is too high.
1684   Public   Good idea. Like lots of buses on main routes. Would also like a place to park my
                car to get to the SkyTrain.
1685   Public   Use smaller vehicles such as mini buses which run more frequently.
1686   Public   Make sure areas such as Langley have rapid transit to connect them to other
                areas in Metro Vancouver. My husband works in Richmond and takes the bus and
1687   Public   Need more transit in rural areas and 24 hour SkyTrain.
1688   Public   We still need buses to go to existing business parks.
1689   Public   Must be pedestrian friendly. Metrotown is a failure in this respect.
1690   Public   Which comes first, land use or transportation?
1691   Public   Need row of green around schools to buffer car exhaust out of play areas.
1692   Public   Include transit (TransLink) to Chilliwack.
1693   Public   Money being put into roads (e.g., Gateway) would be better spent on public transit
                (e.g., light rail) and goods transport (e.g., rail).
1694   Public   More transit modes like light rapid transit regional spine and streetcar networks.
1695   Public   More attention needs to be paid to reactivating the existing BC rail corridor for light
1696   Public   Provide adequate transportation to the whole region to reduce GHG emissions.
1697   Public   Stop 325 North Rd densification without adequate traffic system improvements.
1698   Public   Buses! Buses! Buses! And roads with rails.
1699   Public   Port Moody is building up..up..up. They promised transportation and I'm not sure
                anything is coming in my lifetime. We need to grow up but people need to move.

#      Source   Comments
1700   Public   TransLink board is a farce. Reconcile then what Metro Vancouver and public are
                saying with provincial government.
1701   Public   Great idea if only Kevin Falcon would stop shoving highways down our throats.
                What kind of democracy is this?
1702   Public   The idea is good and will get low hanging fruit but people do not like change. There
                may need to be something else to motivate people to use alternate transit to get to
                the centers.
1703   Public   WE must move ahead as soon as possible with transportation plans.
1704   Public   Connect land/transportation: I believe that we really need to make it easier for
                people to get out of their cars. If it is not easy, people will not do it. Getting people
                out of their cars will reduce pollution and congestion and maybe even make people
1705   Public   Would like to see light rail implemented throughout the region.
1706   Public   Connect land use and transportation - these MUST go together and increasing
                density is crucial. Sprawl is a plague and counter-productive to virtually all
1707   Public   Less spending on infrastructure i.e. twin bridge and more pressure for public
                transit/walking/cycling. Connections between transit routes, e.g., Langley/White
1708   Public   Transportation must be focused on in the valley. Right now transit does not work.
                Many cities within Metro Van lack community because they are forced to leave the
                city to obtain work/services/amenities. Focus on land use and transportation would
                trickle down to other growth goals.
1709   Public   Respect people who work from home and encourage employers to allow/promote
                telecommuting and "cloudworking".
1710   Public   Better planning for transit.
1711   Public   Land use and transportation: Must be connected now and we need to invest in
                transit solutions like light rail now. We can’t afford to wait for the density.
1712   Public   Transportation: We need light rail + rapid transit in Langley. Can’t get out of cars
                until we have more frequent and better routes for buses. We are in the dark ages
1713   Public   Car alternatives/ Transit : personal safety is a BIG concern, especially for the aging
1714   Public   Transit to and from Langley to have more flexibility to accommodate different
                schedules – train, SkyTrain, with more times needed.
1715   Public   Public transportation isn’t working for Langley while TransLink costs continue to
                increase. We NEED cars and trucks because buses don’t work.
1716   Public   Connecting land use and transportation equals many benefits such as improved air
                quality and improved health population
1717   Public   Connect land use and transportation, transit can have only a small impact.
1718   Public   Need to ensure that Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows residents have transportation
                choices (rapid transit) equal to other municipalities in other areas of Metro
1719   Public   NIX Port Mann expansion.
1720   Public   Proceed with Evergreen Line.
1721   Public   Allow for the fact that regions do not have equal transportation systems. Maple
                Ridge/Pitt Meadows transit system is not reliably accessible, it only services a
                small percentage of area and residents, and it has had minimal improvement.
1722   Public   Allow better transit use more walkable communities. Need safe bike parking in
                community centres to ensure people can ride bikes all over - Need more policing -
1723   Public   Money for bigger roads could be used for green transportation systems.
1724   Public   When will SkyTrain come to Maple Ridge taking vehicles off the road?
1725   Public   Why is the Port Mann being enlarged allowing more vehicles on the road?

#        Source        Comments
1726    Public         SkyTrain is very good only if you can get to it. There could be parking so people
                       could take the train .
1727    Public         Why is TransLink so underfunded if this is our goal?
1728    Public         Transit and rapid transit should be a priority / established before any further
                       development occurs.
1729    Public         Here in Maple Ridge, we need rapid transit and light rail now, not in 5-10 years!
1730    Public         High speed rail missing from plan YVR - ABB - Seattle.
1731    Public         Massive expansion of rapid transit, i.e., to levels of European cities required.
1732    Public         Overcome barriers to taking transit.
1733    Public         Don't allow mixed messages with regional transportation investments. E.g.,
1734    Public         Ridiculous waiting 20 year transit! Must have transit in place before development.
1735    Public         Connect land use to transportation - This cannot be done in the short term - long
                       term to implement.
1736    Public         "Transportation" should be closely related to where people work and live to zone
                       for higher density which is vital for viable public transportation.
1737    Public         Connect land use with transportation: yes, if affordable.
1738    Public         Less parking and more transit and rail use.
1739    Public         Transit to industrial areas needs to be addressed.
1740    Public         Yes, involve TransLink directly. Rethink service delivery model.
1741    Public         Transit: Within the community it's okay, but not between communities. Maple
                       Ridge has been refused additional transit! Where is our transit and how is the
                       growth going to be serviced?
1742    Public         Rapid public transportation needs to precede urban development.
1743    Public         Help to promote the establishment of more cost-effective transportation and
                       supports longer term transit development.
1744    Public         Very supportive. Transit needs to be more supportive of the goals/proposals early
                       or car dependant sprawl will continue to happen.
1745    Public         Needs change to preserve single family housing zones around town centres,
                       needs less auto highways and more SkyTrain for public rapid transportation.
1746    Public         Transportation,: increase incentives, reduce barriers to non-vehicle transit: trolley
                       buses, bikes, paths, etc., increase mass community-based social marketing
                       education and support to municipalities. Decrease reduction of funding/expanding
                       auto-centric transportation such as Gateway.
1747                   Walk to everything you need to live, "dam to dam" should be a goal. Transit is a
                       key organizing element, both to shape and to serve development,
Goods Movement
1748    Focus Groups   Make better use of our waterways.
1749    Focus Groups   Sustainable Economy: Market forces (a.k.a. drivers) are short term. We need to
                       have a buffer for long range planning. Ensure infrastructure (transportation routes
                       along Fraser) is truck friendly. Can move goods quickly and not fight with
                       commuter traffic.
1750    Focus Groups   Connect land use and transportation. Use trains, ferries, as well as train tracks
                       that are already there and not being used.
1751    Public         Use of waterways.
1752    Public         Consider commercial movement of goods is very important.
1753    Public         Don't forget about the economic competitiveness of our region from a goods
                       movement perspective. Fine for residential use, but make room for creative
                       industrial traffic solutions.
1754    Public         Policies that will make better use of our waterways.
1755    Public         I feel we are being used with no regard by surrounding city as a transport
                       movement area.
1756    Public         Use rail for traffic to get semi's off the road to protect us in our little cars (transit

#      Source   Comments
1757   Public   Replace Patullo Bridge..
1758   Public   The trucking industry must not be allowed for constant highway expansion and
                gridlock not only intenses, but also makes our merchandise more costly.
1759   Public   Connect land/transport - Depends on TransLink. Need more focus on WATER
1760   Public   Agree with all points, transportation is a major driver of how we attain this. Look at
                alternative, if we used the Fraser River and moved container and traffic to Mission,
                think of the road relief we would attain.
1761   Public   Transportation for industrial centres should be further improved by using the
                Fraser River (i.e. water transportation).
1762   Public   Please, do let us re-open the rail corridors to Chilliwack. Right-of-ways are the
                most expensive part of constructing rail lines. In this case we already have the rail
                bed corridors; not only for passengers but also for increased freight use. Let us
                make them operational.
1763   Public   Good approach but implementation seems problematic. Road pricing would
                achieve most of this through market mechanisms. Consider better use of rail for
                inner-city goods movement. Publicize the true subsidy given to motorists

#     Source    Comments
Regional Growth Strategy: General Comments
Governance and Implementation
1764     Focus Groups    In principle I support these as sound planning guidelines. Fundamentally my
                         concern vests in execution and the level of coordination required. (I.e., transit for
                         example) to execute this plan properly. Any of these ideas in isolation make less
1765     Focus Groups    Connect land use and transport: Is transit able to support this plan? I.e., Is transit
                         cost efficient or does it rely on funding? Does the concentration of services along
                         the corridor make transit more cost efficient?
1766     Public          Most of the overall concept of the plan is sound. Imposing it rigidly is flawed.
                         Creating an additional, undemocratically elected body is flawed.
1767     Public          All plans should undergo a cost-benefit analysis.
1768     Public          Transit Corridors and transportation: Developments need to be funded by many
1769     Public          Transit corridors should be for the places of focus for growth and it should be
                         strictly enforced regionally.
1770     Public          The Metro Vancouver Board is not elected. How can they be held accountable?

1771       Public             More attention has to be paid to availability of finance
1772       Public             How can we allow for and support innovation?
1773       Public             Metro Van equals more potential for inter-jurisdictional disagreements, higher
                              costs, potentially delaying the laws that are in general agreement already.
1774       Public             LRSP was "catchy" - ("green zone", "complete communities") RGS not as catchy it
                              seems, which may make it harder to capture the essence to the people.

1775       Public             Regional government should be venue for municipalities to discuss local
                              innovation and border-related issues before municipalities - Guide municipalities
                              on protecting natural areas, productive agricultural land and making efficient use of
                              funds as it relates to infrastructure.
1776       Public             Too high level need more info on other indicators. Why isn't waste management a
                              part of this it is as important as GHG's?
1777       Public             Moving to harder, clearer lines depends upon conflict resolution mechanisms -
                              How will you avoid slowing everything down or creating impossible delays in
1778       Public             Market forces make this plan difficult to implement. Plus our weak transit makes
                              this weaker than it should be.
1779       Public             Please look at control and compliance measures.
1780       Public             Basically it is a good proposal, however, it should not be the Metro Vancouver
                              Board that makes changes. All decisions should be joint decisions with local
                              municipalities and also with resident's input.
1781       Public             More details need to be disclosed regarding how it will be different from existing
                              measures amongst various jurisdictions.
1782       Public             By adding an additional level of unelected bureaucracy into the decision making
                              process will result in less of what is proposed because it will take longer and cost
                              more to do what is proposed. That makes things less affordable and will result in
                              growth in less regulated jurisdictions. If you want something to happen, make it
                              easy for people to do it and increase the supply. This plan is to the exact opposite.

1783       Public             If more rental housing is desired, eliminate rent controls and development charges,
                              streamline the approval process, reduce code requirements, increase supply of
                              density for the construction of rental housing. Don't add layers of bureaucracy,
                              more controls and regulations.
1784       Public             Must try to get more private sector participation.
1785       Public             Some land of broader outreach needed.

#      Source   Comments
1786   Public   Rationalize municipal by-laws! Should be the same provincially and eventually
                federally. Traffic distance to back lane allowed in parking for instance - THIS
1787   Public   I'm gravely concerned about the process to amend this plan if its ratified. It
                amounts to unnecessary political interference in local communities. Metro
                Vancouver should help in planning but the language and intent of this strategy is
1788   Public   We need to get the other municipalities of the Fraser Valley to become part of the
                regional planning process in order for these plans to really be effective. We need
                to get the province on board with transportation plans in order for these plans to
1789   Public   All proposals need "teeth" in order to ensure that the proposals actually have the
                intended effect.
1790   Public   On the surface, the plan looks good. The truth of course is in the details and I had
                not read all of the details yet and of course the details of implementation will make
1791   Public   Need for specific targets in the plan! Performance measure need something to
                measure. Excellent speakers in particular Rob Barrs.
1792   Public   This proposed plan needs more teeth. Municipalities (councils) will water it down.
                The federal government will not likely offer much money to see it through.
1793   Public   Disconnect between the Metro Vancouver plan and TransLink (transportation).
                Two "solitudes" between areas north of the Fraser River and the south Fraser
                region where all the growth will be occurring.
1794   Public   Each municipality should dictate the way they want to shape their community. They
                are responsible to their constituents and will make the appropriate choices in a
                more responsible local context.
1795   Public   Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation should be disbanded not expanded.
                Governments don't provide our food, why do they need to provide our housing?
                Government solutions in general are very high cost as opposed to private sector
                solutions. Don't impose a high cost, bureaucratic, unionized solution for something
                that is better dealt with by "the invisible hand of the free markets". For example, I
                am in the business of operating office buildings. A few years ago we built a
                proposal to a BC government tenant. The cost was and unbelievably detailed 45
                pages around $45 per square feet while a typical private sector requirement was
                $30 per square feet
1796   Public   For conservation land, I agree, if it adjusts to future needs.
1797   Public   For agricultural land, regional voice needs to be heard. Land swap needs to
1798   Public   For industrial lands, if exceptions are to be made, people in the city or area should
                have a say.
1799   Public   Industrial land protection is really a local municipal issue.
1800   Public   Difficulty of external forces impacting on your decision making.
1801   Public   How does each municipality want to grow?
1802   Public   We need the buy in from municipal councils at the moment this is advisory only,
                e.g., in Surrey total disregard for the Liveable Region's Plan.
1803   Public   The approach is very good but "trying" to develop this plan of action isn't identical
                with success! How much backing/support by the Provincial govt. can we expect, in
                view of political pressure, special interest groups, etc. that WILL take place?

1804   Public   Regional agricultural strategy linked to food resiliency.
1805   Public   Right approach, however, lots of more work to do such as: tax incentive to the
1806   Public   We need to have an integrated cohesive regional plan.
1807   Public   Must have the power to set the strategy so all municipalities adhere to the plan.

#      Source   Comments
1808   Public   Work closely with municipalities. Be a networker. Aim VERY high with targets and
                actions. Be a champion. Be a capacity builder.
1809   Public   I think that if Metro Vancouver is going to make such big decisions (which to me
                are the jurisdiction of local municipalities) then Metro Vancouver should go through
                a much better public consultation. E.g., several events in each municipality.
                Otherwise you don't have the buy in.
1810   Public   Take issues up to provincial, federal level. For example, vehicles permitted on
1811   Public   Consider how Toronto, Ontario does it and maybe take some inspiration from
1812   Public   Enforce more stringent rules on how municipalities decide on land use in our "very"
                limited amounts of land in the Fraser Valley.
1813   Public   Active promoters of social and environmental sustainability.
1814   Public   Do more faster. Outreach and educate for support. Create hard limits.
1815   Public   Get back authority over regional transportation planning and operation.
1816   Public   If we are already in an ecological overshoot why on earth are we planning more
                destructive growth? Talk to Andrew Weaver and Richard Kahu and try to get some
                idea of the urgency for action; do we have the understanding or the political will to
                take action?
1817   Public   Municipalities need to comply with vision for the region.
1818   Public   Love the plan and would like to know what can be done to give it more teeth.
1819   Public   Issues not with goals, but with methodology and how they're
1820   Public   We need a clear understanding before boundaries are set on how and when they
                may be changed, or if they may be changed.
1821   Public   How to effectively implement despite conflicting municipal priorities.
1822   Public   Generally I support the proposal regarding commercial, industrial and agriculture. I
                do have concerns though about the actual application of each of specific
                situations. How will the policies and procedures be activated?
1823   Public   Process seems too rushed and restrictive → need to ensure public through
                municipal government is given proper voice.
1824   Public   Ensure regions have good input on how their lands are designated.
1825   Public   Not enough detail. Need to specify how each region will have its own plan that
                demonstrates the differences of Maple Ridge versus Vancouver.
1826   Public   Leave it to the municipality to decide boundary for urban development
1827   Public   Establish a Urban Containment Boundary: We need REAL, LOCAL discussion on
                this. Residents need to TRUST an HONEST process. Our council needs to
                represent its own residents and not be pressured by Metro Vancouver.
1828   Public   Governance: Municipal governments change (potentially) every three years - a
                plan with strong compliance is the only way to sustain a long term vision. Most
                municipal governments are developer oriented.
1829   Public   People can choose to drive or not, people want a choice where to live.
1830   Public   Even when designated by bylaws etc. changes will be proposed that damage the
                societal objectives: is just 50% vote plus one the acceptable way to go?
1831   Public   Decentralization is only option.
1832   Public   People in municipalities need input for initial boundary.
1833   Public   Municipalities should present requests for changes to Metro Vancouver; Metro
                Vancouver should set a limited number of request (e.g., 3), unless there is a
                substantial change in circumstances; needs to be clearly written in the Metro
                Vancouver Plan.
1834   Public   Moreover regional government needs teeth. Once we all (i.e., 21 municipalities)
                agree, we maintain the boundary so that local officials develop within the urban
                boundary making land outside for food security.

