CRD Committee Votes to Uphold Regional Growth Strategy

I attended, along with residents from North Saanich, Central Saanich and others from around the region, a meeting on January 27, 2010 of the CRD's Planning, Transportation and Protective Services Committee, of which most Mayors and selected Councilors are Directors. This is the standing committee that deals with regional planning issues, including those related to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), the strategy upon which municipalities base their Official Community Plans and Regional Context Statements, ensuring that they are all consistent.

This meeting was significant because we wanted to hear the Committee's decision on an agenda item referred by the Municipality of Central Saanich to the CRD for review -- the contentious and high profile Vantreight 89-unit hilltop housing development proposed for the Northwest corner of the Vantreight farm property.

As you may know, this development proposal has been in the news on and off for the past 2+ years, raising community concerns in both North and Central Saanich. My understanding is that it is also a hot topic at Central Saanich Council meetings and among community groups, because of concern about impacts of high density housing on farmland and implications for the newly minted Central Saanich Official Community Plan.

I also understand that while this development proposal was initially questioned by Central Saanich planning staff and the municipality's Advisory Planning Commission, the proposal continued to move ahead, survived an intervening municipal election in November 2008 and picked up new Council support from new Council members in 2009. Nevertheless, Central Saanich Council recently voted to send the proposal to the CRD for their review, perhaps because they suspected it might not meet the test for compliance with the RGS. If not, it would then require an amendment approved by the CRD Board, a process that can be lengthy, protracted and with uncertain outcomes. Just ask Highlands Mayor Jane Mendum.

The CRD staff report was clear -- the proposal as it stands, does not comply with the RGS and will require CRD Board approval for a change to the Regional Context Statement in Central Saanich's OCP. In my view, CRD staff deserve kudos for calling it like they saw it because it was obvious that the majority of speakers and Committee Directors saw it exactly the same way, based on their remarks and on the votes at the table.

Only one Committee Alternate Director voted against the CRD staff recommendation and that was Councilor John Garrison of Central Saanich. Speakers strongly in favour of the proposal were Central Saanich Councilor and realtor Ron Kubek, Ryan Vantreight and developer Merv Mawson (remember Cresswell Subdivision?). Other speakers against the development proposal included Vicky Husband of the Regional Planning Society, Nathalie and David Chambers of Madrona Farm and Farmers of the Future Society, Gordon O'Connor of the Dogwood Initiative, Ian Cameron of Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society, Ed Johnson of Farmlands Trust, Ethan Krindle of the U-Vic Environmental Law Centre and residents of Central and North Saanich.

Chaired by Mayor Graham Hill of View Royal, the Committee then debated the issue at length, with all but two members (Mayor Janet Evans of Sooke and Councilor Garrison) citing the need to uphold the RGS and protect the integrity of farmland. Mayor Alice Finall of North Saanich spoke articulately about a variety of reasons why she supported the CRD staff recommendation, specifically referring to the need to adhere to the RGS and to preserve precious farmland on the Saanich Peninsula.

In my opinion, the final vote was a victory not only for the RGS but also for a community grass roots' movement inspired in part by North Saanich resident Mrs. Hildegard Horie. Mrs. Horie has been "rallying the troops" for as long as the Vantreight proposal has been in the hopper. Mrs. Horie, with the support of her family and neighbours, has proved that effective political activism can start in someone's kitchen over a cup of coffee and grow to a community-wide movement with regional support.

It is clear to me that many Peninsula residents are committed to making a difference and shining a light on a development proposal that they believe will have a negative impact on their neighbourhoods, their communities and the region as a whole. Stay tuned...

Volunteers Answer the Call

As you know, at this time every year, Mayor and Council recruit new volunteers to serve on a variety of municipal Commissions/Committees, on the Victoria Airport Authority Board and on the Peninsula Recreation Commission. I am pleased to report that again this year, a group of highly qualified and enthusiastic new and returning volunteers stepped up to the plate to serve our community. What is even more encouraging is the number of young people and new residents who responded to the call.

The volunteer demographic this year is good news for North Saanich! It seems that young families are indeed moving here, neighbourhoods are changing and student enrollment at Kelset School is up this year. These are all signs that North Saanich is an attractive destination for new residents and families who want to live in one of the safest communities in the province. Taxes are manageable (about the second lowest tax rate in the CRD), recreation is both diverse and accessible, rural and natural environments are some of the most pristine on Southern Vancouver Island and two major transportation hubs, Victoria International Airport and BC Ferries, are at our doorstep. With a new elementary school already open and a new middle school planned to open next year, it's clear to me that North Saanich is a vibrant active community that continues to draw people who want to escape the urban crush and raise their families in a community that offers unique amenities.

I am grateful to the many volunteers who have served and continue to serve on North Saanich Commissions and Committees. By the way, we still have two vacancies on the Heritage Advisory Commission and will be advertising shortly to fill these positions. If you would like more information about the Heritage Commission or are interested in applying, please contact Charlene Nash or Curt Kingsley at North Saanich Municipal Hall, 250-656-0781 or visit the North Saanich website (below on the right).

First Full Meeting for New Union of BC Municipalities Executive

As you know, UBCM is a provincial working body representing all municipalities and regional governments across the Province. Meeting in convention every year, UBCM brings together locally-elected representatives for purposes of adopting resolutions, networking, meeting with provincial government officials and attending working sessions and related meetings.

At every convention, a new UBCM Executive is elected by the membership, filling key positions of President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, Third Vice-President and Past President. There are also positions that reflect the community diversity that is uniquely British Columbia. These positions represent Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, Small Communities, Electoral Areas, various Regional Associations (ours is the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities Chaired by Mayor Chris Causton of Oak Bay) and Directors at Large. The 2009/2010 Executive group is 19 strong, drawn from Mayors and Councilors around BC.

