Chris Magnus Froi Tracey Arthur, Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:42 AM To: Wayne Baldwin Subject: Tracey: City of White Rock Release of Information Regional Growth Strategy Attachments: 15 - Legal Opinion RGS.pdf Mayor Baldwin, the attached information as per your request. ‘This was officially released via the following motion by Council at the September 19, 2016 Closed meeting: THAT Council waives privilege and endorses the Mayor to release the legal opinion provided by D. Lidstone of Lidstone and Company dated October 1, 2015, titled “Regional Growth Strategy and the Official Community Plan File 10175-080, TRACEY ARTHUR, CMC City Clerk 15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, BC V4B1¥6 Tel: 604-541-2212 | wwww.whiterockcity.ca WHITE ROCK | By Bs 4 forth ‘Te information transite inluing attachments isintended only for the inlvidual(s] or entitles to which tis adéresed and mey canta information thats confidential and/or privleged or exzrpt tm dclesure under apolebl aw. Ary copying, eve, etranemizson diemination or ather use of, or tking of ry action in reance ypon this nfation by inves) or enites ether than the tended reiplent etc prohiaed, you have received this information in terox please notly the Cty of White Rock and destrey any copies of ts information. Thans you From: Tracey Arthur Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:31 PM To: Don Lidstone (lidstone@lidstone.info) Subject: City of White Rock Release of Information Regional Growth Strategy Hello Don, on Monday Council approved ta waive privilege and enabled the Mayor to release the attached, I wanted you to be aware this was being done. Please let me know of any concerns you may have. Thank you. TRACEY ARTHUR, CMC City Clerk 15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, BC V4B1¥6 Tel: 604-542-2212 | www.whiterockeity.ca WHITE, ROCK eg Ch b The information transmit, ncuding attachments isintended only fer the invidualls) or entitles) to which ts adressed and may contain infomation thats confidential and/or privisged or exempt ftom iclesure under spllable aw. Any copying eve retransmission, dizemination or ater seo or taking of any Aactonin allane upon this infarmatin by inavidaa(s) entities other tha the Intended eepient i strity prone. you have received thi information ‘ror please notify the Cty of White Roek and destroy any copies ofthis information Thank youLIDSTONE & COMPANY BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS October 1, 2015 BY EMAIL Tracey Arthur City Clerk City of White Rock 15322 Buena Vista Avenue White Rock, BC, V4B 1Y6 Dear Tracey: Re: Regional Growth Strategy and the Official Community Plan File 10175-080 ‘Your REQUEST You have requested us to provide the City with a legal opinion in relation to the petitions received by the City Clerk seeking the resignation of Mayor Baldwin in respect of the content of his letter to the editor of the Peace Arch News dated August 26, 2015 on the subject of "Regional Growth Strategy and the Official Community Plan". The Council Procedure bylaw requires the petition to be presented to Council. This legal opinion relates to the Mayor's letter and the petition. MAYOR BALDWIN'S STATEMENTS In his letter, Mayor Baldwin stated among other things that he wished to explain the connection between the regional growth strategy (RGS) of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the official community plan (OCP) of the City of White Rock. In particular, he stated that the City is a member of Metro Vancouver and as such as required by provincial law to operate within the restrictions of the approved regional growth strategy. He stated that one aspect of the RGS is that each municipality must take its share of the forecast growth within the region. It is forecast that there will be one million more people in MV by 2041. The Mayor stated that White Rock's share of that is about 7000. With the City’s present demographic, he says, that will require approximately 4000 new dwelling units. He stated that the RGS requirements were approved by a previous Council in March, 2011, and SUITE 1300 - SUN TOWER - 128 PENDER STREET WEST VANCOUVER BC VoR IRB. TELEPHONE G04-899-2269 - FACSIMILE 604-899-2281 - TOLL FREE 1-877-339-2199 400337731: 2)incorporated into the RGS when it was approved by the Metro Board in July, 2011. ‘LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS. Content of regional growth strategy Aregional board such as the Greater Vancouver Regional Board may adopt an RGS for the purpose of guiding decisions on growth, change and development within the regional district [section 850(1) Local Government Act]. The RGS shall include population projections for the period covered by the RGS [section 850(2)] and to the extent these are regional matters, the RGS must contain actions proposed for the regional district to provide for the needs of the projected population in relation to housing and other matters [section 850(2)(c)(i)]. In this regard, “regional matter” is defined as a matter that involves coordination between or affects more than one municipality [section 848]. Accordingly, under the provincial legislation, the regional district board may adopt an RGS to guide decisions on growth, change and