#      Source   Comments
1835   Public   The highly desirable goals that are gaining almost universal agreement such as
                this questionnaire are going to be used in order to gain acceptance for the goal of
                creating another level of government.
1836   Public   Municipal infrastructure runs through our reserves - must develop a collective
                communication process.
1837   Public   *The board of Metro Vancouver should be democratically elected and I do not want
                to see the power of municipal councils reduced any further.
1838   Public   There needs to be greater cohesion between the numerous municipal
                governments in order to succeed. Also in terms of agriculture, natural assets and
                transportation there needs to be constructive dialogue between Metro Vancouver
                and other levels of government.
1839   Public   Governance proposal is too rigid!
1840   Public   Work with other authorities and encourage them to work toward connective
                services, e.g., Aldergrove industrial center ends at boundary when it makes so
                much sense for it to continue to Abbotsford.
1841   Public   *Governance is a very important issue to deal with such as in Squamish nation.
                Essential to draft in your documents "meaningful" consultation on all proposed
                developments. We are a federal jurisdiction in consideration of our Indian
1842   Public   I am concerned that the municipalities may lose their independence and right of
                zoning and rezoning if options B or C are chosen.
1843   Public   I am concerned about the other major area of the lower mainland - The Fraser
                Valley. Working with these goals as well, it seems unlikely for the kind of change
                we need to see if we don't work together
1844   Public   Provide for super-majority approval by BOTH municipality AND local area. Localize
                the decision - Public meetings.
1845   Public   Don't think Metro Vancouver needs to plan out regional greenways - leave with
1846   Public   Local communities need autonomy to make sure their vision is reflected in their
                land use decisions.
1847   Public   The entire Fraser Valley must be included in the plan. Placing a wall at the
                Abbotsford border and not including the eastern Fraser Valley is foolish in the
1848   Public   Too much control placed in the larger population cities to the west.
1849   Public   Theme 1: Very sound proposals, and they apply in every municipality although
                solutions may vary greatly from city to city.
1850   Public   I respect and appreciate the efforts of Metro Vancouver but trust must be given to
                the cities and municipalities to govern their lands. Individual parcels of land use
                should not be governed by Metro Vancouver. Large overall planning should be
                governed by Metro Vancouver.
1851   Public   This gives Metro Vancouver too much power over the municipalities. It takes away
                the elected official's power to represent their communities as they were elected to
1852   Public   All of the questions as posed are hard to take issue with. Once you dig into the
                details of the proposed strategies, the strategy becomes scarier and there is no
                flexibility. Leave planning up to the cities. Stick with sewer and water for Metro

#      Source   Comments
1853   Public   Metro Vancouver should be polling the citizens of Metro Vancouver regarding the
                three governance options discussed at Maple Ridge meeting where 55% of
                participants favoured option 3 which REQUIRED municipalities to adhere to
                regional growth guidelines. I suspect that citizens of other municipalities would vote
                in a similar fashion. This would give you the ability to bypass Metro Vancouver
                municipal councils which are nearly all pro-development and more than eager to
                develop agricultural land and green zone just as Maple Ridge council is frequently
                ignoring its OCP and hurrying to rezone land from conservation and agricultural
                land to urban residential. I do hope that you will have the foresight to enact
                governance model 3 and put a stop to this idiocy, otherwise all of your planning
                efforts are pointless.
1855   Public   Scrap it. Stay with high vision sewer and water. Leave Planning alone.
1856   Public   Yes, let the Burke Mountain Developments destroy Port Coquitlam by building
                arterial roads through our community and make our houses feel like we're on little
                islands just for the sake of Coquitlam getting from one place to another.
                SOMEONE IN VANCOUVER!
1857   Public   The visions and goals are on target but the implementation may be the challenge.
                Local council must not be given complete authority to determine land use in their
                municipality. They do not always know what is best use. Otherwise the EASIEST
                and most COSTLY land use will happen - URBAN SPRAWL.
1858   Public   Support major goals, possible issues regarding implementation details and gaining
                support from local municipalities.
1859   Public   I like the Metro Vancouver sustainable region ideas but they have no teeth. Should
                be enforced but provincial and municipal governments override. Give more power
                to Metro Vancouver!
1860   Public   We vote local and kept it that way.
1862   Public   Land use and transportation need to involve Fraser Valley Regional District and be
1863   Public   I would like Metro Vancouver to have more say in land use decisions because
                each municipality's decisions impact the region as a whole. We need to work
                together and agree that some principles of bad planning will not be supported.
                Municipalities need to see the big picture and get away from their protectionist
1864   Public   Not just at the decision of the Metro Vancouver Board - good basic idea.
1865   Public   The people on the metro Vancouver board who do make the decisions should be
                at the meetings and face the music. Not just read a report. Face the people who
                will be affected by your decisions.
1866   Public   Metro Vancouver governance must contain municipal sprawl on its own.
1867   Public   I do not support Maple Ridge's membership in the Metro Vancouver region. By our
                membership, we are taxed, and it goes to provide service in the central Metro
                Vancouver area. Where do they think the congestion is coming from?
1868   Public   Regional needs should ultimately prevail and dictate local needs. However, there
                has to be fairness so that smaller rural municipalities are not out
                voted/marginalized which will create huge resentment.
1869   Public   Metro Vancouver must accept local input.
1870   Public   The Metro Vancouver Board is not elected. How can they be held accountable?
1871   Public   Does not apply to Maple Ridge as the council can change the OCP any time they
                want to.
1872   Public   Many municipalities are so growth-oriented and think only of the short term by
                allowing small exceptions to keep pace with demand. OCP's get amended at the
                drop of a hat (or a tax dollar)!

#       Source         Comments
1873    Public         Maintain flexibility for "unanticipated changes".
1874    Public         Absolutely. United we stand (Metro Vancouver). Divided we fail/fall (each
                       municipality considering their perspective not the whole).
1875    Public         Unclear through the forum the degree of decision making that may be moved away
                       from municipalities to the board and TransLink. Will this create another layer of
                       government decision making creating lengthier approval times for development
1876    Public         Theme 3 Question 1 has a question of relevance. It appears to me that the only
                       way to enforce any of this duscussion is to create a true Metro Vancouver with
                       actual political power and tax dollars to enforce the plans. If we continue to leave
                       this to plans and suggestions, how will enforcement be effective?
1877    Public         Concept of ceding decision making to Metro Vancouver is flawed. Decisions most
                       effective when it is closest to the issue. Having 22 municipalities approving things
                       going on in 1 municipality is imposing an unelected bureaucracy on the existing
                       system which already works well. It is decidedly undemocratic and bordering on
                       being unconstitutional.
1878    Public         The region's needs have to take precedence over those of individual
1879    Public         All of the five principles are great. But in order to form a clear idea about what they
                       mean and their implications, in order to allow more democracy and citizen
                       participation we need to be presented with more concrete plans.
1880    Public         While land needs to be set aside for conservation areas and parks, Metro
                       Vancouver doesn't need to decide it. I live in the City of Vancouver. It has an
                       amazing, very extensive park system, even in the downtown core. The City of
                       Vancouver has done an excellent job. We don't need to add an additional
                       bureaucracy on to a process which works very well.
1881    Public         Yes, but allow transparency with new system to address public concerns and
                       accountability of politicians.
1882    Public         How does one get 21 municipalities to buy in? Maybe it should be one municipality.

1883    Public         I believe individual municipalities should retain control over development in their
                       communities. Metro Vancouver amounts to another level of bureaucracy which is
1884    Public         We need a stronger regional body to make sure this plan will work!
1885    Public         Can the board of Metro Vancouver be changed into an elected body, allowing it to
                       justify mandatory regulations?
1886    Public         Need strong municipal support to protect ancillary areas e.g. buffer zones near
                       streams, parks
1887    Public         NOT DEMOCRATIC!!!
1888    Public         Local municipality should have a lot of input; yet if bad local government is elected,
                       they will make poor decisions on the issue. In this case, Metro Vancouver might
                       provide a voice of reason. On the flip side, Metro Vancouver will not be as
                       concerned as local community.
1889    Public         I am in favour of option b because there is this huge bureaucracy that is like a
                       toothless granny. Option c is ONEROUS.
1890    Public         UCB and defined regional centres: How does this give power to municipal
                       governments versus Metro Vancouver to determine land use?
1891    Public         Concerned that Metro Vancouver is potentially another layer of government being
                       established that creates greater inefficiency.
1892    Focus Groups   Thinking about children and grandchildren need to plan ahead.
1893    Focus Groups   Reduce cost, protect ecology.
1894    Focus Groups   Good for long term planning - Have to be aware of the journeys to get to the goal.

#      Source         Comments
1895   Focus Groups   Good concepts. Will need to pay attention to how the projects will be completed.
                      Some resistance to change should be expected.
1896   Public         Increased building area and blacktop and more run off. Green design needed to
                      contain water and use water better. Also need energy sustainable housing. Energy
                      efficient design. Better insulation. White instead of black roofs for less air
                      conditioning. Green roofs in high density areas. Less water run-off if focus on
1897   Public         Mixed communities are safer and prevent ghettos of the rich or poor.
1898   Public         Need more policing/safety in dense core.
1899   Public         Periodic Review - updates to monitor changes in the marketplace, economy,
                      demographics, etc.
1900   Public         Timing - Take an extra 6 months to get the RGS in better sync with
1901   Public         North Vancouver has virtually no access to waterfront because most of it is
                      centralized by Vancouver Port Authority.
1902   Public         These broad goals are great and appreciated but they need substance and details.
                      Many of the ideas have been the ideals for years but how does each region (with
                      their individual needs and current structure) get there?
1903   Public         Great concept but local enforcement in Anmore has been non-existent.
                      Developers have clear-cut, polluted streams and hatcheries, and damaged
                      sensitive areas.
1904   Public         Policies, laws, regulations, etc. that are not clearly written, allow too much room for
                      "interpretation" and manipulation. It is clear that people want more and better
                      transit. Where is it? (not your jurisdiction) It is time to tax people whose lifestyles.

1905   Public         2 degree sewage treatment for apartments/buildings with over eight residents, 3
                      degree for all industrial parks and complexes.
1906   Public         Mike Golberg and M Michael Geller were excellent fairly unbiased speakers with a
                      wealth of knowledge on the issues discussed.
1907   Public         How will we or how will we plan to deal with peak "natural gas" supply. It is
                      expected the NG is going to peak (locally) SOONER than oil. Must house and hot
                      water use NG (Particular existing**). NAFTA limits us from not exporting it.
                      Existing building account for 80-90% of NG use.
1908   Public         Concerned about respecting land claims. Concerned that TransLink has too much
1909   Public         Need more certificates, degree, diploma programs. Need education for tradesmen
                      such as HVAC and other traditional occupations.
1910   Public         Phase out of internal combustion engine.
1911   Public         See "Mackenzie-More", smart growth, higher density, fair increase of density
                      particularly in high income neighbourhoods such as West Vancouver and
1912   Public         Free market has ultimate power backed by the power of multi nationals
                      corporations power base.
1913   Public         What do we do when offices have employees getting sick; thermo window vs.
                      unhealthy air conditioning.
1914   Public         Global ………are powered by multinationals who have the backing of financial
                      power of monopolies
1915   Public         Land supply exists - Use is the key
1916   Public         Local government is hostage to finance funding unless they agree to increased
1917   Public         How does an area such as Maple Ridge which has already sprawled now be

#      Source   Comments
1918   Public   Exotic species (human) colonization without an understanding the cycles of nature
                and the effects of exploitation on the resources resulting in cumulative regional
                negative impacts on the natural environments.
1919   Public   Natural assets: Aboriginal people - like many other species, we are a human
                species at risk!! We have witnessed in the last 150 years many species
1920   Public   I support the strategic plan whole heartedly. I recognize that its implementation will
                continue to be a difficult task with many challenges. So many diverse interest
                groups to satisfy.
1921   Public   I still do not understand how a planner believes that they can understand the
                complexities of our economy and best allocate the factors of production when they
                are not privy to supply and demand needs.
1922   Public   Sounds good in theory but need more information.
1923   Public   It would be good to have smaller communities.
1924   Public   It will be vital if we are to survive the next 10 years let alone into 2040.
1925   Public   We have an excellent strong leader who is visionary - CEO at Fraser Health. WE
                are the fasted growing region and to share the needs of the population for
                healthcare delivery services would be a welcome addition towards sustainability
                economically, environmentally, socially and culturally.
1926   Public   Support for planning development to include healthy neighbourhoods and
                communities, i.e., incorporate facilities and programs for primary care and
                intergeneration programs.
1927   Public   Thanks for being there to frame the issues - without you we for sure would not
                make it.
1928   Public   Too late in planning. Too long to implement. Planning is behind the times.
1929   Public   Economic growth is only a means to an end not an end in itself. More emphasis
                needed in quality of life.
1930   Public   Objective should not be 2030. Aim for 2020.
1931   Public   "Newer" areas have more flexibility for land use as more land is "undeveloped". Do
                they get what other areas don't want?
1932   Public   Where will we put the 60% more soccer fields, community skating rinks,
                community gardens and public school grounds?
1933   Public   Our community is a series of neighbourhoods connected by roads, trails, etc.
                Should have full range of opportunity.
1934   Public   The dynamics of the region now requires that we look beyond Metro Vancouver to
                take in the whole Lower Mainland as a setting of policies.
1935   Public   Region wide plan is required to ensure the Lower Mainland is efficient and has a
                high quality of life. The four proposals presented will work towards this.
1936   Public   There is a fundamental contradiction in the ideas of "sustainable" and "growth". Is
                there any planning towards an end to growth?
1937   Public   An area like Delta with small urban area (i.e., small tax base), how can the city stay
                competitive within the region and support city folks?


                                                            5.1 ATTACHMENT 2B

                 Groups, Organizations and Agencies Summary
                       on the Regional Growth Strategy
                             As of June 29, 2009

Summary of comments received from Groups, Organizations and Agencies related to:

1            Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
             - Urban Containment Boundary
             - Urban Centres
             - Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors
             - Parking
             - Green House Gas Emissions Reduction
             - Other General Comments.

2            Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
             - Employment Distribution/Commercial Distribution
             - Industrial Land
             - Agriculture
             - Agriculture - Suggested Policy Amendments
             - Agriculture – Viability
             - Other General Comments.

3            Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets
             - Conservation and Recreation Land Designation
             - Climate.