The November 2009 Executive meeting (a two-day session) was the first full meeting of the newly elected group, with highlights as follows:
•Appointments made to the provincial government's new Local Elections Task Force
•Process approved to develop recommendations related to industrial taxation, including establishing Advisory and Steering Committees
•Work plan approved for consultation related to amending the resolutions process
•Recommendations related to future fire services delivery reviewed
•Supported 2010 conferences on electoral area reform, benefits, regional districts and Chief Administrative Officer forum, environmental issues, local government leadership, RCMP contracting and First Nations
•Considered 2009 Convention resolutions referred to the Executive
•Confirmed Committee appointments
•Agreed to continue working with the provincial government on the farm assessment issue
•Agreed to monitor new Home Inspectors' licencing requirements
•Agreed to lobby provincial government on importance of local government involvement in HST implementation (especially related to hotel and resort room taxation)
•Agreed to consult with local governments on landfill gas capture regulation
•Agreed to monitor implementation of Controlled Alien Species regulation
•Agreed to monitor impact of province's new "Wood First" legislation and regulations

In addition, the following UBCM working Committees were confirmed for 2010:
•Resolutions
•Nominating
•Presidents Committee
•Community Safety
•Environment
•Healthy Communities
•First Nations Relations
•Community Economic Development
•Regional District Task Force

The UBCM Executive will meet again in January 2010 and later in the spring. For further information about UBCM, please visit their website or e-mail them at ubcm@civicnet.bc.ca

Making Meaning from Middle Ground - My View

It's the beginning of a new year and a new decade and for many of us, a time to also re-assess. In a recent conversation with a Council colleague from another municipality, we talked about our Council work and took some time to reflect on what it means to each of us. At the end of our discussion, my colleague asked the inevitable questions, "Do you find this work meaningful and do you think you make a positive difference?" I hesitated for a moment, thinking to myself that the work has meaning for me but perhaps not for others and, if I do feel I make a positive difference that probably depends on one's perspective. I shared these thoughts with my colleague who replied "Good answer and good luck."

These questions are ones that many of us ask ourselves from time to time. Whether it's about our personal or professional lives, about paid or volunteer work or about elected or appointed positions, we want to know that what we do has meaning for us and for those we serve and makes a difference to others. As a Municipal Councillor, I want to feel that I make a difference, no matter how small. I want to know that, somehow, what I do has shared meaning with my community and its residents. I also want to know that most of my decisions have positive results for others.

Working in a political environment, however, can make it more difficult to always identify positives and realize the meaning of the work. One can sometimes feel like the "meat in the sandwich," squeezed somewhere between the community, the bureaucracy and the politics; and, how tight this squeeze is usually depends on how high the stakes, how complex the issue, how responsive or reactive the community and on how the parties directly involved behave.

I have said before that I believe that the Council Chamber is where people and issues sometimes collide and wherever one happens to be standing at the time of the collision, defines the meaning for them. Put another way, depending on what side of the issue or decision you happen to be on generally defines the experience for you.

I think two other factors have a significant bearing on the meaning and outcome of this work -- sorting out the difference between the reality of what happened and the perception of what happened. If the decision is perceived as a "good" one, where the result is acceptable to all parties, then it's likely that the distance between reality and perception was relatively small. If the decision is perceived as a "poor" one, then it is likely that the distance between reality and perception was large, creating what I call an "understanding gap" between all the parties involved. Trying to find a way to bridge the middle distance between what is real and what is perceived (trying to reach middle ground or to close the gap) when you are dealing with a contentious issue, can be the greatest challenge facing decision-makers. But why?

Well, in my experience, there are often three sides to a situation or issue -- yours, mine and the truth (or facts). It's well researched that each of us sees a situation through our own "lens," hence the saying for the eternally optimistic, "seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses." Every one of us wears a pair of our own glasses that can blur or colour truth or reality based on previous experiences and beliefs. How we see the world around us may cause us to pre-judge, re-interpret or re-define a situation or issue, based on what we believe to be real or true. When someone says to me "Tell me the truth" I am tempted to reply, "But which truth do you want? Yours, mine or the truth?" Your experience and my experience can be totally distinct from one another, so that we each see a situation very differently.

When faced with an issue that requires a decision and a meaningful outcome, the challenge for the decision-maker, as I see it, is separating fact from fiction, getting to the heart of the issue, managing differences and making some sense out of everything. As an aside, when I hear the phrase "using common sense" I admit I have to chuckle. There is nothing "common" about common sense when making difficult decisions about people and issues -- people are complicated and unpredictable and the issues they present are often complex. No two people nor two issues are ever the same and I have learned the hard way that the only thing predictable about people is that they are not.

Specific to Council work, I believe a third factor also defines meaning for each party -- the inherent power and authority imbalance that exists between decision-makers and residents. In a quasi-judicial setting such as a Municipal Council, legislative power in British Columbia to make legal and binding decisions is vested with elected officials through the BC Elections Act, Local Government Act and Community Charter. It is accepted that decision-makers have "power over" others by virtue of their role and responsibilities; it is incumbent, therefore, on decision-makers to use his/her power and authority judiciously and to apply governing legislation, bylaws and policies to local government decision-making in a sensitive, respectful and thoughtful manner. In the case of municipal administration, while residents may not necessarily agree with the final staff or Council decision, it is vitally important to ensure that residents leave the Municipal Hall or Council Chamber feeling heard, understood and respected.

I believe that the recipe for making meaningful decisions that reflect fairness and balance seems to involve a real mix of ingredients -- the situation or context, dynamics, available information, individual perceptions, understanding, parties involved, history, behaviour, personal experiences, legislation and, last but not least, the politics. Then imagine the decision-making process as a kitchen blender, where all these ingredients are thrown together and whirled, tossed and blended to create from this incredible mix a certain "consistency." In the case of Council work, I strive for a "consistency" too, by making decisions that I believe reflect a "blend" of adequate public and staff information, administrative fairness and balance.

I remember once getting some helpful advice from a political mentor who explained the nub of Council work and how best to make meaning out of decision-making. She advised, "There will be many times when you will be trying to make ideal decisions from less than ideal circumstances, trying to find meaning from situations that may have none."

