PROPOSED OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN DRAFT LAND USE PLAN (Pressure to come from developers for revision ?)

March 25 Agenda Package - 11.5MB (p.65-75)

The PROPOSED OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN DRAFT LAND USE PLAN (P. 65) was endorsed by council as described in the report of March 18, 2008, as submitted by the Long Range Planner, as the working draft for the new Official Community Plan.

Don Quixote Note: I had skimmed through this report before I attended the Council Session and did not appreciate the significance until I was alerted to some of the major revisions that would affect some members of the development community. Some of the highlights are listed below: (Please read full report at above Link.)

• The fundamental intent of this district approach is to utilize existing infrastructure more efficiently while providing cost effective options for new development in the existing built up areas of the city. Growth is encouraged in these areas by using the tools available to local government. Development is facilitated in the City Centre and neighbourhood centres by making it less expensive and less onerous than development in the Hillside Residential and Agriculture District. A key component of this district approach is the use of Development Cost Charges (DCCs). The City's DCC structure implicitly biases the construction of larger and more expensive homes and does nothing to encourage growth in areas where infrastructure already exists. In addition to moving to a size-based DCC charge, whereby a unit's DCCs are calculated on the basis of the square footage of the unit, it is also proposed that DCCs be charged on a development district basis, instead of a city-wide basis, with the lowest fees in the City Centre District and escalating upwards and outwards to the Hillside Residential and Agriculture District.
  
• Additional tools available to local government to expedite development in key areas range from preferential application processing, which is recommended, to designation of a revitalization area and investment in public infrastructure. The latter will be investigated more completely in light of the proposed neighbourhood planning process for the City Centre.
  
• In light of the development intent of the draft land use plan, the public consultation process and the city's population projections over the next 25 years, the following changes to the draft land use plan are recommended. The revised draft land use plan is attached (Figure 1). With regard to the Hillside Residential and Agricultural District (Development District 3), it is recommended that all previously identified urban growth areas in the Bella Vista range as well as in the Eastside Ridge area be removed.
• Further, the land use consultation results indicate that one of the reasons that many community members opted specifically for land use plan 3 was the removal of growth potential in the Commonage area. Given that there is no need to provide for additional dwelling units outside of the City Centre and Neighbourhood Districts, there is no justification for extending development potential to this area in the near future.
  
• Limited development potential for additional hillside residential is intended to remain in the Foothills and Middleton Mountain, as well as 9650 Eastside Road (Whitepoint). The Eastside Road parcel is a disturbed site that previously had Tourist Commercial designation. The neighbourhood has indicated support for residential uses as an alternative designation.

Later on in the report the author states:
With regard to the above recommendations, there is expected to be pressure from large land owners and developers to extend additional development potential to greenfield areas. Property owners understandably want to realize the maximum development potential from their property. However, this must be carefully balanced with the needs and overall benefit to the entire community. What will best meet the overall needs of the community in the short and long terms?

It is important to balance the extension of infrastructure, and its associated maintenance, with the maintenance of existing infrastructure. While new development may fund the extension of infrastructure, it is the community that will fund both its maintenance and eventual replacement. The community has clearly stated its concern with the present condition and maintenance of the city's roads and sidewalks. It is prudent to invest in the upgrading of the present supply as opposed to the extension of additional infrastructure in order to grant development potential which is not required in the foreseeable future. Future OCP reviews will need to revisit the expected population growth to determine if there is any justification to extend development potential to new or greenfield areas in the city. It is strongly recommended that greenfield areas not be accorded additional development potential prior to the next OCP review.
Further to this, Section 914(1) of the Local Government Act clearly states that the local government has no financial liability in the reduction of development potential resulting from a change in land use designation. Only in the designation of lands for public use does there result in a financial responsibility to acquire the lands.
-------------------
Don Quixote Note: This is one hell of a fine report and it will be up to Council to withstand the pressures from the development community who will want some parts modified or eliminated. Will they be up to the task ? The only lasting legacy this council may produce is a strong OCP that will pave the way for Vernon's future. Will they be able to carry it off ?