4            Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
             - Diverse and Affordable Housing
             - Climate Change
             - Health
             - Complete Communities
             - Other General Comments.

5            Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
             - Transit and Active Modes
             - Roads
             - Goods Movement
             - Other General Comments.

6            General Comments on:
             - Regional Growth Strategy – Governance
             - Regional Growth Strategy – Implementation.


Groups, Organizations and Agencies Summary
Regional Growth Strategy

# Source           Comments
Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Urban Containment Boundary
1   Business Council of British     …that urban containment boundaries and setting aside large areas of land for
    Columbia                        recreation and agriculture are in fact at odds with the professed goal of providing
                                    diverse and affordable housing.
2   Business Council of British     …primary reason for high housing costs in Greater Vancouver is the constrained
    Columbia                        supply of land.
3   Business Council of British     Metro Vancouver and its municipalities should carefully review the balance among
    Columbia                        alternate land uses and consider the wider social and economic implications of
                                    designating urban, agricultural and rural lands.
4   David Suzuki Foundation         The draft regional growth strategy must be applauded for confining new urban
                                    development within an "urban containment boundary."
5   David Suzuki Foundation         Containing growth is an essential first step for reducing distances traveled by most
                                    residents and commercial operations.
6   Environment Canada              For policy 1.1.2, to increase transparency, the specific criteria or factors required to
                                    trigger the exception to extend regional sewage services to Rural, Agricultural and
                                    Conservation/Recreation areas should be documented.
7   Environment Canada              Municipal policies should specify that growth in newly developing areas will still occur
                                    within the Urban Containment Boundary.
8   Fraser Valley Regional District Supports the Urban Containment Boundary which defines the extent of urban growth
                                    for the duration of the strategy and contributes to the creation of compact urban
9   Greater Vancouver Gateway       There is a need to manage future growth to ensure that additional urban sprawl does
    Council                         not further compound our current congestion problems and create difficulties in
                                    providing affordable transit services.
10 Greater Vancouver Home           There are contradictions in the strategy that will erode affordability and choice. . . .
    Builders' Association           Including restrictions on land and its uses, which could increase land prices.
11  Livable Region Coalition        Recommend the following amendment: The elimination of the Growth Concentration
                                    Area concept from the Livable Region Strategic Plan is a big step backwards…. The
                                    LISP Growth Concentration Area should be retained as a key concept in the new plan
                                    and adjusted for the projected increase in sea-level rise due to climate change.

12   Urban Development Institute   ….Because of these restrictions (e.g. Green Zone and Agricultural Land Reserve)
     Pacific Region                already two-thirds of our geographically limited land base is not developed.
13   Urban Development Institute   Strategy 1.1 - The industry would want to ensure that the developable area will not be
     Pacific Region                reduced through the Regional Growth Strategy review or the Regional Context
                                   Statements that municipalities submit to Metro Vancouver.
14   Urban Development Institute   Strategy 1.1 will result in land being frozen from development, but there is no
     Pacific Region                assurance that appropriate densities will result in the targeted areas of Strategy 1.2

Urban Centres
15 Business Council of British     While encouraging people to live in proximity to where they work is a desirable goal,
     Columbia                      we would caution that having too many city centres and business districts may be
                                   counter productive for the economic health of Greater Vancouver.
16   Business Council of British   …we acknowledge the efforts in the Regional Growth Strategy to facilitate the
     Columbia                      movement of people and goods among City Centres and Town Centres throughout
                                   the region: Strategy 1.2, which seeks to focus growth in urban centres and along
                                   transit corridors, the strategies supporting Goal 5 "Supporting Sustainable
                                   Transportation Choices," and the province's Transit Pland and Gateway Program.

#    Source                           Comments
17   Public Works and Government      ….our federal office accommodation strategy for the Metro Vancouver area supports
     Services Canada Pacific Region   the regional goals of creating compact urban areas, supporting a sustainable
                                      economy, developing complete and resilient communities and supporting sustainable
                                      transportation choices.
18   Urban Development Institute      It is noted in Strategy 1.2.3(b) that density bonuses could be used to encourage office
     Pacific Region                   development. UDI supports this, and also suggests that the development of office
                                      space could be further encouraged by providing residential bonuses if office space is
                                      built on mixed-use sites or through mixed-use buildings.
19   Urban Development Institute      It would undermine the stability of the land market in the Region if developers
     Pacific Region                   purchased land in an Urban Centre, only to find that Metro (or the local government)
                                      deletes the designation in the future. This matter requires further clarification.

Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors
20 Greater Vancouver Home    Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that develop residential
    Builders' Association    growth along transit / transportation corridors.
21 Livable Region Coalition  We support point 1.1.3(b)….However much more emphasis must be placed on
                             ensuring that development occurs within already built up areas and on existing transit
22 Neighbourhoods for a      Frequent Transit Development Corridors are too broad.
     Sustainable Vancouver
23   PCI Developments Corp            The priority to encourage development along Frequent Transit Development Corridors
                                      is contradicted by the priority to relegate all high-density development within "Urban
                                      Centres" or "Urban Containment Boundaries."
24   PCI Developments Corp            Strategy 1.2: Focus Growth in Urban Centres and in Frequent Transit Development
                                      Corridors creates confusion because it simultaneously suggests keeping development
                                      in the core while also promoting development along transit corridors. In municipalities
                                      where new and existing transit station sites are located outside of the core, these two
                                      goals cannot be achieved simultaneously.
25   PCI Developments Corp            …. case-by-case analysis is required by each municipality to determine what land use
                                      is appropriate along transit corridors and whether certain strategic sites require
26   Urban Development Institute      This means increasing densities, particularly around transit nodes and transportation
     Pacific Region                   corridors.
27   Urban Development Institute      Strategy 2.1….this policy should be expanded to allow office uses along Frequent
     Pacific Region                   Transit Development Corridors, and allow for expanded office opportunities in
                                      Municipal Town Centres.
28   PCI Developments Corp            In particular, we agree with the Regional Growth Strategy's priority placed on
                                      encouraging high-density development on transit.
29   Urban Development Institute      ….there is nothing in the draft that would compel municipalities to densify in the Urban
     Pacific Region                   Area, Urban Centres or along the proposed Frequent Transit Development Corridors.
                                      In fact, there are only "targets".
30   Urban Development Institute      [the Regional Growth Strategy] should compel local governments to densify targeted
     Pacific Region                   areas such as Urban Centres or near transit stations and along transit corridors.
                                      Required density LEVELS for these areas should be established.
31   Urban Development Institute      Strategy 1.2 - UDI is very supportive of the concept of allowing high density growth in
     Pacific Region                   Urban Centres and along Frequent Transit Development Corridors.
32   Urban Development Institute      The Institute recommends having required density levels near transit. In addition,
     Pacific Region                   Metro should put in place interim requirements before 2021. It should also be outlined
                                      in the [Regional Growth Strategy] what steps will be taken if levels are not met.

#     Source                       Comments
33   Urban Development Institute   UDI is very supportive of reducing municipal parking requirements near transit
     Pacific Region                stations in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors as suggested
                                   in the Draft. We hope that this strategy will not lead to maximum parking standards,
                                   but to reduce minimum standards instead.
34   Urban Development Institute   In the Draft, it is recommended that senior levels of government locate their offices
     Pacific Region                and other institutional uses in the Urban Centres. This is a positive
                                   suggestion….However we ask that this recommendation be broadened in two ways.
                                   Firstly, as noted above, Frequent Transit Development Corridors are also appropriate
                                   areas for office development.....municipal governments should also be encouraged to
                                   locate their operations in areas with good transit access.
35 BC Ministry of the Environment It may be appropriate to qualify what is meant by parking requirement restrictions in
                                  Strategy 1.2.3)b), "reduce residential and commercial parking requirements within
                                  Frequent Transit Development Corridors." Sufficient parking in strategic locations
                                  (e.g. transit nodes or rapid transit stations) will help to provide travel alternatives to
                                  vehicle commuters.
36 Greater Vancouver Home         Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that reduce parking
     Builders' Association        requirements.
37 Livable Region Coalition       ….Hard targets for reducing parking supply are needed….
38 Livable Region Coalition        ….parking requirements must also be reduced or eliminated, at least in all areas with
                                  good transit access.
Green House Gas Emissions Reduction
39 BC Hydro                       Metro Vancouver may wish to reference its adopted regional Bill 27 GHG targets in
                                  the Regional Growth Strategy to provide context. Metro Vancouver may also wish to
                                  provide some guidance on energy reduction targets, policies and actions (e.g.
                                  average residential kwh/ft2). It would be very opportune for Metro Vancouver to
                                  provide leadership in this area.
40 BC Hydro                       Figure 3 articulates factors that contribute to climate action. We believe that this
                                  graphic could be far more informative if it articulated more specifics on levels of
                                  contribution and response…. We have reservations on the scope of the report entitled
                                  "Socio-Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Mitigation Measures for Metro
                                  Vancouver", but there are some elements that might be helpful for transfer to the
                                  Regional Growth Strategy.
41 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 1.3 does not appear to accurately capture that dynamic within Metro
                                  Vancouver. It suggests that the draft 2009 Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth
                                  Strategy will assist Municipalities in identifying their [Official Community Plan] GHG
                                  targets, policies and actions to be consistent with Metro Vancouver's already
                                  established 33% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 targets. It might be helpful to clarify this
                                  relationship in the Regional Growth Strategy.
42 BC Ministry of the Environment Figure 3 is a constructive addition to the Regional Growth Strategy. While most
                                  pieces of the pie interconnect with others, a grouping or colouration scheme might
                                  better show some of the stronger interconnections.
43 David Suzuki Foundation        While the goal is to become significantly conservative in the way we use fossil fuels
                                  for energy needs, it is also important that we are conservative in the way we use and
                                  impact other forms of carbon, most notably forest and soil carbon in the region.

44   Environment Canada            To increase transparency, the criteria or factors used to assess "appropriate forms of
                                   development" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be document.
45   Livable Region Coalition      Metro Vancouver's draft Regional Growth Strategy is a recipe for violating the GHG
                                   Reductions Act. The new land use and transportation document misses the mark on
                                   climate change by varying only marginally from the path of automobile dependant
                                   development, rather than making the bold change of direction needed to meet the
                                   legislated targets.

#    Source                        Comments
46   Livable Region CoalitionMetro Vancouver's draft growth strategy…..falls short of the decisive actions needed
                             to meet the legislated targets.
47 Livable Region Coalition  ….the strong targets and enforcement measures needed to comply with provincial
                             legislation are missing.
48 Livable Region Coalition  ….the urgent necessity to significantly reduce vehicle kilometres traveled is barely
Goal 1 - Other General Comments

49   BC Hydro                        We suggest that energy systems (e.g. District Energy) be incorporated into the
                                     Guidelines table (Figure 2).
50   BC Hydro                        District Energy is referenced as a strategy in both the Regional Growth Strategy and
                                     Liquid Waste Management Plan. We wonder if Metro Vancouver has considered how
                                     it can influence the use of hydronics for buildings to preserve the opportunity for
                                     connectivity to district energy systems?
51   Environment Canada              Impacts to water supply and groundwater should be addressed in this section, as
                                     pesticides and fertilizers orginating from agricultural lands can infiltrate groundwater
                                     and lead to contamination. Additionally, no specific roles for federal government are
                                     listed to ahcieve this strategy. environment Canada supports aquatic research and
                                     technology and ensures that national policies and standards are in place for
                                     environmental and health-related issues.
52   Fraser Valley Regional District Supports focus on a sustainable region that links land use patterns and the
                                     transportation network.
53   Greater Vancouver Home          Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that encourages density.
     Builders' Association
54   Lower Mainland Network for    Question the assumption of growth and density as the answer to sustainability.
     Affordable Housing
55   Neighbourhoods for a          ….because of TransLink's real estate development conflict of interest, TransLink
     Sustainable Vancouver         should be allowed to review and comment only, without any authority over land use
56   Neighbourhoods for a          TransLink's conflicted roll as both planning regulator and developer: ….TransLink has
     Sustainable Vancouver         been given a mandate to raise funds through real estate speculation, rezoning and
                                   land lift to pay for transit which is primarily a provincial responsibility. We strongly
                                   oppose this.
57   Urban Development Institute   ….governments have emphasized where development should not take place and the
     Pacific Region                proposed plans either restrict or freeze development; but there is little or no clear
                                   direction as to where development SHOULD occur.
58   Urban Development Institute   ….how to best use the remaining existing limited supply in a way that supports the
     Pacific Region                principles of sustainability, which includes marrying transportation and land use as
                                   well as affordable housing and commercial opportunities.
59   Urban Development Institute   ….neighbourhood pressures opposing this type of densification has meant that
     Pacific Region                success has been limited. Instead, there has been more constraint on the supply of
                                   developable land, which has caused land to be more costly. This in turn has impacted
                                   the affordability of housing and businesses.
60   Urban Development Institute   The industry would have concerns if high density development, previously allowed
     Pacific Region                under the LRSP and local Official Community Plans was no longer permitted.

# Source           Comments
Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Employment Distribution/Commercial Distribution
61 Business Council of British    Planners should be realistic about the extent to which policy can influence where
     Columbia                     people live relative to their place of employment.
62 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 2 …strongly supports the strategy to promote employment centres close to
                                  where people live.
63 Urban Development Institute    ….essential that the policies applicable to industrial lands and office uses more pro-
     Pacific Region               actively reflect the needs of the economy in Metro Vancouver. The Draft Plan
                                  proposes to restrict office/commercial uses to just Urban Centres….This approach
                                  will not be feasible for companies that need access to the Region's road network.
                                  Forcing users into unsuitable sites in Urban Centres that do not match their needs
                                  makes Metro Vancouver a poorer place to invest with no corresponding gain.
64 Urban Development Institute    Strategy 2.1 ….proposed that office uses be concentrated in "Urban Centres" and that
     Pacific Region               "…zoning that reserves land for office uses…" be established. Both these policies are
                                  far too restrictive and could deter economic growth as companies locate to
                                  Abbotsford, Calgary and other places.
65 Urban Development Institute    Strategy 2.1 Also, by severely limiting where these office uses can go, the land supply
     Pacific Region               for office will be restricted, which will result in increased prices, and the availability of
                                  lots that meet the needs of large users will be overly constrained.
66 Urban Development Institute    The industry is also concerned with the concept of zoned office reserves. This is
     Pacific Region               overly restrictive, and does not provide the flexibility needed.
Industrial Land
67 The Beedie Group               Concern about the concept of another "Land Reserve."
68 The Beedie Group               Strongly support the need for industrial land, but there is also a need to allow land to
                                  develop in an efficient and best use manner.
69   The Beedie Group             Reserves generally end up with strict definitions for use.
70 The Beedie Group               The nature of industrial users has changed over the years and it will continue to
71 The Beedie Group               There will be land that would end up in a reserve that is unsuitable for industrial. This
                                  becomes unproductive or under utilized land and to remove it from a Land Reserve
                                  will be a long and expensive process.
72 The Beedie Group               There are times when converting industrial lands to another community use would
                                  have a greater employment and social benefit for a community. A Land Reserve and
                                  the proposed exemption process would severely restrict this type of land use change
                                  to occur.
73 BC Ministry of the Environment Although economic growth in "biomedical facilities and other laboratories used for
                                  scientific and medical research" is highlighted, why is the "green economy" or the
                                  "high tech" industry not similarly profiled?
74 Business Council of British    We broadly support Strategy 2.2 to "Protect the region's supply of industrial land."
75    Business Council of British   It is particularly important to preserve lands related to goods-transportation.
76    Business Council of British   Maintaining a supply of land suitable for manufacturing is also important, although the
      Columbia                      nature of manufacturing activity is changing and some types can be accommodated in
                                    mixed-use areas.
77    Business Council of British   A balanced growth strategy should aim to maintain a mix of industries within the
      Columbia                      region.
78    Greater Vancouver Gateway     ….growing concern over the conversion of industrial land to other uses particularly
      Council                       industrial land that has water, rail and road access.
79    Greater Vancouver Gateway     (industrial)…...Failure to protect these sites will negate any possibility of using our
      Council                       waterways for goods movements in future and therefore lead to further congestion on
                                    our road system.