When reflecting on the real meaning of my Council work, it may well be found in how decisions are made rather than in the decisions themselves; regardless of the final decision or outcome, if you leave the North Saanich Council Chamber feeling heard, understood and respected, then for me, that may be the best meaning of all.

More News About Vantreight Development Proposal

A group of concerned North and Central Saanich citizens recently contacted me and asked that I post on this blog site contact information for them and a brief summary about their efforts. They are working to inform citizens about the proposed density housing development slated for the northwest corner of the Vantreight farm in Central Saanich (at the North Saanich/Central Saanich border). This development has been the subject of public controversy, given its potential impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods, the ALR and land use, the CRD Regional Growth Strategy and on local resources and infrastructure such as roads/traffic, water, waste disposal and energy consumption.

My understanding is that Central Saanich Council moved one step closer at their December 14 Council meeting and voted, among other things, to send the proposal to the CRD's Planning Department for its review. This could be significant to the future of the proposal in my view, given that if the development is found to contravene or compromise Central Saanich's Regional Context statement in its Official Community Plan, then the development proposal becomes the centerpiece in a wider discussion and approval process at the CRD Board table, under the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy's (RGS) amending formula.

You may recall a similar situation in the Highlands about 2 years ago when a controversial application to provide municipal water to Bear Mountain Resort required an amendment because it contravened the Highlands' Official Community Plan's Regional Context Statement, requiring a referral for decision to the CRD Board. The Highlands decision became a galvanizing issue locally and regionally related to the RGS; I understand that to amend the RGS needs unanimous support of the CRD Board. The CRD Board ultimately turned down the Highlands application, the decision was appealed and mediation by the Province was attempted but failed.

North Saanich Mayor and Council have already forwarded a letter to Central Saanich Mayor and Council outlining our concerns about the proposal, given its extremely close proximity to North Saanich Southeast Quadrant neighbourhoods. To date, I understand that in addition to a variety of land use and environmental concerns, a planned road allowance into the development and lack of sufficient buffering could create significant noise and air pollution from traffic gaining access and egress right through Southeast Quadrant neighbourhoods. Naturally, North Saanich will make every effort to mitigate any impacts on its residents.

For more information about the concerned citizens group, please visit their blog site at http://saveourruralland.blogspot.com. For detailed information about the Vantreight development proposal, please visit the Central Saanich website at www.centralsaanich.ca

Go West To Find Best Municipal Accountability

In a recent article written for the Vancouver Sun, David Seymour, Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of the Local Government Performance Index in 2009 (www.fcpp.org) suggests that if you are looking for the highest local government accountability it appears to be in the western Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. He states that "in my review of 75 municipalities across Canada, 6 out of the top 10 were from British Columbia (the rest were from Alberta)."

He points out that accountability and transparency are important principles for local governments, especially when you consider that municipalities are economically significant in Canada. Seymour writes that "taken together, Canada's municipalities represent a roughly $65 billion-per-year industry, or about $1 of every $20 in GDP. He goes on to cite that "at 5 per cent of GDP, a 20 per cent increase in the productivity of municipal government would add a full percentage point to the national wealth."

It also appears that from his observations and research, Seymour concludes that "perhaps the biggest difference between BC municipalities and others...is the quality of reporting that citizens can expect when it comes to finance and service performance...When it comes to questions of providing disclosure on the value of capital assets, whether those values are depreciated according to best practice asset management, definitions are given for the line items that money is spent on or those expenditure areas are associated with measured performance compared to numerical targets, municipal reporting is the best in the West."

He goes on to say that, as with other governments, municipal government is a "natural monopoly" since it is the single source of services. He suggests that "consumers, the people who pay taxes and user fees and use roads, garbage collection and recreational services, don't have the same level of choice in who provides these essential services as they would in a competitive market." Therefore, operating in this context makes it even more of an imperative, Seymour argues, for municipalities to "help residents understand what services are being provided and at what cost, with numerical performance targets and actual performance achievements that are linked to areas of expenditure."

I encourage you to visit the website noted above for more information and detail about the Seymour report.

What Do Canadians Value?

Royal Roads University recently announced the results of its Canadian National Values Assessment, conducted by the Todd Thomas Institute for Values-Based Leadership. The survey of 1,251 Canadians reveals "a widely shared set of personal values that emphasize relationships and qualities that contribute to social cohesion, such as honesty, family, and caring." Marilyn Taylor, PhD and Director of the Institute, goes on to say that survey results "also show a high level of agreement among Canadians that our culture is being compromised by a serious level of dysfunction in the form of social risks, economic vulnerability and institutional ineffectiveness."

Other indicators of dysfunction were "bureaucracy, unemployment, crime/violence, wasted resources, corruption, and uncertainty about the future." These results cut across gender, age, regions, public and private sectors and ethnicity. The survey also suggests that respondents are calling for a reduction of bureaucracy, better government accountability and a stronger social safety net. Asked to choose "ten values that they would like to see reflected in Canadian society, the highest responses went to accountability, caring for the elderly, affordable housing, effective health care, caring for the disadvantaged, concern for future generations, poverty reduction, employment opportunities, human rights and governmental effectiveness."

It wasn't all negative however; human rights, freedom of speech, law enforcement and quality of life were identified as significant strengths of our current national culture.

"The results of this assessment will be widely distributed so Canadian individuals, organizations and governments can use this information to help realize our desired future for Canada," said Taylor. It seems that values-based leadership is the mark of a new way of moving all of us toward a kinder, more effective and more responsible social system, one that truly serves Canadians no matter who they are or where they live, work or gather.

The Institute is also planning to facilitate public dialogue, provide subsequent national values assessments and support ongoing applied research on values and their relationship to communities and organizations. For more information about the survey and the Todd Thomas Institute for Values-Based Leadership, please visit (www.royalroads.ca/tti)

Affordable Housing as National Policy

I wanted to express my gratitude to Mayor Alice Finall who fulfilled my request and, on behalf of North Saanich Council, sent this week to the Federal Government a letter urging Parliament to support a private member's bill, Bill C-304, calling for a national affordable housing strategy.