development, and the RGS must include population projections and actions proposed to provide for the needs of the projected population in relation to housing to the extent this is a regional matter that involves coordination between or affects more than one municipality. The GVRD RGS contains population and dwelling unit projections for Metro Vancouver municipalities. The total population of Metro Vancouver in 2041 is forecast to be 3,400,000, an increase of more than 1 million [Appendix A, Table A.1]. The population of White Rock is forecast to be 27,000 by the year 2041 [Appendix A, Table A.1]. This is an increase of about 7000 persons. The total number of dwelling units in White Rock is projected to be 13,400 by 2041, an increase of about 4000. Section 6.2.1 of the RGS says that each municipality must include in its official community plan, and submit to the regional district board for acceptance, a regional context statement (RCS). This is consistent with section 866(1) of the Local Government Act which provides that if the RGS applies to the same area of a municipality as an OCP, its OCP must include an RCS that is accepted by the regional district board. Section 6.2.2 of the RGS provides that the RCS must identify the relationship between the OCP and the goals, strategies and actions identified in the RGS. If applicable, the RCS will identify how the OCP will be made consistent with the RGS over time. This is consistent with section 866(2) of the Local Government Act which provides that an RCS must specifically identify the (00337731; 2)relationship between the OCP and the matters referred to in section 850(2) (that is, the population projections and actions proposed to provide for the needs of the projected population in relation to housing to the extent this is a regional matter) and, if applicable, how are the official community plan is to be made consistent with the regional growth strategy over time. This RGS, which contains the population projections and dwelling unit projections to 2041 for the City of White Rock, was accepted by resolution of the Council of the City of White Rock on March 7, 2011. Legal effect of RGS and RCS Under section 866(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, the council of a member of the regional district must submit a proposed RCS for acceptance by the regional board, and that RCS must specifically identify the relationship between the municipal OCP and the housing and dwelling unit projections of the RGS (and, if applicable, how the OCP is to be made consistent with the RGS over time). After accepting the regional district RGS on March 7, 2011, the White Rock City Council amended its OCP to include an RCS. Among other things, the RCS states that the OCP must include an RCS that is consistent with the rest of the OCP and with the needs of the projected population in relation to housing and other matters in the OCP. In this regard, the RCS states in section 1(a) that the overall land use goal is. to accommodate future population growth and change through appropriate land use designations and strategies that are consistent with community and regional goals and objectives, including compact urban form and complete communities. "There are more specific policies for the redevelopment of the town centre area for high density, mixed commercial/residential uses, and for the gradation or transition of densities for the other designations...". Section 1(b) provides that housing policies are included to support regional growth objectives, which seek a diversity of housing types and also include residential infill housing that is compatible with existing neighborhood areas. Section 1.1 of the RCS sets out specific strategies, including the statement that the "...City will endeavor to achieve the population, dwelling and employment projections in the RGS." The section goes on to provide that recent information from the Canada census has identified that it is more likely the population and dwelling unit figures will be closer to 23,500 for the population in 2041 and 13,000 for the number of dwelling units in 2041. Section 1.2 states that future growth can only be accommodated by infill and redevelopment. The majority of new population and housing 100337731: 2)growth will be directed to the town centre area and adjacent areas permitting multi-unit residential housing. Section 4 of the RCS sets goals and policies, including to accommodate future population growth through appropriate land use designations and strategies that are consistent with community and regional goals and objectives. The conclusion section of the RCS provides that when the City reviews the OCP commencing in 2015, the City will be reviewing the population and housing projections to extend those projections 2041 consistent with the regional growth strategy, plus further revising the RCS as necessary. That paragraph provides further that although the 2008 OCP policies are not in conflict with the RGS, "...it is acknowledged that they are not perfectly aligned with the RGS, and the City will be seeking to further improve on that alignment when the OCP is reviewed in its entirety.” The key legal effect of the combination of the RGS and RCS is found in section 866(3) of the Local Government Act which provides that a regional context statement and the rest of the official community plan must be consistent. This was affirmed in the BC Court of Appeal and BC Supreme Court decisions in GVRD v Langley (Township). Therefore, if Council amends the OCP in relation to population and dwelling units, future amendments to the OCP addressing population and dwelling units must be consistent with the following statements in the RCS that has been accepted by the GVRD Board in relation to the RGS: 1. when the City reviews the OCP commencing in 2015, the City will be reviewing the population and housing projections to extend those projections to 2041 consistent with the regional growth strategy; 2. although the 2008 OCP policies are not in conflict with the RGS, "...it is acknowledged that they are not perfectly aligned with the RGS, and the City will be seeking to further improve on that alignment when the OCP is reviewed in its entiret 3. the City’s goals and policies include accommodating future population growth through appropriate land use designations and strategies that are consistent with community and regional goals and objectives; 4, the City will endeavor to achieve the population, dwelling and employment projections in the RGS; (00337731; 2)5. the majority of new population and housing growth will be directed to the Town Centre area and adjacent areas permitting multi-unit residential housing; 6. the overall land use goal is to accommodate future population growth and change through appropriate land use designations and strategies that are consistent with community and regional goals and objectives, including compact urban form and complete communities. "There are more specific policies for the redevelopment of the Town Centre area for high density, mixed commercial/residential uses, and for the gradation or transition of densities for the other designations..."; 7. housing policies are included to support regional growth objectives, which seek a diversity of housing types and also include residential infill housing that is compatible with existing neighborhood areas. Mayor's Letter On the basis of the above overview of the law and applicable provisions, we do not think the Mayor's letter was misleading the public. In reviewing the Mayor's letter, it is also important to stress that the Mayor's letter was a very brief summary of his reasonable interpretation of the effect of complicated legislative provisions that have been subject to extensive court interpretation. It would not be possible for the Mayor, or anyone else, to capture fully all of the nuances and subtleties relating to the planning instruments in question in any brief way. In addition, we have not been asked to comment on any specific proposal in any OCP amendment or any other planning document. However, we can offer the following comments: 1. Under 877 (1)(a) of the LGA, an OCP must include “ the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years;” 2. Under s. 866 of the LGA, an RCS must explain the relationship between the OCP and specific matters dealt with in an RGS, including projections for population and housing. In addition, the RCS MUST, where applicable, identify how the OCP is to be made consistent with the RGS over time. 3. The White Rock RCS contains specific statements to the effect that White Rock “will endeavour to achieve the population, dwelling, and employment projections in the RGS”, and that White Rock will be (0033731; 2)“reviewing the population, housing and employment projections to extend those projections to 2041 consistent with the RGS...". 4, In addition, both the GVRD and the Province have affirmed the public policy expectation that OCP's should be consistent with the RGS. 5. The combined effect of the legal provisions is that White Rock, in its OCP review, should include policies which will permit White Rock to meet the population and residential housing projections of the RGSfor a period of at least five years. This is consistent with the Mayor's characterization, at least in general terms. 6. Finally, there is a related question of whether any OCP which failed to comply with the above could be subject to court attack. This is another complicated question, about which there is considerable jurisprudence. Traditionally, municipal planning documents have been difficult to attack under the various “consistency” requirements in the LGA. The courts have shown considerable deference to municipalities in determining when there is an inconsistency. Some cases have even referred to a requirement for an “absolute and direct collision” - a test very beneficial to municipalities. It is thus possible that OCP provisions which did not fully comply with the foregoing could still withstand a court challenge. However, we view that as a different matter. The purpose of the Mayor's letter was not to describe how far White Rock could go in testing the limits of the definition of “consistency” or the application of the “absolute and direct collision” test. The purpose was to describe the general effect of the planning requirements, as out lined in points 1 - 3, above. Sincerely, LIDSTONE & COMPANY Don Lidstone, Q.C. lidstone@lidstone.info DPL/dl ¢. Dan Bottrill, CAO (00337731; 2)