#    Source                        Comments
80   Greater Vancouver Gateway     We believe that there are opportunities to make better use of existing as well as the
     Council                       need for additional infrastructure and Industrial land and we are prepared to work with
                                   Metro Vancouver and TransLink to ensure that we are able to meet future needs of
                                   the region.
81   PCI Developments Corp         We are very concerned with the Regional Growth Strategy's proposed industrial land
                                   freeze (as suggested by Goal 2, Strategy 2.2) This is an example of a "one size fits
                                   all" policy that does not recognize the land use dynamics and differences in job and
                                   employment generators between member municipalities.
82   PCI Developments Corp         ….freezing industrial land contradicts the Regional Growth Strategy's own priority to
                                   encourage high-density development at transit stations.
83   PCI Developments Corp         ….local governments are best suited to determine which lands are appropriate
                                   industrial uses and what those industrial uses should be over time.
84   Port of Metro Vancouver       We are pleased that the importance of regional industrial land protection and goods
                                   movement as emphasized in previous Port correspondence (Feb 4, 2008, Sept 26,
                                   2006) has been reflected in the draft Regional Growth Strategy.
85   Port of Metro Vancouver       Strategy 2.1.9 "Port Metro Vancouver discourages non-port related commercial
                                   development" - The Canada Marine ACT (CMA) mandates that Port Metro Vancouver
                                   promote the success of the port for the purpose of contributing to the
                                   competitiveness, growth and prosperity of the Canadian economy, and is limited
                                   through its Letters Patent to port-related development.
86   Port of Metro Vancouver       Strategy 2.2 "Protect the region's supply of industrial land" Strategy 2.2.3(c) "Prevent
                                   non-industrial uses in Industrial areas" - We support the approach under these
                                   strategies to protect industrial land.
87   Port of Metro Vancouver       Strategy 2.2.3. (a) "Identify the industrial area and its boundary…" - We would like this
                                   policy to expand to also recognize opportunities for expansion of industrial areas. The
                                   focus of the Regional Growth Strategy should also be placed on the identification of
                                   an adequate supply of future industrial lands. We recommend that there be a strategy
                                   to encourage new industrial land development near existing industrial land hubs and
                                   at areas in proximity to highways, barge and rail facilities, limiting residential and other
                                   sensitive uses in these areas to minimize conflict.
88   Port of Metro Vancouver       Strategy 2.2.5 "TransLink and the province review any proposed Official Community
                                   Plan amendments to remove industrial lands with the objective of maintaining
                                   industrial areas in proximity to highways barge or rail facilities" - We request that
                                   Official Community Plan amendments for industrial land removal be referred to Port
                                   Metro Vancouver for comment.
89   Urban Development Institute   Metro is proposing a type of Industrial Land Reserve that freezes the types of jobs
     Pacific Region                and businesses allowed in industrial zones. In addition, it is being recommended that
                                   some land be reserved exclusively for office uses, as well as limiting new office
                                   construction in Urban Centres.
90   Urban Development Institute   ….proposals to freeze present industrial lands outside of the context of a
     Pacific Region                comprehensive review, that considers whether there are particular Green Zone sites
                                   of industrial value that heavily outweigh their value for Green Zone purposes, is
91   Urban Development Institute   Strategy 2.2 - If this policy is adopted, the current lands designated as industrial would
     Pacific Region                automatically be included - whether the sites make sense for industry or not. Many
                                   current industrial parcels are too small and the ownership too fractured to be utilized
                                   by industry. They could remain dormant for decades. Placing restrictions on the
                                   redevelopment of industrial land may also undermine brownfield and remediation
                                   opportunities for contaminated sites.
92   Urban Development Institute   …inappropriate to even consider any kind of industrial land reserve system outside of
     Pacific Region                the context of a comprehensive review for the needs of BC industries.
93   Urban Development Institute   …concerned that downzoning may occur because the Metro's definition of industrial is
     Pacific Region                not the same as the definition municipalities have.

#     Source                        Comments
94   Urban Development Institute    Strategy 2.2.4 ….should be expanded to develop incentives to construct industrial
     Pacific Region                 space - especially in dormant areas.
95   Urban Development Institute    ….there are currently several industrial sites that are near significant and very
     Pacific Region                 expensive transit services - including SkyTrain and the new Canada Line. In these
                                    cases, it does not make sense to restrict these lands to industrial uses, which
                                    generally have very few jobs per acre.
96   Urban Development Institute    We support Metro's recommendation that local governments develop policies which
     Pacific Region                 "encourage better utilization of existing Industrial areas for industrial activities"….We
                                    ask that more specific guidelines be established for local governments.

97   Urban Development Institute    BC Assessment Authority should specifically be included in the process as their policy
     Pacific Region                 decisions with respect to re-evaluating industrial lands, once re-designated, has a
                                    direct impact on the financial feasibility of ongoing industrial use.
98 Agricultural Land Commission The Agricultural Land Commission Act ("ALC Act") also contains a requirement that a
                                local government in respect of its bylaws (including a bylaw that adopts a regional
                                growth strategy or a bylaw that adopts a regional context statement) must ensure
                                consistency with the ALC Act, the regulations and the orders of the Commission.

99   Agricultural Land CommissionThe Commission welcomes the regional district's focus on maintaining the integrity of
                                 a secure and productive resource base, including the ALR.
100 Agricultural Land Commission There is a need to develop multi-stakeholder comprehensive agricultural impact
                                 assessment, avoidance, management, and where appropriate offset strategies for the
                                 following types of potential non-farm uses in the ALR: transportation routes, utilities
                                 and recreational trails, access to and the development of subsurface resources within
                                 the ALR, such as aggregate materials, waste management, environmental protection,
                                 ecosystem biodiversity conservation.
101 Agricultural Land Commission Given the importance of supporting urban agriculture, and the lead role already taken
                                 by the regional district, the Commission welcomes ongoing attention to this topic.

102 Agricultural Land Commission Given the concerns about non-farm home plate expansion and high impact sitting of
                                 non-farm buildings and structures in the ALR, the Commission looks forward to
                                 working with Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities to address these issues.

103 Agricultural Land Commission The "protection of environmentally sensitive areas" within the ALR should be
                                    integrated with "maintaining the integrity of the ALR" through consultation with the
104 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Third bullet under 2.3.4 asks the ALC to ensure that any exclusions from the ALR are
    Lands                           consistent with Regional Growth Strategy goals. That too should be a shared task
                                    with local governments, as the ALC will not accept an exclusion application if the local
                                    government hasn't forwarded it on to them.
105 David Suzuki Foundation         GOAL 2 …supportive of efforts to protect agricultural lands within Metro Vancouver.
106 David Suzuki Foundation         GOAL 3 The Regional Growth Strategy should aim for no net loss in natural capital
                                    assets in the region, especially agricultural lands.
107 Fraser Valley Regional District Supports policies to support the protection and enhancement of the Region's
                                    agricultural lands through the strengthened Agricultural Area designations.
108 Fraser Valley Regional District Agriculture being critical economic sector - need to preserve agricultural land,
                                    provision of additional tax incentive to local governments, maybe in the form of grants
                                    as we have been subsidizing Metro Vancouver with our agricultural land taxes.

109 Fraser Valley Regional District Supports recognizing agriculture as a critical economic sector.

#     Source                        Comments
110   Urban Development Institute   Strategy 2.3 - Governments need to undertake a comprehensive analysis ensure that
      Pacific Region                unsuitable agricultural land (especially if it is serviced) is not placed in the ALR or
                                    designated "agricultural" under the [Regional Growth Strategy]….if land is being
                                    added to the ALR, consideration should be made for removing parcels from the
                                    Reserve that are not good agricultural land and better located/suited for development.

111 Urban Development Institute    If Strategy 2.3.4 is implemented, the industry would expect that land removed from
      Pacific Region               the ALR would automatically be removed from the Green Zone - or at least that there
                                   would be an expedited process for removal from the Zone.
112 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 48, The implications of Interpretation 7.3.3 are not clear to us. Surrey has a
    Lands                          number of parcels in the ALR where the ALR boundary does not follow the parcel lot
                                   line. Does that mean that if Surrey doesn't put the whole parcel in the "agricultural"
                                   areas map, that the landowner can apply to subdivide it along the ALR boundary
                                   without having to go through the "minor amendment process" in section 7.2.2.?

113 Agricultural Land Commission A new implementation agreement should deal with matters not contemplated in 1996,
                                    including but not necessarily limited to: assisting municipalities with developing home
                                    plate bylaws, developing approaches to edge planning, establishing offset strategies
                                    for use by local governments, TransLink and Metro Vancouver's water, sewer and
                                    waste management arms.
114  BC Ministry of Agriculture and There may be value in determining the regional need for agriculture land in terms of
     Lands                          requirements for food production, "vacancy rate", etc., in a similar context to
                                    discussions on the need for industrial land. This would assist in framing thinking and
                                    discussions looking at future needs.
Agriculture - Suggested Policy Amendments
115 Agricultural Land Commission The Regional Growth Strategy should specify that the ALR is not to be targeted for
                                    residential, industrial or commercial developments, institutional development or
116 Agricultural Land Commission The Commission requests that these avoidance and management policies be stated
                                    in the regional growth strategy and that where appropriate that these policies be
                                    worded so as to establish a basis for an implementation agreement or agreements to
                                    ensure follow-through on matters requiring detailed attention.
117 Agricultural Land Commission Industrial, commercial or general urban developments should be targeted to non-ALR
118 Agricultural Land Commission Institutional development (e.g. correctional facilities, institutes of higher learning)
                                    should be targeted to non-ALR lands and should be located such that their future
                                    expansion options are not within the ALR. Agricultural field programs or agricultural
                                    research facilities associated with such institutions may be considered for sites within
                                    the ALR but generally such decisions will be subject to review of an application to the
119 Agricultural Land Commission Transportation-related developments may be accommodated within the ALR where
                                    absolutely necessary, but only in conjunction with programs which ensure that overall
                                    agricultural production is not only maintained but significantly increased, with the cost
                                    of such programs being integrated with the project budget.
120 Agricultural Land Commission Utility corridors may be accommodated within the ALR subject to appropriate design,
                                    ensuring that the land is restored and enhanced for farm use. Where there is a
                                    proposal to develop a utility corridor to provide a new recreational trail, the
                                    Commission and the farm community must be consulted well in advance and the
                                    Commission will be the final arbiter of whether such a trail will be approved and under
                                    what conditions.

#     Source                       Comments
121   BC Agriculture Council       The one clarification suggested is that it is important to recognize that agricultural
                                   activities on farmland go beyond food production (e.g. floral products, nursery
                                   products, medicinal products and bio-energy) - Add "and other farm products" to
                                   page 8.
122 BC Agriculture Council         Goal 2 is clearly stated and is an important goal for the agriculture industry in the
                                   region. The second sentence of the paragraph on agriculture, however, appears to be
                                   a misprint - is the 28% intended to represent the level of production in the Metro
                                   Vancouver region?
123 BC Agriculture Council         Strategy 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 - These three strategies if implemented effectively would
                                   serve the agriculture sector's needs. Strategy 2.3 could be strengthened by replacing
                                   "…and encourage its use for food production" with "…and strengthen the economic
                                   viability of the agricultural industry".
124 BC Agriculture Council         2.3.3b SUGGESTED AMENDMENT - Identify food production and other agricultural
                                   uses recognized as a "normal farm practice" under the Farm Practices Protection
                                   (Right to Farm) Act to be appropriate uses in the Agricultural area, as determined by
                                   the Agricultural Land Commission
125 BC Agriculture Council         2.3.3g SUGGESTED AMENDMENT - Where appropriate, develop a local agricultural
                                   strategy with input from local farm representatives.
126 BC Agriculture Council         2.3.6 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT • agricultural property tax policies that reinforce
                                   the continued use of agricultural lands for all agricultural uses, especially for food
                                   production, and compensate for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands.....

127 BC Ministry of Agriculture and For all maps that have relevance for the ALR….it would be helpful to have the ALR
    Lands                          boundaries shown, and any areas of the ALR that don't line up with the various
                                   designations (e.g. areas of the ALR that aren't shown as agricultural areas on Map 4)
                                   could be cross-hatched or given some other designation to make them stand out.

128 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 22 For Strategy 1.4, it states that "Municipalities will….support agricultural uses on
    Lands                          rural lands". For any of these "rural areas" that are also in the ALR, perhaps the
                                   wording can reflect the context of the ALR mandate, e.g. "will protect agricultural
                                   uses..." or "will give priority to agricultural uses" on rural land.
129 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 25, Under Goal 2, suggested wording: "In Metro Vancouver, on only 1.5% of the
    Lands                          province's ALR, the farm sector generates 28% of the province's total gross farm
130 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 28 Under Strategy 2.3 "ensure that all lands designated Agriculture in this
    Lands                          Regional Growth Strategy be included in the ALR" Perhaps that task could also be
                                   included under the list of tasks for local governments in the section of "Municipalities
                                   Will:"?.... Perhaps this task should have a reciprocal action incorporated within i.e.
                                   that the ALC AND local governments ensure that all lands included in the ALR also be
                                   designated Agriculture in the Regional Growth Strategy.

131 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 32 Under Strategy 3.1, Action 3.1.3 c) it states that municipalities will "establish
    Lands                          buffers along watercourses…" We suggest adding a clause clarifying that these buffer
                                   zones do no apply to lands in the ALR…
132 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 46 Under Section 7, second paragraph…. Perhaps another clause could be
    Lands                          added to that sentence or a second sentence added along the lines of "and
                                   encouraging planning for agriculture by working with the Ministry of Agriculture and
                                   Lands Strengthening Farming program."
133 BC Ministry of the Environment Elaboration or examples of "policies which improve the management of the rural-
                                   urban interface" could be beneficial.