Victoria City Councilor Charlayne Thornton-Joe, who Chairs the CRD's Regional Housing Corporation Board (of which I am a member) is leading the charge and canvassing member municipalities, Chambers of Commerce, public and private sector organizations and others to write Federal leaders and MPs with letters of support for this Bill, which will be voted on sometime after December 8, 2009. I understand that it has already passed first and second readings and only needs a third and final reading to be adopted.

For more information about Bill C-304, please visit publications@pwgsc.gc.ca or http://publications.gc.ca

If you are interested in supporting Bill C-304, please send a letter to that effect to MP Dean Allison, Chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA), as follows:

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Person with Disabilities (HUMA)

House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Where Do We Grow From Here?

In the next few months, a review of the Capital Regional District's (CRD) Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) will be well underway and was, in part, the genesis behind the November 14th CRD-sponsored Forum of Councils' "Sustainable Futures" workshop, focused on sustainability, a much-used term but not always well defined. Planners, municipal staff, politicians and CRD staff joined the speakers for a morning that examined sustainability and planning in a largely urban context.

To help us understand what sustainability is and what it means to population growth, climate change, community planning and our future, keynote speakers at the workshop were Mike Harcourt (former municipal Councilor, Vancouver Mayor and BC Premier and now leader and spokesperson on sustainable urban growth and planning) and Dave Biggs, founder of Metro Quest (researcher and leading consultant on public involvement in urban planning and sustainability whose company has developed interactive tools for public engagement).

Highlights from Mike Harcourt:

Calling this the "urban century," Mike Harcourt asked, "How do we try to define the concept of "sustainability?" He suggests that there are 4 key elements:

- economic prosperity

- environmental health

- social inclusion/justice

- vibrant culture (sense of "place," creativity and innovation)

He argues that at the rate the world is going, we have no choice but to plan sustainable communities -- if we make the wrong choices, there will be consequences.

He tells us that human growth patterns suggest that by 2050, there will be 10 billion people inhabiting our earth (the equivalent of adding two more Chinas) and 75% of these will be living in cities. To put this into some perspective, Harcourt stated that in 1930 the world population was 2 billion and in 2000, it was 6 billion. He cites Canada as one of the most urbanized countries in the world, with about 80% of our population living in cities.

Harcourt also warns that approximately 1 billion people in developing countries could be living in shanty towns by 2050. Regarding population impacts on climate, Harcourt says that in China alone, the country is currently building 500 coal-burning plants a year and in developed countries, we are consuming resources at the equivalent of 4 worlds.

His message to all of us is "get with it" -- we can no longer afford the kind of suburban sprawl that dominates many of our community landscapes -- we must concentrate growth within urban areas that are already high-density and can be sustained.

He also talks about "live-ability accords" and "sustainability agreements" made between communities that set out principles, standards and values that focus planning on sustainable land use and community development that uses energy integration to reduce air pollution, waste and emissions. He refers to models of mixed use and high density communities that use geo-thermal, solar and waste recovery to heat space and water, not electricity.

He concludes by lauding Victoria's Dockside Green as a leader on the continent for sustainable building and references four excellent books/resources that might convince us that sustainability and climate change are inextricably linked and must be planning imperatives for the future:

- Three books by Richard Florida titled "Rise of the Creative Class," "Flight of the Creative Class" and "Who Is Your City?"

- "The Climate Cover-Up," a book that explores and exposes those who deny that climate change is occurring with major negative impacts on human health and the world's future.

Highlights from Dave Biggs:

Dave Biggs, founder of MetroQuest, opened with some significant facts about our Capital Region:

- By 2038, an additional 110,000 people will live here.

- Of these, 75,000 will be seniors or about 29%, up from the current 17% ratio.

- Currently, 49% of Greater Victoria's population lives in single family dwellings.

- 72% of us drive alone in vehicles.

- Only 12% of us use public transit (if access to public transit is located more than 500 meters away, it is less likely to be used).

We then participated in MetroQuest's interactive process using electronics to collect and tally our responses to questions about what we value for future regional planning and sustainability. As a result, the audience identified 5 top priorities ranked as follows:

- Clean Air

- Lower Carbon Emissions

- Walkable Neighbourhoods

- Vibrant Downtown

- Smaller Eco-Footprint

Audience results further suggest that examples of our lower planning priorities for the future are big homes and big yards, easy car travel and lower fees/taxes. It appears from the results that we also want to concentrate new growth in existing areas such as the Western Communities, Saanich, Victoria and Town of Sidney -- in other words, keeping population growth and housing compact and building within current densities, which are consistent with the existing RGS and its urban containment boundary.

Biggs concluded with some housing projections for the CRD that suggest that by 2046, regional populations will be living in small houses on small lots, in ground level housing (e.g., town homes with access to outside space that is either a small garden or patio) and in condos and apts. in buildings of 5 storeys or less. He also argues that because municipalities have to fund their infrastructure, large developments can be net negative over time, especially after 20 years i.e., servicing costs for these large developments become a significant financial drain for municipalities.

It would seem that Smaller is Better.

SUMMARY:

This workshop was one of the best I have attended in recent years and kudos to the CRD for putting this one on. While the focus was largely on urban development and planning, the information and attitude trends suggest to me that many of us in the Capital Region value the principles expressed in the Regional Growth Strategy -- many municipalities care about and are committed to a sustainable future. Mike Harcourt says we have no choice and Dave Biggs says he can help us to engage our communities in this important conversation.

I realize that those of us who attended this workshop may also be the converted -- I sometimes find that the people who should be in the room are often not so I look forward to making efforts to reach the dissenters, those who have not yet accepted the inevitability of climate change and the need to build sustainable communities.

I also recognize that not everyone in the Capital Region agrees with RGS principles, amending formula or other administrative practices. Some municipalities seem to feel that it impinges on their independence and authority. Mike Harcourt suggests that we should set aside our regional differences for the sake of future sustainability. Others at this workshop are calling for an even stronger RGS document, one that has "some teeth" and will protect against sprawl and safeguard rural, agricultural and green spaces throughout the area, especially on the Saanich Peninsula.