#     Source                           Comments
134   BC Ministry of the Environment   Strategy 2.3 - Can this section include a commitment that Metro Van and the
                                       Municipalities will encourage the development of Environmental Farm Plans; look for
                                       collaborative and compatible agricultural and recreational uses which support
                                       conservation interests also?
135 BC Hydro                           10. Under Strategy 2.3, MV may wish to comment on the benefits of integrating
                                       agriculture into the community energy system (e.g. using waste CO2 and heating for
                                       greenhouses, using agricultural waste for energy production).
Agriculture - Viability
136 BC Agriculture Council          2.3.2b Facilitate regional agriculture sector initiatives to assist in the marketing of farm
                                    products (e.g. transportation requirements, farmers markets).
137 BC Agriculture Council          2.3.2c Fully consider the potential impact on the profitability of agriculture and its
                                    support sectors prior to implementing regulatory or policy changes.
Goal 2 - Other General Comments
138 Neighbourhoods for a            Developments impacting highways should also be under municipal control.
     BC t i bl
139 S Hydro V                       9. Under Goal 2, we suggest that MV may wish to articulate the economic benefits of
                                    local energy generation and efficiency measures (such as retrofits).
140  BC Ministry of the Environment Map 4 highlights the extensive vulnerability of many of the industrial lands (e.g. on the
                                    floodplain) even where strategically located….There are no strategies to address this
                                    economic vulnerability.
141 Business Council of British     …shortcoming of the draft plan is its limited treatment of the economy and the failure
     Columbia                       to recognize the importance of a strong and diverse industrial base to the region's
                                    standard of living and quality of life.
142 Business Council of British     …we suggest that the wording of the second goal listed above should be modified as
     Columbia                       follows. "Support a prosperous and sustainable economy".
143 Business Council of British     ...economic section of the document devotes disproportionate attention to agriculture
     Columbia                       and has very little to say about the other industries that drive Greater Vancouver's
                                    economy.....the Regional Growth Strategy is predominantly a land use strategy, and
                                    therefore agriculture naturally features in the document, readers of the draft could be
                                    left with the impression that agriculture is the most important industry in Greater
144 Business Council of British     We recommend that the Regional Growth Strategy reference the role of large city-
     Columbia                       regions in shaping the broader competitive dynamic among countries in the
                                    contemporary global economy.
145 Business Council of British     …question of whether a region has a broader economic vision or strategy.
     C l bi Council of British
146                                 …it would be easier if Metro Vancouver had a region-wide economic perspective that
     Columbia                       was integrated with land use planning (not solely for industrial but for other uses as
147 Business Council of British     Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities should be developing their growth
     Columbia                       strategies and land use plans with a view to leveraging the opportunities created by
                                    the Gateway Strategy for the benefit of the entire region.
148 Business Council of British     The absence of a regional approach to economic development continues to handicap
     Columbia                       Greater Vancouver.
149 Business Council of British     …see advantages in doing more work on economic development at a regional level,
     Columbia                       even if it is undertaken outside of the current Regional Growth Strategy process.
150 Business Council of British     Two essential elements of regional economic development are the strategy itself and
     Columbia                       its companion use as a marketing and investment attraction tool.
151 Business Council of British     Given the governance structure and political culture of Greater Vancouver, it may be
     Columbia                       that a regional economic development strategy can only be pursued outside the
                                    framework of Metro Vancouver. However, we are encouraged by the Metro
                                    Vancouver Commerce initiative being spearheaded by the Vancouver Economic
                                    Development Commission.

#     Source                        Comments
152   Business Council of British   Metro Vancouver invests no resources in promoting and marketing the region to
      Columbia                      attract investment and high-value business activity, and its component municipalities
                                    have allocated only limited budgets to do so. This is one area where Greater
                                    Vancouver is falling behind.
153 David Suzuki Foundation         GOAL 2 This goal statement should be restated because the strategies do not ensure
                                    that industry, commercial or agriculture in the region embrace sustainability or better
                                    environmental practices.
154 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes supporting a sustainable economy by recognizing
                                    Abbotsford International Airport as a significant long-term economic generator of the
                                    Lower Mainland.

# Source            Comments
Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets
Conservation and Recreation Land Designation
155 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 3 …the strategy listed in the Regional Growth Strategy is not sufficient to
                                   achieve this goal as it is limited to the protection of conservation and recreational
                                   lands in the region only. Protecting, enhancing and restoring natural capital in the
                                   region also necessitates proper management of other lands outside of formally
                                   designated conservation zones, especially agricultural lands.
156 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 3 What can't be determine a priori is whether what is present now will be able
                                   to provide 3.4 million future residents the same quality of life.
157 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 3 The Regional Growth Strategy should aim for no net loss in natural capital
                                   assets in the region especially agricultural lands.
158 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 3 Particular priority should be given to identifying, securing and protecting
                                   important habitat for endangered species and ecosystems (e.g. coastal Douglas Fir
159 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 3 Towards this end, Metro Vancouver should advocate for the adoption of a
                                   provincial Species and Ecosystem Protection ACT (SEPA) - that would establish a
                                   level playing field for all municipalities in the province and the region in evaluating
                                   development options.
160 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 3.1.5 - Ministry of Environment has not committed to providing long-term
                                   funding to generic strategy development.
161 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 3.1.6 - Development of wildlife management plans will be guided by the
                                   conservation framework and ministry/division priorities.
162 David Suzuki Foundation        Conservation of existing carbon reserves in the region's natural areas is not only the
                                   most effective mitigation strategy for the land use sector, it provides a suite of other
                                   co-benefits that are critical for the ongoing health and well-being of the region's
163 Environment Canada             To better address biodiveristy in its land-use planning, encourge Metro Vancouver to
                                   adopt the conservation policies listed in the "Strategic Directions for Biodiversity
                                   Conservation in the Metro Vancouver Region."
164 Environment Canada             The "Green Zone" is an effective brand to communicate and protect green spaces
                                   throughout Metro vancouver. To protect Metro Vancouver's green spaces,
                                   Environment Canada suggests that these classifications' specific roles should be
                                   further clarified as sub-sets of the Green zone, to ensure a consistent approach in
                                   their application.
165 Environment Canada             the level of conservation protection for aquatic areas, tidal flats and wetlands, is
                                   unclear. Environment Canada recommends that the foreshores of Sturgeon Bank,
                                   Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay specifically be assigned as conservation areas as
                                   they have a very high bidiversity index.
166 Environment Canada             The Regional Context Statements refer to protection of critical habitats. "Critical
                                   habitats" is a legal term defined under the federal Species At Rist Act. Thus, it may
                                   be prudent to alter this strategy's phrasing to "important" or "significant" to avoid
167 Environment Canada             For strategy 3.1.3C: Aseconomcially important features, explicit commitments to
                                   conserve and protect watershed areas should be made.
168 Environment Canada             For strategy 3.1.5: To reduce confusion, this requested provincial and federal action
                                   should be expanded, including details on resources, timelines, partnerships and
                                   expected outcomes.
169 Environment Canada             Partnership opportunities with non-governmental organizations should be highlighted
                                   in this section, as they can provide great stewardship and conservation roles.

170 Fraser Valley Regional District Need for continued co-operation and coordination on parks issues with the Fraser
                                    Valley Regional District and awareness of issues related to widespread use of Fraser
                                    Valley Regional District recreation areas by Metro Vancouver residents.

#     Source                            Comments
171   Fraser Valley Regional District
                                    Supports policies to support the protection and enhancement of natural areas through
                                    the inclusion of the new Conservation/Recreation areas.
172 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes the need for continued co-operation and coordination on
                                    parks issues with the Fraser Valley Regional District given the current and future
                                    interconnections with Fraser Valley Regional District parks and trails and the
                                    widespread use of Fraser Valley Regional District recreation and conservation areas
                                    by Metro Vancouver residents.
173 Neighbourhoods for a            ….some green zones are shown within Urban Containment boundaries and should be
    Sustainable Vancouver           excluded so they cannot be developed.
174 Urban Development Institute     Strategy 3.1 - UDI is very supportive of the concept of Metro Vancouver developing
    Pacific Region                  parks.
175 Urban Development Institute     One emerging issue that developers and local governments are facing is increasing
    Pacific Region                  park Development Cost Charges - especially in Town/Regional Centre areas.
176 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes the need to identify wildlife corridors within Metro Vancouver
                                    and their connections to similar corridors in Fraser Valley Regional District.

177 BC Ministry of the Environment To protect Natural Assets, it would seem that the only strategy is to protect
                                   conservation and recreation lands. Protection of ecological goods and services in
                                   other areas seem to be intended but strategies for these goods and services are not
                                   completely clear (e.g. urban forests throughout urban areas, water management).
                                   Strategies to enhance ecosystem attributes throughout urban space should also be
178 BC Ministry of the Environment Development should occur with current and future climate change impacts in mind,
                                   e.g. flood construction levels in low lying coastal areas.
179 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 3.1.2 should also consider new land that will become critical habitat in the
                                   future. For example, sea level rise will result in coastal squeeze unless ecosystems
                                   can migrate inland. It should be recognized that the distribution of habitats and
                                   species will be affected by climate change.
180 David Suzuki Foundation        SUGGESTED INCLUSION: strategy 1.3, 2.3 and 3.1 "Include forests, land use, the
                                   forest-product sector, bioenergy and other renewable wood-derived bio-products in
                                   the government's climate action strategy. This should be done with the involvement of
                                   stakeholders in a full assessment of mitigation options in terms of greenhouse gas
                                   benefits, biodiversity values and other co-benefits."
181 David Suzuki Foundation        Metro Vancouver's forests, wetlands, bogs, estuaries and other ecosystems play a
                                   critical role in carbon sequestration and storage, and act as a "hedge" against global

# Source          Comments
Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities
Diverse and Affordable Housing
182 BC Non-Profit Housing           BCNPHA supports the Regional Growth Strategy's request that the federal and
     Association                    provincial governments provide capital and operating funding for the development of
                                    2,150 units of social housing per year over the next ten years.
183 BC Non-Profit Housing           ...applaud its effort to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the full range of
     Association                    incomes and needs across the region.
184 BC Non-Profit Housing           Increasing the supply and limiting the loss of existing rental stock are valuable tools
     Association                    for ensuring the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income
185 David Suzuki Foundation         GOAL 4 We support the identification of housing needs throughout the region and call
                                    on all levels of government to address those needs with a range of ownership and
                                    rental housing options.
186 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes continued co-operation and co-ordination of housing and
                                    homelessness issues, recognizing that housing affordability issues within Metro
                                    Vancouver have extended beyond Metro Vancouver into the Fraser Valley and that
                                    federal and provincial dollars should be allocated throughout the Lower Mainland, not
                                    just Metro Vancouver.
187 Greater Vancouver Home          Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that increase supply and
     Builders' Association          diversity of housing.
188 Greater Vancouver Home          Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that encourages funds from
     Builders' Association          senior levels of government for affordable, social, transitional and supportive housing
189 Greater Vancouver Home          There are contradictions in the strategy that will erode affordability and choice. . .
     Builders' Association          including policies that will distort market prices such as inclusionary zoning.
190 Greater Vancouver Home          There are contradictions in the strategy that will erode affordability and choice. . .
     Builders' Association          Including regulatory and enforcement approaches.
191 Lower Mainland Network for      ….market alone is unable to meet the housing and other needs of a growing segment
     Affordable Housing             of today's population.
192 Lower Mainland Network for      ….support the overall vision and many of the goals.
     Affordable Housing
193 Lower Mainland Network for    ….applaud the attempt to plan to provide diverse and affordable housing choices for a
     Affordable Housing           variety of households and incomes.
194 Lower Mainland Network for    We agree that to meet the need for affordability, at least 25% of new development
     Affordable Housing           must be geared to those with low to moderate incomes.
195 Lower Mainland Network for    We also agree that we must limit the loss of existing rental stock and develop policies
     Affordable Housing           to mitigate development impacts on tenants. Indeed if we wish to address
                                  homelessness, we must do more to keep people from falling out of housing.
196 Urban Development Institute   The plan recommendations for additional requirements for new developments will
     Pacific Region               increase costs.
197 Urban Development Institute   Strategy 4.1 - …the industry opposes the concept of the proposed region-wide
     Pacific Region               inclusionary zoning policies.
198 Urban Development Institute   We maintain that the housing affordability problem in Vancouver in large part is due to
     Pacific Region               supply problems.
199 Urban Development Institute   If targets are needed to encourage affordable housing, then local governments should
     Pacific Region               be asked to pre-zone specified numbers of apartment/townhouse units or compact
                                  lots - especially near transit.
200 Urban Development Institute   Regulatory costs, lengthy approval processes and high fees/charges impact the
     Pacific Region               affordability of housing. Local governments should be encouraged to lower
                                  Development Cost Charges and other fees such as "voluntary" community amenity
                                  contributions. Development review processing times should also be improved. We
                                  note that pre-zoning, as suggested above, would certainly assist in reducing approval
                                  times and therefore the cost of housing.

#     Source                        Comments
201   Urban Development Institute   If Metro and local governments are serious about affordable housing, then allowing
      Pacific Region                secondary suites, garden suites, coach houses and laneway housing in existing
                                    neighbourhoods has to be a focus of the [Regional Growth Strategy] and every
                                    municipal Housing Action Plan.
202 Urban Development Institute     The targets noted in Tables 1.3 and 1.4 focus on the price of future housing units and
      Pacific Region                its tenure (rental versus ownership). Governments should not be imposing these
                                    types of targets on the private sector - directly or indirectly.
203 Greater Vancouver Home          There are contradictions in the strategy that will erode affordability and choice. . .
      Builders' Association         Including processes that could tie up land development proposals for months.
Climate Change
204 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 4.3 "adequately protect development in areas at higher risk…" might be
                                    better stated as one or both of "guard against the negative impacts of development in
                                    areas of higher risk…" or "shift away from development in areas of higher risk…"
205 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 4.3.3 Upgrades and recovery from natural hazards should be built to higher
                                    standards in anticipation of future climate change impacts; rolling easements where
                                    landowners can't hold back the sea; define suitable levels of risk that are not based
                                    on historical data.
206 BC Ministry of the Environment 4.3.3 (b) should encompass - minimizing risk in the first place where decisions on
                                    land use, development, critical infrastructure, etc, are made with climate change in
207  BC Ministry of the Environment Add as a separate statement: Discourage policies and practices that support
                                    maladaptation e.g. development in vulnerable areas, use of minimum standards,
                                    storm water management. Stronger language for land that hasn't been developed to
                                    minimize future vulnerability.
208 BC Ministry of the Environment The Regional Growth Strategy does not sufficiently acknowledge nor address the
                                    significant flood hazards in the Metro Vancouver area.
209 BC Ministry of the Environment The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy should explicitly support the
                                    provincial position and direction provided in Living Water Smart: "Where new
                                    development on flood plains is unavoidable, it will be flood-proofed to high provincial
210 BC Ministry of the Environment The Metro Vancouver document should also acknowledge that control of
                                    development in flood hazard areas is the most cost-effective means of reducing
                                    floods risks and expected flood damage.
211 BC Ministry of the Environment Suggest including a generalized map of Metro Vancouver showing the location of
                                    major diking systems and extent of the Fraser River floodplain, the sea and additional
212 BC Ministry of the Environment Suggest including dollar estimates for potential flood damage from the provincial
                                    Fraser River design flood and 1:200 coastal storm surge flood.
213 BC Ministry of the Environment Suggest including population numbers for the Fraser River floodplain for 2006 and
                                    projects to 2041.
214 BC Ministry of the Environment Suggest including statements and a few numbers for projected sea level rise as
                                    outlined in the recent Ministry of the Environment/federal government December 2008
                                    report, "Projected Sea Level Changes for BC in the 21st Century" by B Bornhold.

215 BC Ministry of the Environment Suggest including a separate paragraph on "Protecting Coastal Floodplain
                                   Communities from new and long-term increases in flood risk from sea-level rise and
                                   increased storm surge potential."
216 BC Ministry of the Environment Regional Context Statements should include policies that address: Dikes, Floodplain
                                   Management, Emergency Planning and Sea Level Rise.

#     Source                           Comments
217   BC Ministry of the Environment   The document does not include any performance measures for Strategy 4.3.3. Metro
                                       Vancouver should track one or more of the following performance measures: the
                                       population living in the Fraser River floodplain; the annual value of building permits
                                       issued for developments in the Fraser River Floodplain; the increase in expected
                                       flood damage from the Fraser River design flood and 1:200 coastal storm surge.

218 David Suzuki Foundation            GOAL 4 The strategy addressing the resiliency of communities especially in terms of
                                       adapting to the impacts of climate change is pretty minimal……The strategy raises
                                       important issues but then delivers little in the way of answers or direction.
219 dynamic cities project             Update "Climate Adaptation" and "Community Resiliency" planning methodologies to
                                       address the local impacts of global energy, economic, and climate shocks.
220 Urban Development Institute        Strategy 4.3 - UDI is supportive of these actions, but requests industry involvement in
      Pacific Region                   the development of these policies at the local, regional and provincial levels of
221 Fraser Health Municipal            Expand the section which describes well-being to include a definition of health.
      Government Advisory Council

222 Fraser Health Municipal            Add health measures to the monitoring and performance measures included under
      Government Advisory Council      each goal.

223 Fraser Health Municipal            Use health impact assessments, pilot projects and novel health assessment tools in
      Government Advisory Council      collaboration with local experts to ensure health is prioritized in planning decisions.

224 Fraser Health, Chief Medical       GOAL 4, Develop Complete and Resilient Communities can particularly be
      Officer                          strengthened by adding the following strategies: Develop appropriate zoning bylaws
                                       for restaurants, supermarkets and other food service establishments to ensure
                                       equitable access to healthy foods in all neighbourhoods; employ designs that protect
                                       the health of children; ensure equitable distribution of services and amenities by
                                       prioritizing placement of services and amenities in disadvantaged areas where fewer
                                       services currently exist and additional services are likely to be of most benefit.

Complete Communities
225 Lower Mainland Network for       To create a sustainable future our planning must begin with food, health and housing;
      Affordable Housing             developing pedestrian oriented neighbourhoods including and recognizing jobs,
                                     supports and services that should be easily accessible to all.
226   Greater Vancouver Home         Supports the elements of the Regional Growth Strategy that develop inclusive
      Builders' Association          communities.
227   Urban Development Institute    Local governments are hoping to have higher park standards throughout their
      Pacific Region                 neighbourhoods…..Land values are very high, so park acquisition costs can be in the
                                     tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
228   Urban Development Institute    As the population of Metro grows, up to and beyond the year 2040, the ability to have
      Pacific Region                 significant parks within the Urban Area will become more costly and difficult.
229   Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief Goal 4 aims to develop complete and resilient communities, yet there is no mention of
      Medical Health Officer         the role of land use planning in creating crime free neighbourhoods.
230   Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief Strategy 4.2 aims to develop complete, inclusive communities with access to a range
      Medical Health Officer         of services and amenities, but could go further with promoting accessibility by
                                     encouraging universal design.
231   Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief Strategy 4.22b aims to ensure the provision of parks and public spaces which provide
      Medical Health Officer         opportunities for increased social interaction and community engagement but this
                                     could go further to ensure healthy communities through explicitly stating the
                                     importance of arts and culture.
232   BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 4.2 - Will Metro Vancouver or Municipalities encourage the development of
                                     community gardens in public green spaces?

#     Source                       Comments
Goal 4 - Other General Comments
233 BC Ministry of the Environment Strategy 4.2 - Will Metro Vancouver or Municipalities require green building standards
                                   for affordable housing developments?
234 Lower Mainland Network for     We need to focus on people, desires outcomes and optimums rather than maximum
     Affordable Housing            profit.
235 Lower Mainland Network for     Social sustainability should be central to the discussion.
      Affordable Housing
236   Lower Mainland Network for   ….we need to implement a realistic plan to house people of all incomes and all walks
      Affordable Housing           of life.
237 Lower Mainland Network for     ….need to retrofit existing buildings and neighbourhoods in a variety of ways to
      Affordable Housing           become more truly sustainable.
238 Lower Mainland Network for     ….begin with a plan to shelter and feed our existing population in a more sustainable
      Affordable Housing           way before we promote ourselves to the rest of the world.
239 Lower Mainland Network for     There is little recognition of the growing income gap, the gender gap, the pension gap
      Affordable Housing           and the high cost of housing.

# Source          Comments
Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices
Transit and Active Modes
240 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 5 In addition to average commuter trip length, modal split and vehicle
                                   kilometres traveled (VKT) must be monitored.
241 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 5 …it would be highly desirable to establish targets for mode split and VKT in
                                   conjunction with TransLink.
242 Livable Region Coalition       ….Across the region the amount of space devoted to parking and moving cars must
                                   be reduced steadily as transit and other modes are increased.
243   Livable Region Coalition     ….must go beyond Washington State's modest targets and commit to reducing
                                   Vehicle Kilometres Traveled (VKT) by 25% by 2020.
244 Livable Region Coalition       Recommend the following amendment: Frequent Transit Network concept shown on
                                   maps 2 and 6 should specify a frequent transit line within walking distance of all built
                                   up areas in North Surrey, and all other areas of higher existing densities.
245 Urban Development Institute    Strategy 5.1 - We suggest that the goals for this strategy would more likely be
      Pacific Region               achieved if pre-zoning targets were established for areas near transit
246 Vancouver Airport Authority    Both the Regional Growth Strategy and TransLink's 30-Year Strategy have adopted
                                   what we consider to be a too narrowly conceived definition of sustainable
                                   transportation, namely, transit, walking and cycling.
247 Better Environmentally Sound Nothing in the strategy that would help us reverse the overwhelming presence of and
    Transportation                 pressure for more roads.
248 Better Environmentally Sound 5.1.2(a) add two bullets • pursue road pricing policies on a regional basis and;
    Transportation                 •pursue road diets that create space for transit and cycling priorities.
249 Better Environmentally Sound 5.1.2 (b) add a bullet • road diets can be implemented to support safe cycling and
    Transportation                 transit efficiency.
250 BC Ministry of the Environment Metro Vancouver recognizes the need to balance road infrastructure use between
                                   personal vehicles and regional goods movement, though it is unclear what the "where
                                   appropriate" infers within "in any expansion of road capacity, giver priority to transit,
                                   and where appropriate goods and service vehicles."
251 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 2 Of particular concern is the Pacific Gateway Initiative and what it implies in
                                   terms of expansion of the port, rail and road network within the region. To date there
                                   has not been a credible, scientific analysis of the implications of this initiative to the
                                   ambitious climate change objectives of the province and the region.
252 David Suzuki Foundation        GOAL 5 If the regional growth strategy does not articulate that road construction in
                                   the region needs to adapt to and be consistent with Metro Vancouver's vision for the
                                   region, "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", then where will this need be articulated?
253 Livable Region Coalition       Recommend the following amendment: Point 5.2.3 The strategy must clearly oppose
                                   roadway expansions, which drive up vehicle kilometres travelled and emissions.

Goods Movement
254 BC Ministry of the Environment Given the recent growth of marine traffic and its effect on local air quality and GHG
                                   emissions, addressing this concern in the longer range framework of the Regional
                                   Growth Strategy would be appropriate.
255 Business Council of British    Another priority is to identify and protect regional truck routes to connect all of the key
    Columbia                       nodes in the Lower Mainland.
256 Business Council of British    The requirement for timely access to transportation, often via waterways, for finished
    Columbia                       or commodity goods, means that some types of industry may best be located on
                                   waterfront lands.

#     Source                        Comments
257   David Suzuki Foundation       GOAL 5 Any investment in roads, shipping ports and air travel facilities should be
                                    prudent and in all cases should be subject to full environmental reviews as well as
                                    social impact.
258 Greater Vancouver Gateway       ….need to develop a regional goods movement strategy that links current and future
      Council                       industrial centres with the appropriate connectivity to ensure that our Gateway can
                                    accommodate the forecasted growth necessary to meet the needs of our growing
                                    population as well as the growth of Canadian imports and exports and tourism.

259 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes utilizing water corridors, such as the Fraser River, as an
                                    efficient means of moving people and goods.
260 Port of Metro Vancouver         Strategy 5.2 We are pleased with the goods movement priority in this strategy and the
                                    recognition of rail and water transport opportunities.
261 Port of Metro Vancouver         Strategy 5.2.6 We request that Port Metro Vancouver be consulted in the
                                    development of such a goods movement strategy.
Goal 5 - Other General Comments
262 Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes the impact of GHG emissions generated by traffic passing
                                    through the Fraser Valley Regional District into and out of MV be recognized.

263 David Suzuki Foundation           GOAL 5 …expansion of the port and related facilities and transportation network may
                                      first not be realistic in the face of expected dramatic increases in oil prices and global
                                      actions to move to a carbon free future.
264   Fraser Valley Regional District The Regional Growth Strategy should recognize the importance of linkages to the
                                      Fraser Valley transportation corridor.
265   Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes the impact of significant population growth in Metro
                                      Vancouver on Fraser Valley Regional District transportation and recreation facilities
                                      and air quality.
266   Fraser Valley Regional District Area of concern includes road and transit connections to the Fraser Valley Regional
                                      District, recognizing the growing importance of Abbotsford International Airport as a
                                      facility serving residents of both the Fraser Valley Regional District and Metro
267   Livable Region Coalition        ….Emissions from transportation can be greatly reduced by measures such as re-
                                      directing spending from roadway expansion to transit and reducing parking
                                      requirements. Moreover increasing the people carrying capacity of the existing road
                                      network by converting general purpose lanes to transit, cycling and walking must be
                                      an essential element.
268   Livable Region Coalition        ….The strategy must clearly oppose the Gateway freeway expansion…

# Source          Comments
Regional Growth Strategy - General Comments
269 BC Hydro                         We strongly support the goals articulated within the Regional Growth Strategy.
270 BC Hydro                         …goals could be strengthened further with a more focused energy vision and actions.

271 BC Hydro                         On page 8…."Reducing Fossil Fuel Use and GHG Emissions"….we believe this could
                                     be reframed as "Reducing ENERGY use and GHG emissions" …. Metro Vancouver
                                     produces double the GHG's per capita and uses three times the energy as a
                                     European city such as Copenhagen.
272 BC Hydro                         Energy strategies appear under goal 1 and 4. These strategies could be strengthened
                                     through cross-referencing to some of the resource recovery actions in the Liquid and
                                     Solid Waste Management Plans.
273 BC Ministry of the Environment   It may be beneficial if the connections with those other (Metro) plans were more
                                     evident throughout the strategy, and within the strategies and policies identified.
274 BC Ministry of the Environment   Overall, the Regional Growth Strategy should be developed using a climate change
                                     lens (both adaptation and mitigation).
275 BC Ministry of the Environment   "Key Elements of the Plan" - This section could benefit from a dedicated energy
                                     section and the opportunity to profile efforts to transition an increasing proportion of
                                     industry to green, high tech and/or service-oriented industries.
276 BC Ministry of the Environment   • Page 11 - Conservation/Recreation area - This section refers to critical habitat. Is
                                     that critical habitat as per the definition under the federal Species at Risk Act or a
                                     generic reference? When some folks see critical habitat, it is a reference to the
                                     federal legislation. There is a need to confirm intent of this term.
277 BC Ministry of the Environment   If appropriate, consider linking in the Zero Waste Challenge which is clearly linked to
                                     liveable cities, land use and greenhouse gas emissions.
278 David Suzuki Foundation          On a general note, the linkages of the five goals should be noted….it is the overlap
                                     that ensures that the regional growth strategy is all encompassing and effective.
279 dynamic cities project           Explicitly acknowledge oil depletion (peak oil) as a key factor in current regional
                                     planning for the period 2010 - 2040.
280 dynamic cities project           Adopt a regional oil consumption target.
281 dynamic cities project           Update Infrastructure planning methodologies to incorporate both current and future
                                     demand shifts driven by combined impacts of peak oil and climate change.
282 BC Hydro                         We believe the Region could and should have a strong role in any local energy
283 Business Council of British      ...conceptual positioning of the Regional Growth Strategy as just one of a "suite" of
      Columbia                       plans mandated by Metro Vancouver within its SRI framework is inappropriate for
                                     such a far-reaching document. The Regional Growth Strategy is expected to shape
                                     growth in the region for years to come, and it will also influence other plans identified
                                     in the framework, such as those for air quality and housing. As such, the Regional
                                     Growth Strategy should occupy a prominent position in Metro Vancouver's hierarchy
                                     of policies and plans.
284 David Suzuki Foundation          The strategies associated with this goal seem to capture the essence of what has to
                                     be done but neither convey a vision of what the region will look like in 2040 nor the
                                     urgency of picking up this challenge.
285 dynamic cities project           Convene a regional forum on Post-Carbon Economic Development and
299 Fraser Health, Chief Medical     Section A Context for the Regional Growth Strategy - This section should better
      Officer                        reflect the importance of health and well-being of current and future generations so
                                     clearly articulated in the vision statement. A definition of health such as that used by
                                     the World Health Organization in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion would
                                     ensure this is fully understood and supported through the rest of the document.

#     Source                          Comments
295   Fraser Health, Chief Medical    Section B and D The Regional Growth Strategy and Key Elements of the Plan -
      Officer                         Section B identifies several key areas and related management documents where
                                      health and planning have traditionally intersected.
296 Fraser Health, Chief Medical      Section B and D the Regional Growth Strategy and Key Elements of the Plan - This
      Officer                         section would be strengthened by explicitly mentioning the broader implications of
                                      land use planning as a key health determinant.
292 Fraser Health Municipal           Strengthen the health perspective.
      Government Advisory Council

293 Fraser Health Municipal           Include health authorities as key partners in future planning processes.
      Government Advisory Council

294 Fraser Health Municipal           Require a health lens, including the above measures, be applied to all regional
      Government Advisory Council     context statements and official community plans.

300 Fraser Valley Regional District Supports the vision for a sustainable region, and the overall intent of the goals and
                                    strategic directions of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy.
286 Fraser Valley Regional District The Regional Growth Strategy should recognize the common airshed.

287 Fraser Valley Regional District    Need to recognize that the Fraser Valley Regional District is also dealing with the
                                      challenge of planning for sustainable communities while at the same time providing
                                      resources such as aggregate, food, recreational opportunities, utility and
                                      transportation corridors to the Vancouver Metropolitan area.
288 Greater Vancouver Gateway         A Regional approach to both land use and economic development would, in our
      Council                         opinion, go a long way to assisting us reach our full potential as Canada's Gateway to
                                      the Asia Pacific Region.
289 Neighbourhoods for a              ….timelines are much too short for broad and detailed consultation as this kind of plan
      Sustainable Vancouver           requires.
290 Squamish-Lillooet Regional        The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District advises Metro Vancouver that it commends
      District                        the approach taken and the work completed to date on its preliminary draft Regional
                                      Growth Strategy, and note that the document complements the SLRD's own Regional
                                      Growth Strategy (which is presently at second reading).
291 TransLink                         Supports the Regional Growth Strategy vision, goals, note alignment with TransLink's
                                      long range plans. Wish to continue on-going dialogue with Metro Vancouver to
                                      ensure policies of strategy reflect mandates of Metro Vancouver and TransLink.

292 Urban Development Institute    It is important that landowners have a clear understanding about how their lands are
      Pacific Region               designated on the Regional Growth Strategy Map.
293 Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief Land use planning is a powerful tool to enable community members to make healthier
     Medical Health Officer        choices. It is for this reason that we applaud Metro's most recent draft regional
                                   growth strategy for its enhanced focus on the connections between land use policies
                                   and community health, specifically the emphasis on public transportation, greenhouse
                                   gas reductions, the protection of agricultural land and the development of complete,
                                   inclusive and affordable communities.
294 Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief The document describes Metro's role in advocating for reduced air contaminants and
     Medical Health Officer        clean air, but there is no explicit mention of a strategy to protect and promote air
                                   quality. While the strategies to protect water are clearer, they too could use more
                                   explicit and direct mention in the document strategies.
Regional Growth Strategy - Governance
295 Dunbar Residents' Association We ask that the plan limit municipalities' control over land use planning and approvals
                                   within their boundaries, and to extend the authority of TransLink, be rejected.

#     Source                        Comments
296   Neighbourhoods for a          We oppose Metro, Provincial and TransLink regulation of municipal Official
      Sustainable Vancouver         Community Plans (Official Community Plan)….it would make municipal officials less
                                    accountable and public involvement in planning virtually meaningless. Municipalities
                                    should retain control over land use planning and approvals within their boundaries.