Still others suggest different remedies, such as amalgamation as an answer to containing sprawl. But there appears to be divided opinion on amalgamation, with one urban Mayor warning against it, suggesting that it is not a more efficient and cheaper means of delivering local government services, as some proponents would argue. He said in part "...homogenization simply doesn't work for me." In my view he makes a good point.

I attended this workshop with my colleague Councilor Ruby Commandeur who is a local organic farmer in Deep Cove. Both of us specifically asked the speakers about how a rural-residential area such as North Saanich, with large tracts of green space and agricultural land, can contribute to the sustainability process that seems more about urban space. Metchosin Councilor Jo Mitchell and Central Saanich Councilor Alistair Bryson joined our chorus about the need to protect small rural communities that are "agricultural havens" for the future related to local food production and security.

While our question went largely unanswered, Tracy Corbett, CRD Senior Manager of Regional Planning, said that she appreciated our questions and comments and offered to explore putting on a session that focuses on small community issues such as rural protection. Like many other local and regional politicians, I believe that if the region values the Saanich Peninsula's rural/agricultural assets, then the CRD and its member municipalities must act to protect this area. In fact, one rural Mayor called for a more proactive and less reactive approach to regional planning. I agree.

The RGS review will be a major CRD undertaking over the next few months and I believe that the results will have far-reaching implications for all of us, especially for communities such as North Saanich. But all of us living in this region have a stake in the review and the outcome so please take the time to get informed.

I have always supported the RGS as a key planning document that demonstrates leadership and innovation in regional planning. Below this post is an article that I wrote last year (Oct. 2008) about the RGS and its importance in protecting small rural communities from urban sprawl and environmental degradation. For those of you who have not read it, I encourage you to do so and for those of you who have, please take the time to read it again.

Please also visit the CRD website to find out more about the RGS review, regional sustainability and information about CRD Board and Committee meetings, at www.crd.bc.ca

Regional Growth Strategy -- Re-Post

I support the motion to deny the amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. To explain my position, I want to provide the following background information. Like many people, I needed to completely understand what the strategy is and what it really means for North Saanich, the Saanich Peninsula and the region.

The Capital Regional District Board adopted the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) on August 13, 2003. The strategy represents an agreement, developed and approved, by all member municipalities and the regional district in partnership, on social, economic and environmental goals and priority actions.

This is a landmark agreement, a landmark agreement as cited in a report prepared in March 2003 by the Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, titled, The Capital Regional District Growth Strategy: Herding Cats onto the Road of Sustainability. In part, the report states:

- In many urban and rural areas, local citizens motivated by concerns about community disruption and environmental degradation have resisted development projects of various kinds. In some cases, these actions have reflected a broader concern that on a finite planet, or at least in a finite community or region, future growth in human demands will be increasingly destructive.

- The result has been a second wave of growth management that is expected to cover not just all factors that affect growth patterns, but also all consideration that affect long-term community and ecological sustainability.

- Sustainability is fundamentally a matter of applied ethics. It has a human focus but involves consideration of future as well as present interests and recognizes ultimate human dependence on the biosphere. Arguably, commitment to sustainability entails adoption of what Aldo Leopold called the “land ethic” – extending the definition of community from the social interaction of individuals to the linking of all components of the natural world, and requiring people to view themselves as stewards of the land.

- Development of this kind allows for the building of a shared local culture that encompasses history, values and traditions of a particular place or region.

In 1995, the BC government passed the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act to facilitate better coordination of municipalities, regional districts and the provincial government to deal with complex growth management issues. However, its most significant provisions focus on the regional level. The act gave “legislative authority” for regional districts to voluntarily develop and adopt a Regional Growth Strategy.

A regional growth strategy is a regional vision that commits affected municipalities and regional districts to a course of action to meet common social, economic and environmental objectives. It also forms a part of a municipality’s Official Community Plan through a Regional Context Statement, which links the RGS to the municipal plan. The RGS is designed to outline the regional vision for the next 20 years.

The core objective of the Growth Strategies Act is “to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and makes efficient use of ... land and other resources.” The foremost priority goals for the RGS are:

- Avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist…

- Protecting environmentally sensitive areas.

- Maintaining the integrity of a secure, productive resource base, including agricultural, and forestland reserves.

- Protecting the quality and quantity of ground and surface water.

Conclusion:

Without consistent support and long term commitment from the Capital Regional District through its Regional Growth Strategy, municipal boundaries that keep urban containment compact will be vulnerable, resulting in unmanaged growth that will continue to threaten green and rural spaces, agriculture and farmland and forests and water resources. Local governments in the Capital Regional District must now decide how strong, consistent and effective they will be in the application of sound land use policy that considers critical factors such as:

- Regional energy planning and conservation

- Food production and security

- Efficient, economical and environmentally sound transportation planning

- Conservation and use of water resources

- Waste disposal

The Regional Growth Strategy enables local governments to manage growth with confidence and vision, to plan for the future and for an environmental legacy of which generations after us can be proud.

The report by the University of Waterloo concludes with the following statement that, for me, says it all in a nutshell:

If the necessary goodwill and commitment are to be found anywhere in British Columbia, they are to be found among the municipal leaders and residents of the Capital Regional District, given the long standing concern for quality of life issues in this region. What happens in the CRD will therefore be an important test of the Regional Growth Strategy mechanism. If effective growth management using the Regional Growth Strategy cannot be accomplished in the Capital Regional District, it is unlikely that the mechanism will work well anywhere in the Province.

Municipal Spending a Concern

I read with interest on November 6, 2009 the Times-Colonist article by reporter Bill Cleverley that suggests that municipalities spend too much, based on a recent study released by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Based on data collected between 2000 and 2007, North Saanich's "fiscal sustainability gap" was quoted at 2.98.

Results for other CRD municipalities varied between a low of 1.71 to a high of 8.62. Questions were raised in the article by some local Mayors about the validity and context of the data, given consistent provincial downloading to municipal governments during the past 8 or 9 years. It was argued that downloading programs and services negatively impacts local government's ability to meet and sustain demands, such as increased police services. Another factor is salaries paid to municipal staff that apparently average 35% higher than the private sector.

Financial issues and municipal spending are ongoing concerns of mine, especially for a municipality the size of North Saanich. Large infrastructure projects such as the new sewer system for Deep Cove/Pat Bay and McDonald Park Road was about a $15M bill that frankly should not have been imposed on taxpayers at a time when construction costs were at their highest and the real estate boom was at its peak. This capital cost, however, was just half of the equation; the cost of maintaining this infrastructure is the other half, borne by all North Saanich taxpayers.

The unexpected increase to the Panorama pool expansion was another major impact on North Saanich taxpayers that will be reflected in next year's tax bill. At $12M, up from approximately $5.7M as cited in the 2005 North Saanich pool expansion referendum, it seems to me project management and planning for the pool had challenges related to spending control. Many North Saanich taxpayers I talked to have been concerned about this and again, capital cost is one thing but ongoing maintenance and operation are others. I also understand that staffing at Panorama has increased by about 50% as a result of opening the new pool and it is argued that a larger more complex facility needs more staff to run it. Having said that, many see the pool expansion as a community asset that will benefit social and recreational needs over time.

But at a time when the economy is still fragile and private and public sectors continue to make significant cuts, it's my view that adding staff in any organization can be a difficult decision to sell to taxpayers who have to foot the bills.

In my opinion, these are just two examples that demonstrate local government's fundamental responsibility to carefully manage or scale back big projects that may not be fully sustainable or affordable over time. Sustainable spending is one of the reasons why I supported the current North Saanich Council when it moved to cap at 5% this year's municipal tax increase. Further, I believe that this Council is taking a prudent approach to any new spending, asking staff to ensure, on behalf of North Saanich taxpayers, that whatever we do spend we can afford to sustain.

It was argued during the last municipal election that a cautious approach might mean that North Saanich would be "shut down," with comments such as "No Saanich" making the rounds. But in reality, I believe that North Saanich residents and taxpayers opted for a new Mayor and Council majority they believe will check spending, bring greater fiscal accountability to financial management and make sure that taxpayers are respected. The saying that best fits this Mayor and Council majority's approach may be simply "Ask North Saanich Taxpayers Before We Spend."

Second Meeting on Marine Task Force Report Recommendations Calls for a Third Meeting

Citing the need to receive additional information on factors such as environmental impacts, re-zoning and jurisdictional issues related to building private docks on the waterfront, Council voted 6 to 1 against Councilor Sheilah Fea's motion to move ahead with private docks in North Saanich. I also agreed with the Council majority to defer to a third meeting the rest of the Marine Task Force (MTF) report's recommendations, including recommendation #7 related to private docks. A sometimes noisy waterfront group attended the October 29th Committee of the Whole special meeting, the second held by Council to address the MTF's 2008 report.

I knew going into these meetings that some recommendations would be controversial, particularly the recommendation dealing with private docks. As you know, North Saanich, since 1984, has restricted private docks, resulting in current Official Community Plan zoning limits known as M5 and M6. As a result, the North Saanich coastline is relatively unobstructed, making public access to our beaches and waterfront one of the attractions of living here -- I support public access to our beaches and will always try to find a balance between the need for public beach access and the desires of waterfront property owners.

As you know, some waterfront property owners disagree with North Saanich's current zoning restrictions for private docks, believing the municipality should allow private docks whenever a waterfront property owner makes an application. One waterfront owner at this week's meeting stated that he feels that it is his "right to have a private dock and unfettered access to deep water." But another waterfront property owner cautioned the municipality against allowing private docks that impede adjacent neighbours' sight lines and interfere with their views, acknowledging my belief that a significant factor that determines waterfront property values is the quality of the view.

Council also agreed to move ahead with the MTF's recommendation for a public boat launch on the West side of the Peninsula, below the airport. Mayor and Council plan to re-open talks with the Victoria Airport Authority, the Federal government and other community stakeholders to explore having a small public boat launch on the West side that provides vehicle parking and access for small boats, kayaks, canoes, etc. I understand from one resident who attended the meeting that Tulista Park will be one of the last small public boat launches left on the Peninsula, given that Van Isle Marina is rumoured to be closing its boat launch to allow expansion of a restaurant.

Regarding the MTF's recommendation on the Federal government's initiative to designate the Saanich Inlet a marine conservation area, Council agreed to invite Parks Canada to make a presentation to Council on the status of the initiative and on what impacts, if any, such a designation would have on waterfront property owners. Some owners express concern about a marine park/conservation area designation, suggesting that it might interfere with their property rights. We learned, however, thanks to Frances Pugh of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society, that a conservation area designation means only three things: no dumping, no dredging and no oil drilling. I can't imagine that the majority of North Saanich residents wouldn't wholeheartedly embrace such protection for the Saanich Inlet.

A new date for the next special Council meeting to address the MTF's report will be announced on the District website, in the District newsletter and I will ensure that the date is also announced on this blog. Stay tuned and watch for the date and time of the next meeting. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call or e-mail and I will try to answer your questions. Thank you.

Heavy Traffic at McTavish Road Interchange Open House

It was standing room only last week when I dropped down to the McTavish Road Interchange Open House, hosted for local residents by the Provincial government, as part of its public consultation process. Local residents, North Saanich, Sidney and Central Saanich Council members, Victoria Airport Authority staff, project staff from the Province and other transportation staff mingled and chatted with the public as people poured into the Presbyterian Church at East Saanich Road and circulated around the room, browsing the various design displays. Of particular interest was an animated demonstration showing how the traffic will move through the new interchange and its three roundabouts.

Comments on the project that I heard ranged from "too big and too complex for this area" to "too expensive when we are cutting everything else in this Province" to "we need the improvements for safety's sake" and "it's about time we did something at this intersection." I also heard some anxiety about drivers having to negotiate the roundabouts, which I agree can be daunting.

I remember well my first driving experience in Britain. I rented a Mini and drove 2,700 miles through England and Scotland but not before having to learn in the first 5 minutes, how to drive on the opposite side of the road, shift the manual transmission in the opposite direction with my left hand (I'm right-handed) and read a map. Things were going pretty well by the time I was 20 miles out until... I encountered my first roundabout!! You could hear my screams all the way around it while I was desperately trying to find my way out. But by the end of the trip, roundabouts and I had become friends and I have to admit, they are extremely efficient at keeping traffic moving; I am now a roundabout fan.

In general, my impression of public reaction during my visit to the Open House was that most people, while not wildly enthusiastic, were more accepting of recent modifications made to the design. Despite public concerns about cost and scope (which I appreciate), residents I talked to that day seemed to recognize that efforts had been made by provincial transportation planners to incorporate some of the public's feedback on design and to make subsequent changes.

Beyond original concerns about the finished product and its suitability to this area, people I spoke to have concerns about impacts during the construction phase, including road closures, re-routed traffic along East Saanich Road, emergency vehicle access to Lochside Drive and noise. I share these concerns as does the Mayor of North Saanich and other Council members. I observed that Heather Gartshore, North Saanich resident and one of our two community appointments to the McTavish Road Interchange Task Force (the other is Bob Williamson, Dean Park Resident and former North Saanich Councillor) was keeping close tabs on public input at the Open House. I know that Heather and Bob will follow up these concerns with the District as part of the Task Force process (established by Mayor and Council to give the community a voice in the project).

I want to stress, once again, that the District of North Saanich is not a contributing partner to this Interchange. YES, we supported in principle last year the Victoria Airport Authority's original request to make safety and access improvements at McTavish and the Pat Bay Highway but NO, we have no authority or responsibility for the project and no money invested.

Having said that, I can assure you that the District of North Saanich is concerned about how construction impacts will be managed until the project is completed. I understand that Mayor and Council will remain involved on your behalf through our McTavish Interchange Task Force. For questions, comments or more information, please contact your Interchange Task Force community representatives, Heather Gartshore at 250-656-0974 or Bob Williamson at 250-655-1270. And at anytime, please feel free to contact me directly (as well as other Council members) with your concerns. Thank you!

The McTavish Road Interchange Project

I have been asked by our North Saanich community appointees to the McTavish Road Interchange Committee (Heather Gartshore and Bob Williamson) to post this following letter regarding the project. You can also get further information from the Ministry of Transportation's website at http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy_17_McTavish_Interchange/index.htm

We wanted to let you know that we have been appointed by the District of North Saanich Council, as the two community representatives to to sit on the McTavish Road Interchange Task Force. Other members include representatives from North Saanich Staff and Council, Sidney Council, the Victoria Airport Authority, the RCMP, the Tseycum and Pauquachin First Nations and the Ministry of Transportation.

The purpose of the Task Force is to maintain consultation and dialogue with groups and individuals to identify and address community concerns during the detailed design and construction of the McTavish Road Interchange. We will represent community interests primarily in the geographic area bounded approximately by Amity Drive to the south, Dean Park to the west, Beacon Avenue to the north and Lochside Drive to the east, however we will accept comment from the community in general.

The BC Ministry of Transportation is proceeding with this project to improve safety, enhance transit and improve access to the Victoria International Airport. While we understand that you may have concerns about the design, timing and cost of this project, the Task Force is not in a position to consider those.

This is a Provincial project on Provincial land and as such, the Province can proceed. To qualify for supporting funds from the Federal Government, the project must be completed by March 2011.

After considering alternatives, the conceptual design comprising two roundabouts and a road bridge over the main highway has been complete and has now been accepted as the final design. The design contract has been awarded to a consulting engineering firm who will proceed with the detailed design. No fundamental changes can be made to the concept.

Citizens can provide input on bicycle paths, pedestrian paths, signage, landscaping, noise abatement and pollution control, but not on the design concept itself. On site construction activity is expected to commence as soon as October 2009.

As your community representatives, we would be pleased to communicate your concerns, suggestions and comments on topics where we can still exert some influence as the McTavish Road Interchange moves to the next phase.

The Task Force will be meeting at regularly scheduled intervals. You will find the project website at: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/highwayprojects/Hwy_17_McTavish_Interchange/index.htm

Please feel free to pass this information along to friends and neighbors who will also be impacted by the McTavish Road Interchange.

Heather Gartshore heathergartshore@shaw.ca 250-656-0974

Bob Williamson prismoid@islandnet.com 250-655-1270

Marine Task Force Report Well Anchored

After first receiving the Marine Task Force (MTF) report last year (commissioned by the District of North Saanich in 2007), the former Mayor and Council accepted the report and its sixteen recommendations but voted to defer any action on the recommendations until after the municipal election in November 2008. Nearly a year later, the current Council has breathed new life into the report and planned two meetings (October 13 and 29, 2009 at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers) to address MTF recommendations and action items and to involve the public in these debates. The following highlights the results of our first meeting on October 13th.

An audience of about 45 to 50 people attended the October 13th Committee of the Whole Meeting, representing the general public, waterfront property owners, former Marine Task Force members and representatives of environmental groups and interested organizations. Using a September 2008 staff report to guide Council deliberations, we debated roughly half of the sixteen recommendations and carried the rest over to the next meeting on October 29th. My view is that despite some potentially contentious issues, the meeting proceeded well and the audience was respectful and fully engaged.

The meeting was opened by the former Task Force Chair, Graham Williams who provided us with a brief overview and background on some of the report's key recommendations. Council then discussed briefly how we should proceed, finally deciding to deal with each of the recommendations separately and in order. At first, I was concerned about the process of tackling these recommendations and wanted to avoid getting bogged down in minute detail and putting our audience to sleep. Other Council members agreed so we kept focused on the general recommendations, opting to attack the detail at our next meeting.

Debate was thorough and members of the audience were keen to participate in discussion on following:

Better recognize marine heritage, economic contributions and boating interests (staff directed to prepare a report for Council on anticipated changes to the Official Community Plan (OCP), suggested policy changes, development of community values related to recreation and environmental impacts and inclusion in the OCP of shoreline maps provided in the recently completely Saanich Inlet and Peninsula Atlas of Shorelines 2009 Public Report;

Meet with local marina industry representatives to explore options for improved capacity related to recreational boating and development (includes options for dry land boat storage);

Agree to keep OCP boatshed regulations the same but also agree to discuss other boatshed options with marina industry that might reduce moorage costs but increase capacity;

Guidelines for private docks (M5 vs. M6 zones).

The most contentious of these four items is the issue of guidelines for private docks. Waterfront property owners who attended the meeting are fiercely protective of their property rights -- some PRPA members (a North Saanich waterfront property owners' group) even suggested that the District should change its policy on M6 zoning so that private docks are allowed in North Saanich. Such a change would represent a major departure from the North Saanich Official Community Plan.

In the end, Council acknowledged that this Mayor and Council must first decide whether to open up this debate at all, a discussion that may be brought to a later meeting. I am reminded by other North Saanich taxpayers that while waterfront property owners have strong feelings about their riparian rights, the North Saanich waterfront is also a significant environmental asset to all North Saanich residents who live and pay taxes here. Many residents have asked that we protect and preserve the waterfront wherever possible.

In conclusion, I believe that when citizens make time to attend our meetings, we need to ensure that information and processes are "user friendly," meaning that discussions are well understood and information is readily provided. Granted, some of our discussion seemed a bit dry and drawn out and I noticed members of the audience drifting out of the Chamber before the end of the meeting. Others noted that we tended to use acronyms they did not recognize and referenced documents not provided to the audience for their information. These concerns of "using too much jargon" and "not providing some reference materials to the public" were duly noted. I have in fact today requested copies of our OCP and the original MTF report be provided at our October 29th meeting for people to see and share.

The debate will continue on October 29, 2009 when Council re-convenes in the Council Chamber at 7:00 pm to continue its review of the MTF report and the rest of the recommendations. Please try to attend this important meeting and join the discussion on how best to establish a balance between marine economic development and environmental protection of our marine habitat.

No Price Tag on Democracy

In the last few weeks, a story out of Central Saanich suggests that something is not sitting well with some Central Saanich voters as a result of the last municipal election in November 2008. Both the Vancouver Sun and Times-Colonist have covered the issues from the perspective of those voters who believe that there may have been some impropriety related to municipal campaign financing. The allegations have certainly caught the attention of other municipalities. (To read the Times-Colonist article, click here: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/Bringing+fairness+local+elections/2019398/story.html

As a sitting Council member here in North Saanich, I have been following this story with interest because the topic of unregulated campaign financing and funding is one near and dear to my heart. I have believed since the election of 2002, that municipal elections should be carefully regulated to ensure the independence of candidates and the integrity of the municipal election process. It goes without saying that the issue is a difficult one.

Ordinary citizens interested in making a meaningful contribution to their local community through public service as an elected official, face the reality that running for public office costs money; without donations, the possibility of incurring all the costs personally can make a difference for some between running and not running. Access to funding should not be a barrier to standing as a municipal candidate -- for me, such a barrier does not serve the best interests of the public, our local communities or the election process, and excludes potentially good people from holding public office.

In North Saanich, it is my understanding that political slates and heavily funded municipal election campaigns were unheard of until 2005 when the incumbent Mayor put together a well funded slate and campaign team, hired a campaign manager and opened a campaign office to run his Mayoralty campaign. It is my opinion that the incumbent Mayor and his supporters put together a campaign that seriously upped the stakes and made it possible for the incumbent Mayor and his team to access campaign election tools that significantly increased their reach and profile in the community.

In North Saanich's case, it is entirely possible that a well-funded slate of candidates’ access to unlimited campaign funding may have made it more difficult for single, non-aligned grass roots candidates to compete against what appeared to be a well-oiled machine. The then Mayor ran a similar campaign in 2008 but lost to a grass roots candidate.

While I do think that the issue of slate candidates changed local election campaigning in North Saanich, certainly between 2002 and now, I also believe that North Saanich voters have changed. They are more wary and wise and have learned lessons about candidates that appear heavily funded and powered by machine-style election campaigns that are out of character for a small community like North Saanich. In the end, I want to believe that independent grass roots candidates can still run and get elected, not because they are well funded, but because they are well respected.

I believe that municipal elections should be regulated by Elections BC and that campaign financing and funding should be capped at 20% of whatever the individual stipend is for each Council position. The capping based on percentage is an idea put forward by North Saanich Council member Peter Chandler. It works like this: If a Councilor position in Oak Bay pays a stipend of $10,000, then a Councilor candidate running there cannot accept or spend more than $2,000 for his/her campaign. If the Mayor's position pays a stipend of $30,000, then the mayoralty candidate cannot accept or spend more than $6,000 for his/her campaign and so on.

If an elector organization, campaign organizer or individual endorses a slate of candidates, then donations are limited in the same way. It is a simple formula that levels the playing field and protects the integrity of the municipal election process that, otherwise, could be vulnerable to abuse.

Capping and regulating campaign financing/funding also prevents a "quid pro quo" situation, where special interest groups, organizers or individuals expect to have special influence on Council members making decisions. The mentality that says "I donated heavily to your campaign for a reason, now I expect a return on my investment," is one that we simply cannot afford to encourage, tolerate or ignore. Such a negative climate, whether real or perceived, compromises democracy and further reinforces the public's belief that the political process is somehow dishonest or corrupt. Sadly, that perception hurts all of us and damages our electoral and democratic processes.

At the upcoming UBCM Conference at the end of this month, a resolution (B104), made by Vancouver City Council, calls for a petition of the BC Government to amend the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter "to set limits on the annual amount of contributions that can be given by an individual or organization to an elector organization, campaign organizer or an individual seeking elected office." The resolution also calls for limiting the amount of money that can be spent annually during a general local election campaign and disallowing contributions from sources outside Canada.

I will support this resolution but I also intend to work to see it go further and that means setting a 20% cap across the board on campaign financing/funding.