297 Neighbourhoods for a            Metro should have no authority over or formal input into land use policy other than
      Sustainable Vancouver         green zones and industrial areas.
298 Neighbourhoods for a            Regional growth strategies are too prescriptive.
      Sustainable Vancouver
Regional Growth Strategy - Implementation
299 Neighbourhoods for a            Exemptions from the Green Zones should require unanimous support of the Metro
     Sustainable Vancouver          Board, not just 2/3 support as proposed.
300 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 48, Under section 7.2.2 Could the list of factors to be considered under a) be
     Lands                          expanded to include: -the net benefits to agriculture when the boundary adjustment
                                    involves ALR land?
301 Fraser Health, Chief Medical    Section 7 implementation - Suggestions to ensure successful implementation of the
     Officer                        Regional Growth Strategy that fully recognizes the profound impact of the built
                                    environment on health are; to include health authorities as key partners in future
                                    planning processes. Health authorities can play a meaningful role in advocating for
                                    and articulating the importance of incorporating health perspectives into planning; use
                                    health impact assessments, pilot projects and novel health assessment tools in
                                    collaboration with local experts to ensure health is prioritized in planning decisions;
                                    require a health lens, including the above measures, to be applied to all Regional
                                    Context Statements and Official Community Plans.
303 Fraser Health, Chief Medical    Section 8 Monitoring and Performance Measures - Adding health-related indicators
     Officer                        and targets to the proposed monitoring and performance measures included under
                                    each goal would: focus planning to ensure health perspectives are considered; help
                                    assess the status and progress of initiatives related to the healthy built environment;
                                    recognize the shared responsibility for health across multiple sectors.
304 Fraser Health, Chief Medical    One example would be to monitor motor vehicle collisions to ensure strategy 5.1.2 (a)
     Officer                        design or retrofit streets to be safe, accessible and compatible for enhanced transit
                                    services, cycling and walking is achieved.
305 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Pg. 50, Section 8, Strategy 1.3.2 It's also not clear to us what the goal is - is there a
     Lands                          target for the overall population and residential density in the rural areas? If so, how is
                                    it determined? If the population numbers and residential density increase from year to
                                    year, will that mean the strategy is not being met? Perhaps the areas of actively
                                    farmed land, and area under Edge Planning would be alternate performance
                                    measures or useful additions?
306  BC Ministry of the Environment How will developed areas be defined in "Percentage of growth occurring in developed
307 BC Ministry of the Environment Would seem problematic to quantify "Range and diversity of needs addressed."

308 Vancouver Airport Authority    ….we recommend that you adopt an outcome-based approach using metrics such as
                                   GHG's per passenger kilometre, low income household spending on mobility and the
                                   speed and reliability of intra-regional travel.
309 Vancouver Coastal Health-Chief We also feel that specifying performance measures with targets and benchmarks
    Medical Health Officer         would strengthen the plan's effectiveness.

Key Lessons from the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 1 of 10                                                                               5.2

                                  Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009

To:        Technical Advisory Committee

From:      Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Metro Vancouver

Date:      July 15, 2009

Subject:   Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study


That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report dated July 15,
2009, titled “Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study”.


This report presents high-level transportation performance results from the Metropolitan
Growth Management Scenario Study which was carried out by Metro Vancouver staff with
the assistance of Delcan, and in consultation with TransLink. The Scenario Study was a
“sketch planning” exercise which evaluated the motor vehicle emissions and travel demand
implications of alternative growth scenarios in conjunction with expanded transportation
supply. Staff is currently completing the full documentation of the Scenario Study and will
make it available upon completion.


Policy Context

Two of the fundamental strategies proposed in the draft Regional Growth Strategy are to
contain growth within an Urban Containment Boundary and to focus that growth in Urban
Centres and in areas along Frequent Transit Network corridors. By focusing growth in areas
where there is or will be high quality transit services, the propensity to take transit, walk, or
cycle increases, and average trip distance, vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and emissions
would be reduced. These strategies reinforce the strong connection between land use,
transportation, and emissions, and the need to coordinate the Regional Growth Strategy
with TransLink’s Transport 2040 vision to meet regional air quality objectives and
greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The purpose of the Scenario Study was to attain a better understanding of the transportation
and emissions performance of this type of policy-based land use pattern. The Regional
Transportation Model (RTM) was used to conduct the travel demand forecasting component
of the Study.

Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 2 of 10

General “Sketch Planning” Methodology

The general approach employed was to construct combinations of future growth patterns
and transportation infrastructure, or scenarios, for 2021 and 2041 and run them through the
RTM to estimate the region’s transportation performance. The outputs of the RTM would
then be inputted into Metro Vancouver’s emissions models to generate the common air
contaminant and greenhouse gas emissions.1

The Scenario Study comprised four major elements: land use, transportation supply, pricing
sensitivity, and emissions rules sensitivity. The land use and transportation elements each
comprised three scenarios (see Tables 1, 2 and 3).

Under the land use element, the L2 scenario is consistent with the draft Regional Growth
Strategy target of focusing two-thirds of future growth into centres and corridors. Both the
L1 and L3 scenarios were bookends, with L1 representing a more dispersed growth pattern
(only 40-50% of growth in centres and corridors) and L3 on the opposite extreme with 80%
of growth going into centres and corridors.

The three scenarios within the transportation element relate to current plans by the province
and TransLink. The Provincial Gateway Program was assumed to be fully implemented in
all scenarios. The T2 scenario assumed full implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan
by 2021, comprising assumed rail rapid transit and rapid bus corridors. The T3 scenario
pivots off T2 and includes headway upgrades on most transit services by 2041. The T1
scenario assumed that there would be no rapid transit extensions in Surrey and to UBC, as
well as no headway improvements beyond 2021.2

The process of developing the scenarios was a collaborative effort between Metro
Vancouver and TransLink staff. Metro Vancouver identified the land use projections and
emissions rules assumptions. The growth scenarios were prepared as conceptual
“sketches” only. TransLink provided input on the appropriate transit and highway
assumptions for the T2 and T3 scenarios. MRTAC members provided input on the T1
scenario. In all, 13 combinations of land use and transportation scenarios were constructed
for 2021 and 2041, including the 2003 base year. Including the myriad of sensitivity tests,
38 scenarios were run through the RTM.

  Metro Vancouver retained the services of Delcan to customize the RTM and to conduct the travel
demand forecasting runs; the final report is available upon request – see Attachment A for the Table
of Contents); Metro Vancouver generated emissions using the MOBILE 6.2C and GHG models.
  In T1, the Millennium SkyTrain line was assumed to be extended to Cambie only and connect to the
Canada Line.

                                        Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
                                                 Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
                                                                                            Page 3 of 10

Table 1. Major Elements in Scenario Study
Land Use Element
L1: Business-As-Usual: such as continual dispersal of job growth into the general urban area as
opposed to focusing into centres and corridors
L2: Centres & Corridors: focusing two-thirds of residential and job growth into Urban Centres
and areas along the Frequent Transit corridors
L3: Centres & Corridors PLUS: focusing over 80% of residential and job growth into Urban
Centres and areas along the Frequent Transit corridors

Transportation Supply Element
T1: Partial Implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan (exclude rapid transit extensions in
Surrey and to UBC)
T2: Full Implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan by 2021
T3: Full Implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan by 2041, including headway upgrades on
all transit routes
Note: Full implementation of the Provincial Gateway Program is assumed in all scenarios.

Pricing Sensitivity Element
Test the impacts of introducing road user pricing on a per kilometre basis.

Emissions Rules/Technology Sensitivity Element
Test the impacts of stricter tailpipe standards, renewable fuel standards, and other measures
beyond what the province or federal government have currently adopted.

Table 2. Population Growth Allocation (2006-2041)
Geography        L1 Business-As-Usual           L2 Centres &                    L3 Centres &
                                                   Corridors                  Corridors PLUS
Centres                           25%                   33%                              46%
Corridors                         17%                   30%                              35%
General Urban                     58%                   37%                              19%
Total                            100%                  100%                             100%

Table 3. Employment Growth Allocation (2006-2041)
Geography       L1 Business-As-Usual           L2 Centres &                     L3 Centres &
                                                  Corridors                   Corridors PLUS
Centres                         35%                    49%                               59%
Corridors                       23%                    23%                               27%
General Urban                   42%                    28%                               14%
Total                          100%                   100%                              100%

Key Transportation Performance Results

As noted above, the RTM incorporates future land use and transportation supply to simulate
travel demand for driving, transit, walking, and cycling in the AM peak hour. These outputs
become inputs into Metro Vancouver’s emissions models, which generate the emissions for
common air contaminants (i.e., ozone precursors and particulate matter) and greenhouse
gases. This report presents results for the key transportation performance measures for the
year 2041.

Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 4 of 10

Vehicle Kilometres Travelled

Vehicle kilometres travelled is the most robust performance measure of the success that
growth management and transportation policies have on reducing automobile use and
emissions. Notwithstanding the speed of travel on specific corridors and times of the day,
the more kilometres that are driven, the more gasoline and diesel are consumed and
combusted, and the more emissions are generated.

All scenarios show that the amount of travel will increase significantly from 2003 to 2041.
This is not unexpected as the region is projected to add one million residents. However,
with the more concentrated scenarios, light duty passenger vehicles (auto) travel fewer
kilometres. The pattern is consistent regardless of the transit infrastructure and service

The reduction in VKT is driven in large part to decreases in auto trip distances and shifts in
trips from auto to transit.


                     5,000,000                4,840,000
                                                          4,749,000               4,704,000
                                                                      4,597,000               4,610,000

  AM Peak Hour VKT






                                 2003 Base     L1T1        L2T1        L3T1        L1T3        L2T3        L3T3

Figure 1. 2041 AM Peak Hour Light Duty VKT for Metro Vancouver

                                                                             Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
                                                                                      Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
                                                                                                                                 Page 5 of 10

Trip Distance

As Figure 2 shows, the average AM peak hour auto trip distances increase measurably from
the base year of 2003 to 2041. Trip distances are generally shorter with more focused
growth patterns (L2T1 is an anomaly). By significantly ramping up transit service levels (T3)
and matching them to either L2 or L3, the average auto trip distance reverts essentially to
the 2003 level.

  AM Peak Hour Average Auto Trip Distance (km)



                                                           10.78                                                    10.78



                                                         2003 Base   L1T1    L2T1         L3T1         L1T3         L2T3         L3T3

Figure 2. 2041 AM Peak Hour Average Auto Trip Distance (km)

Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 6 of 10

Mode Share

The other factor contributing to the observed reduction in VKT is mode shift. As Figure 3
shows, similar to in Figure 1, the proportion of automobile trips (auto driver) declines with
each step in the intensity of land use (L1 to L2 to L3), as well as with each step up in the
level of transit service (T1 to T3) in 2041. The interesting dynamic is that the decrease in
the proportion of auto driver trips is made up by a corresponding increase in the proportion
of transit trips and, to a lesser extent, walk trips. Both the proportions of cycling and auto
passenger trips remain essentially flat between land use scenarios. As will be discussed
next, the suitability of the RTM to reliably forecast walk and cycling trips in response to local
and regional land use changes is somewhat questionable.






  AM Peak Hour Mode Share


















                                  2003 Base                                L1T1                           L2T1                             L3T1                            L1T3                               L2T3                               L3T3
                                                                   Cycle                          Walk                            Transit                          Auto Passenger                                         Auto Driver

Figure 3. 2041 AM Peak Hour Mode Share

                                                                    Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
                                                                             Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
                                                                                                                        Page 7 of 10

Trip Speed

The final transportation performance measure of interest is auto trip speed. Would ramping
up the intensity of growth in centres and corridors also contribute to increased traffic
congestion? Although average auto speeds do decline in future years when compared to
the 2003 base year, the Scenario Study indicates that as land use intensity and transit
supplies increase, future vehicle trip speeds actually remain about the same (and even
improve slightly). Based on the other performance measures, shorter auto trips and higher
transit mode shares help to reduce the number of autos on the road network, thus
maintaining current auto speeds on a regional basis.

  AM Peak Hour Average Auto Speed (km/hr)

                                                    41.7                                                   41.3          41.4
                                                                    40.6         40.7         40.8





                                                 2003 Base   L1T1   L2T1        L3T1         L1T3          L2T3         L3T3

Figure 4. 2041 AM Peak Hour Average Auto Speed (km/hr)

Key Observations and Model Limitations

Staff is currently preparing the full documentation of the Study, including methodology and
assumptions for the derivation of the land use scenarios and emissions element. In the
meantime, the following observations are made.

First, the direction of change is consistent with expectations that as the region constrains
growth within an Urban Containment Boundary and focuses this growth in centres and along
corridors, coupled with improvements in transit infrastructure and service levels, it will result
in declines in VKT and auto trip distances. Mode share for transit increases, and auto trip
speeds actually remain about the same as today, which is an unexpected outcome given the
large projected increases in population and employment by 2041 and limited new road

Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 8 of 10

Second, the magnitude of change for all the performance measures was much smaller than
expected. Further detailed analyses would be required to determine explanations. One
may speculate that because the region is already comparatively compact, increasing
concentration would provide measurable, but only marginal performance improvements.

Another possible explanation is that the RTM, like any model, has its constraints and
limitations that may have affected the results. Although the RTM retains a good deal of
utility in forecasting travel impacts from changes in transportation capacity or roadway
operations, staff believes the RTM contains significant shortcomings that limits the ability of
regional planners to fully gauge the effect of land use on travel behaviour and the
downstream effects on emissions. Some of these notable shortcomings are:

   •   Households as the Unit of Decision-making: The current RTM generates trips
       based simply on the type and intensity of generalized land uses; and the choice of
       modes is based primarily on the combination of out-of-pocket costs (transit fares,
       parking fees, auto operating cost) and the time-value of money (a function of the
       average hourly wage rate in the region). The RTM does not capture the complexity
       of travel as determined by the characteristics of households.

   •   Household Auto Ownership: The current RTM does not account for the availability
       of vehicles in a household. If a car is not available, then it is less likely that
       household members would drive to work or for other purposes. This parameter is
       especially important in the region as residents of higher density, mixed-use
       neighbourhoods (limited parking supplies and high cost of parking) have fewer
       incentives to purchase a first or even a second car.

   •   Off-Peak Travel: The RTM is currently an AM peak hour model. The 2004 trip diary
       showed that there has been an uplift in transit ridership in the midday period. To the
       degree that this uplift will become more significant in the future cannot be answered
       with the current version of the RTM. It is expected that with the demographic
       changes occurring (more seniors, for example), midday travel will become an
       increasingly important characteristic of the regional transportation system.

   •   Walk and Cycling Trips: The ability for the RTM to generate walk and cycling trips
       is severely limited. Staff has attempted to address this issue indirectly by creating a
       finer-grained traffic zone system and tweaking transit/ walk access penalties.
       However, the latter approach is ad hoc and without empirical foundations

   •   Fuel and Auto Operating Costs: Although the results were not presented in this
       report, the pricing sensitivity tests showed that the current RTM is much too sensitive
       to changes in the cost of operating an auto (as represented by distance-based, “pay
       as you drive” pricing). As a corollary, the current RTM is not capable of handling
       expected increases in fuel costs (i.e., resulting from constrained oil supplies and
       increasing demand from developing nations). This observation has been made by
       modelers comparing results in Metro Vancouver to model outputs in other
       metropolitan regions.

   •   Culture/Attitudinal Changes: Finally, no model is capable of capturing changes in
       cultural attitudes. Every travel demand model must be calibrated to the conditions of
       a base year. Its equations are specified so that model outputs closely approximate
       observed behaviour. Any forecasts produced by the model would implicitly reflect
       the cultural attitudes of the day. So, a reckoning of the urgency to go “green” and to

                                     Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
                                              Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
                                                                                         Page 9 of 10

       act “green” will not and cannot be incorporated into a model. This is more the
       reason to receive the outputs of any model, however sophisticated and robust it may
       be, and hold it against common sense, the knowledge of the day, and sound
       professional judgment.

These and potentially other limitations are not insurmountable if resources are allocated to
review the suitability of the current model and to investigate improved forecasting
methodologies and tools that may be suitable for this region. The region has a tradition of
using state-of-the-practice tools to support regional planning, most notably the Transport
2021 medium and long range plans, developed jointly by Metro Vancouver and the province
in the 1990s, and in conjunction with the development of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.

Since that time, major projects have been regularly evaluated on a stand-alone basis using
the RTM, such as the Canada Line and Evergreen Line. Municipalities regularly use
customized versions of the model to conduct subarea traffic impact studies. Metro
Vancouver continues to develop the regional population and employment projections as
land use inputs for the model. TransLink maintains the model and ensures it is regularly
calibrated and reflects current transportation infrastructure and services on the ground.

Today, the RTM is still generally accepted by practitioners in the region as the standard tool
to simulate the travel demand impacts of alternative land use settlement patterns and to
provide input into emissions models. However, a full-scale review of the validity of the
mathematical relationships and coefficients in the model has not been completed since the
1990’s. Other metropolitan regions have updated their travel demand forecasting models to
capture parameters such as vehicle ownership and household income. Even more
advanced models are fully integrated with land use models to simulate the impacts of
transportation decisions on land use growth patterns.

None presented.


Metro Vancouver in collaboration with TransLink, recently conducted a “sketch planning”
exercise which evaluated the performance impacts of alternative growth patterns and
transportation system improvements. The key transportation performance measures were
vehicle kilometres travelled, vehicle trip distance, mode share, and vehicle trip speeds.
Increased concentration of growth within an Urban Containment Boundary and focusing
growth in centres and corridors produced modest reductions in VKT, shorter auto trip
distances, higher transit mode shares and improved auto speeds. However, the magnitude
of impact was significantly less than expected.

The Scenario Study revealed that there are most likely technical limitations in the current
Regional Transportation Model which inhibited a more comprehensive assessment of
various regional land use patterns and transportation supply scenarios. These limitations
are not insurmountable if resources are allocated to review the suitability of the current
model and to investigate improved forecasting methodologies that may be suitable for this
region. The recently amended Local Government Act, which requires municipalities and
regional districts to set greenhouse gas reduction targets, policies, and actions in official
community plans and regional growth strategies amplifies the need for improved model
development. Metro Vancouver staff will look for opportunities to collaborate with TransLink

Results of the Metropolitan Growth Management Scenario Study
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 10 of 10

and the province to improve regional land use/transportation/emissions models and other

Table of Contents from Delcan Report (eRIM doc. #004951519)


                                    5.2 ATTACHMENT

              Final Report
           & ON-ROAD EMISSIONS

                    Submitted By:

                       JUNE 2009

                                                     METROPOLITAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS
                                           IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAVEL PATTERNS & ON-ROAD EMISSIONS
  metro vancouver

                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

                    1.      BACKGROUND AND STUDY SCOPE ............................................................ 1

                    2.      METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 3

                    3.      ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH SCENARIOS ............................... 5

                            Impact on Vehicle Kilometres ........................................................................... 6

                            Impact on Mode Choice .................................................................................. 10

                            Impact on Trip Distance .................................................................................. 13

                            Impact on Vehicle Speeds .............................................................................. 14

                    4.      ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH ................................................ 16

                            Pricing Scenarios ............................................................................................ 16

                            Sensitivity to Transit Access Assumptions ..................................................... 20

                            Initial Sensitivity Tests .................................................................................... 22

                            Vehicle Kilometre Costs.................................................................................. 27

                            Transit Priority Measures ................................................................................ 29

                            Price Sensitivity .............................................................................................. 30

                            Expansion Factors .......................................................................................... 31

                    5.      LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................... 33


                            Appendix A             Presentation Material - Results of the Sensitivity Analysis

                            Appendix B             Literature Review - Price Sensitivity of Vehicle Kilometres

                            Appendix C             Expansion Factor Development

   SW1125SWA – April 2009                                                                                                                    i


                                  Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009

To:          Technical Advisory Committee

From:        Eric Aderneck, Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department
             Neil Spicer, Planning Data Analyst, Policy and Planning Department

Date:        July 15, 2009

Subject:     Housing Data Book

That the Technical Advisory Committee receive for information the report dated July 15,
2009, titled “Housing Data Book”.


A series of housing fact sheets are being developed – compiled as a Housing Data Book –
which will be posted on the Metro Vancouver website to assist member municipalities in
responding to local housing needs and priorities and preparing Housing Action Plans and
other strategies.


Addressing housing needs across the region, including the need for housing that is
affordable to households with low and low to moderate incomes, has been identified as an
on-going priority for Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. To assist member
municipalities in understanding local housing needs and priorities and in developing Housing
Action Plans, a series of housing fact sheets are being developed. The information included
in the fact sheets is provided at the regional, sub-regional, and municipal level, and is based
on data from a number of different sources, including BC Stats, Statistics Canada, and
Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation.

The fact sheets will be grouped according to a number of different themes including:

1.    Household Income
2.    Housing Inventory
3.    Housing Needs
4.    Housing Market Conditions

It is anticipated that the first series of fact sheets will be posted on the Metro Vancouver
website by the end of July. Electronic copies will also be forwarded to TAC members, as
well as the TAC Social Issues Subcommittee and the TAC Housing Subcommittee.

The initial series of housing fact sheets include:

      •   Median Household Income
      •   Median Household Income for Renters
      •   Median Household Income for Owners

Housing Data Book
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2009
Page 2 of 2

    •   Income Distribution for All Households
    •   Income Distribution for Renter Households
    •   Income Distribution for Owner Households
    •   Housing Inventory by Tenure
    •   Housing Inventory by Structure Type
    •   Housing Demand Projections

Additional sheets will be added as the document evolves.

The PDF document will be posted and updated on the Metro Vancouver website and
accessible to the general public, stakeholders, and municipalities. The specific document
location within the website is:

Metro Vancouver > Planning > Regional Development > Housing Diversity

None presented.


The information contained in the housing fact sheets will support municipalities in their
ongoing efforts to develop and implement strategies to meet local housing needs in their




                                           POLICY AND PLANNING                                                                           June 2009

                                           Regional Development Indicators
                    Building Permit Values Metro Vancouver                                                           Housing Starts Metro Vancouver
                        Current Month      Previous Month         Year Ago       % Change                         Current Month Previous Month Year Ago % Change
                               Apr-09              Mar-09           Apr-08         year ago
residential                    $114.7              $102.6           $391.8          -70.7%
                                                                                                                        May-09          Apr-09  May-08 year ago
industrial                       $2.9                $9.5            $10.7          -73.0%        single-detached          210            164      322     -34.8%
commercial                      $32.6               $60.7           $154.7          -78.9%        multiples                259            319    1,435     -82.0%
total                          $174.7              $194.1           $564.8          -69.1%
                    Residential         Industrial           Commercial                Total
                                                                                                  total                    469            483    1,757     -73.3%

             $700                                                                                                            single       multiple       total
             $600                                                                                      3,000
             $500                                                                                      2,500
             $400                                    7                                                 2,000
             $300                                                                                      1,500
             $200                                                                                      1,000
             $100                                                                                        500
             $-                                                                                            0

                                                                                                       Ja 07

                                                                                                       M -08

                                                                                                       M -08
                                                                                                       Ju 08

                                                                                                       Au 8
                                                                                                       S e -08
                                                                                                       O 08

                                                                                                       Ja 08

                                                                                                       M -09

                                                                                                       M 9
                                                                                                       Fe 08

                                                                                                       Ap 08

                                                                                                        Ju 8

                                                                                                       N -0 8
                                                                                                       D -08

                                                                                                       Fe 09

                                                                                                       Ap 09
                M 8

                Ju 8

                Au 8
                S e 08

                O 8

                Ja 8

                M 09

                Ap 8

                 Ju 8

                N 8
                D 08

                Fe 9

                Ap 9

                                                                                                            l- 0



                     l- 0























                                                                                                     Source: CMHC
  Note: Current month is preliminary previous month is revised. Source: Statistics Canada

      Housing Price Index Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board                                            Housing Price Index Fraser Valley Real Estate Board
          Current Month Previous Month                    1 Year Ago %Change from                           Current Month   Previous Month   1 Year Ago %Change from
               May-2009        Apr-2009                     May-2008      year ago                               May-2009          Apr-2009    May-2008      year ago
detached $      680,320 $      675,268                    $ 771,250        -11.8%                 detached $ 465,939         $     460,229 $    513,798        -9.3%
attached   $ 435,848 $         431,759                    $ 478,931         -9.0%                 attached   $ 298,308      $      295,078 $    335,991       -11.2%
apartment $ 349,987 $          340,203                    $ 389,668        -10.2%                 apartment $ 232,170       $      230,337 $    256,887        -9.6%
                                  detached                   attached                   apt
                                                                                                                              detached        attached           apt
    $900,000                                                                                        $900,000

    $700,000                                                                                        $700,000

    $500,000                                                                                        $500,000

    $300,000                                                                                        $300,000

    $100,000                                                                                        $100,000

                                                                                                        M -09
                                                                                                        Ja 07

                                                                                                        M -08

                                                                                                        M 8
                                                                                                        Ju 08

                                                                                                        Au 8
                                                                                                        S e -08
                                                                                                        O 08

                                                                                                        Ja 08

                                                                                                        M -09
                                                                                                         Ju 8

                                                                                                        N -0 8
                                                                                                        D -08

                                                                                                        Fe 09

                                                                                                        Ap 09
                                                                                                        Fe 08

                                                                                                        Ap 08
             Ja -07

             M -08

             M -08

             M 9
             Ju -08

             Au 8
             S e -08
             O 08

             Ja -08

             M -09

             Fe -08

             Ap 08

              Ju 8

             N -0 8
             D -08

             Fe -09

             Ap 09


                                                                                                             l- 0
                  l- 0



























                     Total Transit Ridership Metro Vancouver                                                        Licensed Vehicles Metro Vancouver
  Current Month               Previous Month               Year Ago % Change from                  Current Month        Previous Month     Year Ago % Change from
         Apr-09                       Mar-09                  Apr-08     year ago                        May-09                 Apr-09       May-08      year ago
    14,499,355                   15,069,302              13,983,859         3.7%                      1,490,851             1,474,206     1,472,393         1.3%

        19,000,000                                                                                   1,525,000
        17,000,000                                                                                   1,500,000
        15,000,000                                                                                   1,475,000
        13,000,000                                                                                   1,450,000
        11,000,000                                                                                   1,425,000
         9,000,000                                                                                   1,400,000
         7,000,000                                                                                   1,375,000
         5,000,000                                                                                   1,350,000
         3,000,000                                                                                   1,325,000
         1,000,000                                                                                   1,300,000
                     Ja -07

                     M -08

                       ay 8
                     Ju -08

                     A u l- 0 8
                     S e -08
                     O 08

                     Ja -08

                     M -09

                     D -07

                     Fe -08

                     Ap -08

                      Ju 08

                     N t-08
                     D -08

                     Fe -09

                     Ap -09

                                                                                                            Ja -07

                                                                                                            M -08

                                                                                                            M r-08
                                                                                                            Ju -08

                                                                                                            A u l- 0 8
                                                                                                            S e -08
                                                                                                            O -08

                                                                                                            Ja -08

                                                                                                            M -09

                                                                                                            M r-09
                                                                                                            Fe -08

                                                                                                            Ap -08

                                                                                                             Ju 08

                                                                                                            N -0 8
                                                                                                            D -08

                                                                                                            Fe -09

                                                                                                            Ap -09
                     M r-0





















 Note: Current month is preliminary. Source: Translink                                             Source: ICBC

                                                     For more information, please visit Key Facts on the Metro Vancouver web site:
                                       POLICY AND PLANNING                                                                                   June 2009

                                       Regional Development Indicators
                  Total Labour Force Metro Vancouver                                                     Employed Labour Force Metro Vancouver
   Current Month            Previous Month        Year Ago    % Change from                Current Month               Current Month            Year Ago   % Change from
         May-09                      Apr-09         May-08         year ago                      May-09                       Apr-09              May-08        year ago
      1,322,900                  1,307,100       1,294,700            2.2%                    1,229,800                   1,219,900            1,241,800          -1.0%

   1,300,000                                                                          1,300,000

   1,200,000                                                                          1,200,000

   1,100,000                                                                          1,100,000

   1,000,000                                                                          1,000,000

                                                                                                     Ja -07

                                                                                                     M -08

                                                                                                     M 8
                                                                                                     Ju -08

                                                                                                     A u -08
                                                                                                     S e 08
                                                                                                     O -08

                                                                                                     Ja -08

                                                                                                     M -09

                                                                                                     M -09
                                                                                                     Fe -08

                                                                                                     Ap 08

                                                                                                      Ju 08

                                                                                                     N -0 8
                                                                                                     D -08

                                                                                                     Fe -09

                                                                                                     Ap 09
            Ap -09

            Ap -08

            Ju -08

            Ja -08
            Fe 09
            M -09

            M -09
            Se 08
            O -08
             Ju 08
            Au -08
            Ja -07
            Fe 08
            M -08

            M -08

            No -08
            De -08






















 Source: Statistics Canada                                                                       Source: Statistics Canada

                Unemployment Rate Metro Vancouver                                                      Income Assistance Cases Metro Vancouver
  Current Month              Current Month        Year Ago       Change from                     Current Month       Previous Month        Year Ago    % Change from
        May-09                      Apr-09         May-08           year ago                            Apr-09               Mar-09          Apr-08         year ago
           7.0                        6.7              4.1                2.9                          55,093               54,760          49,567            11.1%

      8.0     %                                                                             57,500
      3.0                                                                                   47,500
      2.0                                                                                   45,000
      1.0                                                                                   42,500
      0.0                                                                                   40,000

                                                                                                   Ja -08

                                                                                                   M -09

                                                                                                   Ja -07

                                                                                                   M -08

                                                                                                   M r-08
                                                                                                   Ju -08

                                                                                                   A u -08
                                                                                                   S e -08
                                                                                                   O -08

                                                                                                   Fe -09

                                                                                                   Ap -09
                                                                                                   Ap -08

                                                                                                    Ju 08

                                                                                                   N -0 8
                                                                                                   D -08
                                                                                                   D -07

                                                                                                   Fe -08
     Ja -07

     M -08

     M r-08
     Ju -08

     A u l- 0 8
     S e -08
     O 08

     Ja -08

     M -09

     M r-09
     Fe -08

     Ap -08

      Ju 08

     N t-08
     D -08

     Fe -09

     Ap -09





















   Source: Statistics Canada                                                               Source: BC Stats

              Consumer Price Index Metro Vancouver                                                                 Retail Sales Metro Vancouver
Current Month Previous Month                   Year Ago % Change from                 Current Month Previous Month                              Year Ago % Change from
      May-09          Apr-09                    May-08       year ago                        Apr-09         Mar-09                                Apr-08      year ago
        113.3          112.6                     113.2          0.1%                  $    1,946.4 $       1,820.7 $                             2,107.8        -7.7%

     115       (2002=100)

     Ja -07

     M -08

     M 8
     Ju -08

     A u -08
     S e 08
     O -08

     Ja -08

     M -09

     M -09
     Fe -08

     Ap 08

      Ju 08

     N -0 8
     D -08

     Fe -09

     Ap 09















                                                                                                         Ja -07

                                                                                                         M -08

                                                                                                         M r-08
                                                                                                         Ju -08

                                                                                                         A u l- 0 8
                                                                                                         S e -08
                                                                                                         O -08

                                                                                                         Ja -08

                                                                                                         M -09

                                                                                                         D -07

                                                                                                         Fe -08

                                                                                                         Ap -08

                                                                                                          Ju 08

                                                                                                         N -0 8
                                                                                                         D -08

                                                                                                         Fe -09

                                                                                                         Ap -09









Source: Statistics Canada
                                                                                      Note: Current month is preliminary previous month is revised.
                                                                                      Source: Statistics Canada

                                              For more information, please visit Key Facts on the Metro Vancouver web site:

Shared By: