UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Regional planning in Victoria: is a revival possible? Masterton, Graeme A. A. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0533.pdf [ 2.96MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087414.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087414-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087414-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087414-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087414-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087414-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087414-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

REGIONAL PLANNING IN VICTORIA:Is A REVIVAL POSSIBLE?BYGRAEME A.A. MASTERTONB.A., UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTS ( PLANNING)INTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING)WE ACCEPT THIS THESIS AS CONFORMINGTO THE REQUIRED STANDARDUNIVE SITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJULY, 1994© GRAEME A.A. MASTERTON, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature___________________________Department of radiai Shicks, c&dq’ wii,i Af1ta2a(“‘“iThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate t1 I9, /‘1/DE.6 (2/88)IIABSTRACTThis thesis studies the history of the Capital Regional District (C.R.D.), theregional authority for the twelve municipalities and two electoral areas calledGreater Victoria on Vancouver Island, from the birth of regional planning in the1950’s to stagnation in the 1980’s and 90’s. It seeks to understand whathappened in the CRD and what lessons we can learn from Victoria that will addto the existing knowledge of regional planning. Was it the structure of the CRD,the enabling legislation, the process followed in creating official regional plans,local politics, or a combination of factors that prevented the CRD from fulfilling itspromise? By understanding the CRD history we are able to identify problemsand suggest changes that could begin the planning process once again.The CRD is studied through personal interviews, newspaper research,secondary sources, and a custom survey of politicians and planners, todetermine the political and professional atmosphere surrounding the CRD overits entire history. Other examples of regional planning or, more specifically,urban-centred regional planning, are studied to set the CRD within the spectrumof types of regional authorities.IIIFrom the beginning there has been little municipal support, either politically orprofessionally, for regional planning in the Capital Region. In addition there isthe continuing lack of trained professional planning staff in many of the regionalmunicipalities. Thus, the CRD’s calls for planning merely fall upon deaf ears.The final problem has been with the regional authorities themselves. The earlyCRPB planners may have demonstrated elitism since they were the onlyplanners in the region and worked for what they thought was the ‘higherauthority’. This apparent arrogance in pursuit of regional goals may have sownthe seeds of the mistrust which the municipalities came to regard the regionalplanning efforts of the CRD. Municipal support withered and was weak in 1983when the Province stripped Regional Districts of their regional planning powers;however, Saanich has demonstrated an increase in support for regional planningin recent years. However, the municipalities within the region still lack a properforum and process to resolve regional land issues. Only the Province of BC canrestore this through legislation.ivTable of ContentsTitle PageAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Figures VIAcknowledgment viiChapter One Introduction 1General Background 1Purpose 2Victoria Background 2Problem Statement 4Methodology 6Assumptions 7Scope 8Organization 8Chapter Two Theory, History, and Application of Planning to 10RegionsIntroduction 10Theory 11Definition of a Region to be used in defining the 13Capital RegionHistory 15Application of Planning to Regions 22Metro Governments 26Council of Governments 31Regional Districts 33Summary 37Recipes for Success 40Chapter Three A Survey Regarding Attitudes towards Regional 45Planning in the Capital RegionSummary 53Chapter Four Regional Planning in the Capital Region 55Introduction 571951-1970 -- The Capital Region Planning Board 59V1970- 1983 -- The Birth of the Capital Regional 69District1983 to Present -- A Time of Change 83Summary 94Chapter Five Summary and Conclusions 98Summary 98Conclusions 113Possible Solutions for the Capital Region 117Bibliography 121Appendix A Sample Survey 129Appendix B Responses by Number 139viList of Figures2.1 Map of the Capital Region 153.1 Response Rates of Municipalities. 473.2 Current State of Regional Planning. 493.3 Where Should Regional Planning Be? 493.4 Are you Aware of the Capital Region Planning Board? 493.5 Are you Aware of Visions Victoria? 503.6 Response Numbers. 513.7 Pro-Regional Planning Questions. 513.8 Anti-Regional Planning Questions. 534.1 Map of the Capital Region 574.2 Newspaper Articles. 654.3 Map of Tillicum Mall Area. 804.4 Growth Rates in the Capital Region. 915.1 Principles of Planning within a Region. 1055.2 Times-Colonist Article #1. 1105.3 Times-Colonist Article #2. 112vi’AcknowledgementsI would like to thank all of those who took the time and the effort to bring forththeir little piece of history regarding the Capital Region Planning Board or theCapital Regional District. Without the verbal history, there would be no thesis towrite. Special thanks to my editors, Liz Fontaine, Prof. Fontaine (University ofVictoria), J.G. Masterton and Dr. Ronald Forgie. Without their guidance thereadability of this paper would be at a far lower standard. Thanks to mycolleagues at BC Transit whose ridicule and harrassment spurred me to finishthis project after four years. Thanks to my family and friends who have toleratedmy abscence from gatherings and the ever changing moods over the past fouryears. Finally, a special thank you to my wife Peg, without whose understandingand persuasion my interest in concluding this chapter of my life would havedwindled to nothing.11.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 GEIi BACKGROUNDThe term ‘regional planning’ has had many meanings applied to it over the past100 years. Urban planners have leaned towards the notion of planning for a cityand the suburban and rural areas around it. Yet, the style of planning, and thereasons behind it, have changed quite radically since the late 1800’s. Fromutopians and anarchists, through the Garden City movement and the scientificgeography of the 1960’s, and the modern environmental planning, the notion ofregional planning has had many different interpretations, Urban centred regionalplanning, however, has generally focused upon attempts to organize the mixbetween man and nature within a defined area.Regional planning in its classical form was first and foremost a response to themetropolitan explosion. Planners like Mumford and Odum, or utopians likeHoward, wanted to stop the flood of urbanization and begin a reconstruction ofregional life (Weaver, 1984, p.2). Patrick Geddes promoted the idea of aregional survey of the region surrounding a city slated for replanning. HowardOdum and the ‘Southern Regionalists’ of the 1930’s focused upon the region asthe planning unit rather than just the city. Friedmann (in the 1950’s) began themodern phase of scientific planning by combining many of these ideas andrelating regional economic growth to the development of the urban system. Theregional planning studied for this thesis is based on all of this historical ideology-the modern urban centred regional planning.2it Is the application of urban planning to a region that this thesis focuses upon.in particular, the efforts within the Capital Region in the realm of urban planningare examined from the 1950’s to the present.l2PuncesUtilizIng the past 100 years of theory and practice of regional planning in Europeand North America, a basic success formula’ for regional planning authorities,will be suggested. This formula will be the reference guide against which theCapital Regional District planning program for an urban centred region isexamined.Within Greater VIctoria, there has been some form of urban regional planningsince the 1950’s. However, today the Capital Regional District is no longerinvolved in the pursuit of regional planning. Therefore, the purpose of this thesisis to examine the history of regional planning in the Capital Region anddetermine what occurred over fifty years to cause regional planning to cease asa function of the Capital Regional District. When these causes are identified, aplan of action to effect a return of regional planning to the Capital Region will besuggested.1.3 Vicron&BsnoinwThe Capital Region Planning Board (CRPB) was created in 1952 wIth a mandateto create a regional plan. At that time there were no municipal planningdepartments (Victoria was not created until 1965, Saanich in 1958), no basemaps of the area, no resource Inventories, and no regional growth pressures.The regional agency was the top down creation of the Provincial Government3rather than being born of needs of local agencies or governments. Thereforethere was little incentive or need for municipalities to fully support an agencythey had not asked for nor felt any need to utilize. The Capital Region PlanningBoard was the creation of the Province, it did not enjoy full support for its missionfrom all the constituent municipalities of the Capital Region. There were not thegrowth pressures typically associated with the creation of regional authoritiessuch as in London England, Toronto, or Vancouver. Moreover, urban planningitself was a relatively new municipal service in Canada. None of the eightmunicipalities in the Capital Region had municipal planning departments withwhich the Capital Region Planning Board could liaise until Saanich created aplanning department in 1958 and Victoria in 1965. Despite this, the CapitalRegion Planning Board managed to create a draft regional plan in 1954.The Capital Regional District was created in 1970 and assumed the role ofregional planning authority, along with other regional duties, from the CapitalRegion Planning Board The Capital Regional District produced two OfficialRegional Plans (1974 and 1983), yet it appears to have had fluctuating supportfor its regional planning service from the municipalities. In 1983, the ProvincialGovernment of B.C. chose to remove regional planning from all regional districtsas a legislated activity, and the Capital Regional District complied with thischange by no longer providing this function, even in an advisory capacity.In the 1990’s, there has been a rise in the population growth rate -- GreaterVictoria grew in population 13% between 1986 and 1991 -- and a correspondingrise in the calls for a return to regional planning from the two largestmunicipalities, Victoria and Saanich, which have suffered the brunt of increasedpopulation traffic and use of services. There has been some recent quasi-4regional planning for transportation and for growth analysis, but this has neitherbeen directed by the Capital Regional District nor coordinated through an officialregional plan. It is important to understand the history of the Capital RegionPlanning Board and Capital Regional District before a course of action can beascertained.1.4 PRoBLEM STAmi4rThe need for regional planning in the Capital Region will be the assumptiontaken for this thesis. The existence of a draft regional plan in 1954 and OfficialRegional Plans in 1974 and 1983 seem to indicate a continuing concern forregional coordination. These plans cover the entire Capital Region -- aconglomeration of twelve municipalities and two Electoral Areas, occupying 2420square kilometres at the southern tip of Vancouver Island in British Columbia.Why did regional planning, which began with so much promise in the 1950’s,virtually disappear by 1994? Was it the structure of the Capital Regional District,the process followed in creating official regional plans, local politics, theconfusion of the Capital Regional District’s regional role with that of its quasimunicipal role, or a combination of factors that prevented the Capital RegionalDistrict from fulfilling its promise to the region?The above questions are important because without effective regional leadershipin the areas connected to planning, the municipalities seem to be drifting apartand putting themselves, individually, ahead of the needs of the region. Theresult is no regional road network strategy and no regional growth plan. Growth5and servicing decisions that affect the whole region are not addressed beyondsubsidized housing, health care, sewage and solid waste services.The objectives of this thesis are as follows:(1) To establish, “a base of rules for success” in implementing regionalplanning. This base will be the result from the study of the history ofregional planning theory and an examination of different applications ofplanning to metro regions in Europe and North America;(2) To review the history of regional planning in the Capital Region andexamine what was accomplished from the 1950’s to the 1990’s;(3) To determine the current state of regional planning and its relation tothe CRD through the use of secondary sources, an attitudinal survey,personal observation, and interviews with individuals involved in theCRD and CRPB;(4) To propose a course of action regarding the future of regional planningfor the Capital Region.(5) To understand what can be learned from these findings that can beapplied to other regions in order to bring regional planning into practice.61.5 METhoDoLoGYThe examination of the Capital Regional District is complicated by the fact thatthere is no written history to utilize as a reference. Therefore, a multitude ofresources were used and cross-referenced in order to piece together a basichistory of the past 40 years of regional planning in the Capital Region.The specific methodology used in each section of the thesis is as follows:Chapter 2-- Theory, History and Application of Planning to Regions. Someprimary sources were utilized to understand the history of regionalplanning and how it has changed over the past 100 years. Aquantitative review of the literature examining the issue of regionalplanning is used to provide a base from which to review the CapitalRegion planning history. It is also used to formulate several recipesfor the successful implementation of planning for a region.Chapter 3- 1991 Survey of Attitudes to Regional Planning - A survey will beused to determine, the current attitudes towards regional planning.The survey was sent to 120 local politicians and planners and willallow for some insight into the current (1991) views on the issue ofplanning for the Capital Region and the role of the Capital RegionalDistrict.7Chapter 4-- Planning for the Capital Region -- the Capital Region PlanningBoard and the Capital Regional District. The history of regionalplanning in Greater Victoria was established using newspaperarticles, plans from the two planning agencies, and interviews withindividuals who were involved in the planning process in Victoria.Because many of these sources overlap; it is possible to formulate atimeline of events relating to regional planning in the Capital Region.1.6 AssuMPTioNsThese objectives assume that the information acquired on the Capital RegionalDistrict is complete and represents the true progression of planning within theCapital Region. They also assume that there is a need for regional planning,now and in the future, and that regional planning should be the activity of aregional body. At a basic level, there is the final assumption that regionalplanning is a necessity in a region of this size. One significant limitation to thisresearch was the difficulty in acquiring information on the Capital RegionPlanning Board and the Capital Regional District. Many personal sources couldnot be used because they simply did not wish to participate in the study. Aneffort to broaden the perspective beyond the Capital Region Planning Board andthe Capital Regional District was made using former planners in the CapitalRegion. Time limitations on researching this thesis also precludes intensivereview of the council minutes of each municipality.81.7 ScoPEThe scope of the thesis includes the methodology used in the creation ofregional plans, and the effectiveness in gaining support for regional planning.The definitions of regions or of planning for regions are not in dispute in thisthesis; nor is the question of the need for regional planning. The thesis willanswer one single question: has the application of planning in the Capital Regionbeen carried out in a manner that would lead to its success? Further, does thisregional planning enjoy the support of the municipalities and is it effective?There are obvious limitations to this analysis of the CRD. Service functions thatare regional in scope are not the focus of this study. Therefore, the regionalhealth program, regional parks, sewerage and water will not be a part of theexamination of the CRD’s regional success. Comprehensive regional planning isunderstood to refer to the identification, organization, and protection ofenvironmental resources, the planning of the urban environment and regionalgrowth management. Comprehensive regional planning is often the mostcontentious form of regional direction a regional authority can engage in. Theorganization of the authority and the support that the regional body creates for itsplanning will be the focus of study.1.8 ORGANIzAnoNIn order to examine the effectiveness of planning in the Capital Region by theCapital Region Planning Board and the Capital Regional District, it is necessaryto review the theory and history of regional planning itself. This theory willprovide the base from which the Capital Regional District will be examined.9Chapter Two, Theory, History, and Application of Planning to Regions, will brieflyreview the history of regional planning and examine different forms of planningauthorities that have been utilized in Europe and North America. Several“recipes for success” will also be put forth. This chapter creates a contextualsetting that will be used to examine the formation of a regional planning authorityin the Capital Region. Chapter Three, 1991 Suivey of Regional PlanningAttitudes in the Capital Region, will examine the results of an attitudinal surveytaken in 1 91. It is hoped that the survey will reveal the levels of support forregional planning, indirectly show the effectiveness, of the Capital RegionPlanning Board and Capital Regional District, in creating a positive atmospherefor regional planning, and gauge the support for regional planning in the future.Chapter Four, Planning for the Capital Region -- the Capital Region PlanningBoard and the Capital Regional District examines the history of planning for theCapital Region from the 1950’s to the 1990’s. This chapter will explore thecourse of action taken over four decades by the two planning authorities.Chapter Five, Summary and Conclusions, will summarize Chapters Three andFour and compare the results to those discussed in Chapter Two. Thecomparison will yield conclusions regarding the success of authorities in applyingplanning to the Capital Region. As well, it should be possible to understand whythe Capital Regional District is not currently engaged in regional planning andalso suggest a course of action for the future.102.0 -- THEORY, HISTORY, AND APPLICATION OF PLANNING TO REGIONSTo consider a city or town as an entity separate and apart from theextensional landscape -- its suburban, rural and wilderness matrix-- is like trying to understand the phenomenon of Planet Earthoutside the context of the planetary system. (Simonds, p.258.)2.1 INTRODUCTION“Regional planning, in its classical form, was, first and foremost a response tothe metropolitan explosion(Weaver, p.2) .“ Drawing upon the ideas of earlierregional activists, civic reformers, and libertarian socialists, planners andtheorists such as Lewis Mumford and Howard Odum, who wanted to stop theflood of ‘metropolitanization’, and begin a reconstruction of regional life. Theyadvocated a revitalized territorial civilization built around regional communitieswhich created a majority of the goods and services needed within the region. Itwas not until the 1960’s that the practice of regional planning became a scientificexercise in spatial development and economics (previously it was more aboutsociety and the environment). The job of regional planning was to provide thenecessary infrastructure and public guidance to speed the process of growth(Weaver, p.6). It was this guidance that was the focus of planning in the CapitalRegion in the 1950’s.In order to discuss the history of regional planning in Greater Victoria it isnecessary to review literature regarding the definition of a region -- and, byextension, planning for a region. This chapter, therefore, will briefly review thedefinitions of a region, and define the specific parameters of a region withinwhich the Victoria situation will be critiqued. A historical review of the field ofregional planning will be used to examine the changing concepts over the past11century. A brief review of the application of regional planning in various cities willlead into a short section describing “the recipes for success” based on theexamples and the literature review.2.2 TIoRYA relevant question is: what is the unit to which the theory ofregional growth applies? In other words, how do we define aregion? The only safe statements are: there is no uniquedefinition; we may wish to define a region in different ways as theobjectives of inquiry vary (Richardson, p.6).As noted in the above quotation, to define a region requires the establishment ofparameters and functions to be considered within the context of that region.Therefore, Metropolitan Toronto or the East Midlands of England can both beclassified as regions. History, environment, economics, land use, travelpatterns, and growth of residential development, are merely a few -- out of abroad spectrum -- of the factors that could be utilized in describing ordetermining the basic boundaries of a region. Regions may be defined byboundaries which occur in nature or those created by man. This latter boundarycan be either permanent or temporary depending upon need for the region andthe parameters that are being used to define that region.H.Richardson (1973), groups the methods of delimiting the boundaries of aregion into three categories: homogeneity, nodality and programming.Homogeneity is defined as being homogenous with respect to some keyelement. The nodal concept emphasizes intra-regional spatial differentiation andit recognizes that population and economic activities will not be scattereduniformly over a region but will concentrate in or around specific foci of activity.The third approach, is to define the region in terms of political and administrative12areas where the political delimitation is supposed to give a unity to the area.Such an area is termed a programming or planning region. (H.Richardson, p.4)Prior to the mid-twentieth century, most regions were viewed as a naturalelement because areas were typically limited by natural boundaries. Though thedelineation of exact boundaries, based on climate and nature, is a subjectiveexercise. Peter Hall emphasizes that natural regions can be roughlyapproximated because geology and geomorphology produce land forms and soilthat relate to climate in the creation of a distinctive region. The land form andsoils could create agricultural possibilities, influence settlement patterns andtravel routes which would thus influence the development of the area (Hall,p.13). This notion of natural regions is particularly true prior to the IndustrialRevolution, after which society began to openly alter the physical environmenton a scale not previously witnessed.Hans Blumenfeld prefers to define regions using interaction as the prime factor:“I would define a region as an area within which interaction is more intense thanits interaction with other regions (Blumenfeld, p.87).” Within these interactiveregions there is either a single focal centre or a multitude of smaller centres thatexist more or less upon an equal plane. Therefore, this definition of a regionrelates to the use of space and the degree of connectivity between urban ormetropolitan ‘areas’ and is less concerned with the physical nature of the space.The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a region reflects the varied definitionsof regions by noting that a region is a place, or space, having some form ofboundary or merely showing a set of common characteristics. Therefore, aregion’s boundaries can be as varied as the reasons for defining it.13In Canada, regions have often been viewed in economic terms by the seniorlevels of government, particularly where federal fiscal aid is concerned. Eachprovince, or the Maritimes provinces collectively, are assumed by government tobe a somewhat cohesive unit exhibiting similar economic and social traits withinfederal programs. Within British Columbia, regions are interpreted as largesegments of the Province. However, there is a large degree of arbitraryboundary imposition upon regional areas in B.C.. For example, the Okanagan iscurrently not a single political entity but rather is divided into several autonomousregional authorities despite a high degree of interaction within this large region.Since World War II, the concept of a region has been redefined to includeMetropolitan regions (see H.Richardson, Weaver). This is seen in the largerCanadian centres such as Toronto and Vancouver where the length ofcommuting and the interaction of people, business, and social/recreationalfactors, between smaller suburban centres and the main urban core has resultedin the extension of the metropolitan region to a massive size.2.3 DEHNrn0N OF A REGION TO BE USED IN DEFINING THE CAPITAL REGIONThe definition to be used for defining the Capital Region is a combination ofmany of the preceding streams of thought. In part (as also stated by Hall, p.15),a region is composed of contiguous areas that show some form of uniformity andare connected through nodal flow patterns. This reflects the definition given byH.Richardson earlier. According to his theory, the Capital Region would bedefined as both a programming area and a nodal region. Furthermore, thedefined region is of natural delineation within which human settlement, work, andrecreation patterns are more or less contained. The region for this thesis is14further defined as a metropolitan area containing tracts of developed andundeveloped land with a hierarchy of nodes for commerce and settlement, all ofwhich have some definable commonality.The metropolitan area, as noted by Blumenfeld (p.79), no longer shows thesharp divisions between the densely built town and the open country. Areas thatdeveloped at varying densities, are interspersed with open areas used forrecreation and agriculture.The planning area of the Capital Region includes the current twelvemunicipalities and two Electoral Areas currently under the Capital RegionalDistrict’s defined area of jurisdiction. However, the amount of interaction that theouter areas of the Sooke Electoral Area, or the Gulf Islands have with theremainder of the region is limited enough to exclude them from extensiveexamination. However, based on the amount of commuter traffic from theSouthern Cowichan Valley to Victoria -- 1100 cars per hour during the rush hourperiod (BC Transit, 1993) -- it could be argued that this area should be includedin all future planning efforts.152.4 HISTORYGiven the above working definition of a region, the next logical step is to definethe limitations to the form or style of planning that is to be undertaken for theregion. Regional planning is a term used generically to describe a vast range ofplanning from metropolitan transit planning to federal economic planning.However, this thesis will concern itself solely with comprehensive land useplanning in the physical, economic, social and recreational realms, within adescribed region. This type of planning came from the early foundations createdby Ebenezer Howard and Patrick Geddes -- and other planners and visionariesat the turn of the Nineteenth Century. Regional planning does not dealexclusively with economics and the influence of commerce upon the movementof goods and people, yet “... neither is it exclusively aesthetic or social in itsFigure 2.1THE CAPITAL REGION16motivation - rather it is a congregation with many interests, all of which areinterconnected.” (Hall, p.24.)Industrial cities were brought into being during the Eighteenth and NineteenthCenturies by the same set of processes as the rise of capitalist industrialism. Itwas the conditions of everyday life of this new proletariat which appalled andoutraged a minority of the educated classes. Urban and regional planning in thecontemporary sense was a liberal-leaning mixture of three elements --progressive reform, urban religious movements, and radical socialism-- andbecame firmly established among the new ‘urban’ professions over the 50 yearsbetween 1880 and 1930. Their earliest motives were concerned with reformingliving conditions of the industrial working class and controlling the growth ofindustrial cities (Weaver, p.6).Lewis Mumford (quoted in Simmonds, p.256) defined regional planning to be the“conscious direction and collective integration of all those activities which restupon the use of the earth as site, as resource, as structure.” J.Simmonds, acontemporary planner whose values seem to parallel those of Mumford’s,believes that not only is regional planning a conscious movement for theintertwining of man and nature, but that it offers the best opportunity toemphasize both the maintenance of the status quo and the quality of growthrather than simply watching growth occur quantitatively (Simmonds, p.260.).Simmonds goes further to reiterate the philosophies that were brought forth intothe realm of public debate by the Garden City movement:“Fundamental to regional planning and orderly growth is theconcept of intensely developed urban cores with supporting17communities and activity subcentres spaced out in the surroundinglandscape - in other words keep nature close at hand (Howard,p.56).”This also matches Blumenfeld’s monocentric region definition. Though cities inBritain and Europe have been planned to some extent for thousands of years,there has always been a strong element of natural unplanned growth. This‘natural growth’ creates the feel and atmosphere of unity between the built formand the natural environment in many medium to smaller size cities throughoutEurope. The city and the country existed in close proximity in Britain until theIndustrial Revolution of the late 1700’s during which time all the large urbancentres suffered from a loss of parks, increased pollution, and severe congestiondue to short range migration from the surrounding countryside (Webb, p.119).Factories, were built over open space and polluted the air with soot. Cities couldnot cope with the increased populations because of a lack of housing, suitableinfrastructure, and organized transportation. The rapid technological change in afew industries led, primarily by the factory, with the invention of steam and waterdriven machines (Webb, p.117). At the same time the population began to risegeometrically as noted in England where the population was approximately 7.5million in the late 1700’s, and by 1851 it was 18 million.The development of utopian socialism can be traced in this time period, for thisthesis, to the innovators and precursors of regional planning, Charles Fourierand Robert Owen. These two men presented one of the most compellingtheories of Nineteenth Century social theory: the hope that urban life would betransformed by building new planned industrial towns (Weaver, p.32). Becauseof their ideas -- the new town theory, the belief in class cooperation, the faith in18rationality, the avoidance of politics -- Fourier and Owen were rightly labeledUtopians. Fourier, in particular, advocated largely self sufficient, free standingindustrial communities; placing strong emphasis on mixing traditionally urbanand rural pursuits. It is precisely these ideas that are still a large part of regionalplanning today.Patrick Le Play first used the notion of ‘famille, travail, lieu’ (folk, work, place) toanalyze the sociology of the family unit and its relationship to the geographicalenvironment in the south of France in 1877 (Weaver, p.34). Patrick Geddes, acontemporary of Ebenezer Howard, was attracted to this triad as a framework forplanning and social surveys. He transposed Le Play’s triad by placing emphasison the physical environment and on understanding how it related to humanoccupations. Geddes felt that to start the task of replanning the industrial city, itwas first necessary to have an in depth knowledge of the nuances and specialattributes of the city and the region surrounding it (Weaver, p.50). Thus, Geddesarrived at the notion of the regional survey -- a task still maintained today as afunction of the Capital Region District through its information services.Weaver (p.51) states that the early planning theorists shared several commonthreads:1. a strong negative reaction to economic and political centralization;2. a basic revulsion with the industrial city;3. the conviction that regional life and culture in the outlying provinces must berestored and that this could be accomplished through:4. a mixing of rural and urban occupations, and;195. a combination of manual and intellectual tasks, beginning at the essentiallevel of education.It was a concern over congestion and the loss of the rural lifestyle in London thatled Ebenezer Howard to write his utopian view of the region in his work, GardenCities of Tomorrow. The Garden City concept was an attempt to combine “... thebest qualities of city and countryside in autonomous new communities, to belocated at some distance from existing cities, on tracts of about 6000 acres, with5000 acres for farmland and 1000 for the town.” (Mumford, 1961, p.521.)Howard provided a foundation for viewing planning in a regional context, thoughthe ecological basis of a region was not fully identified as a prime considerationuntil first Geddes, then Lewis Mumford, followed much later by lan McHarg, andJohn Simmonds, began to conceptualize ways of harmonizing city and theenvironment. However, Howard was the first of the modern era of planners toconceptualize that the city and the surrounding region should be planned as aunit rather that allowing sprawl to occur. As Mumford notes, “Howard intuitivelygrasped the potential of the etherealized city of the future, which unites theurban and rural components into a porous regional complex, multi-centred butcapable of functioning as a whole.” (Mumford, 1961, pp.520-522.) Thus thenotion of a region was beginning to take form as an identifiable unit capable ofbeing studied on many levels as a singular entity.As already noted, Patrick Geddes and Patrick Le Play expanded Howard’s thesisto promote ways of making the earth more habitable by achieving a balancebetween human and natural factors within a definable region. (Hodge, p.271.)The strong conviction was fostered among early twentieth century planners and20theorists that the city was no longer the sole planning jurisdiction; rather, a largerarea must be conceived which took in all of the different facets of the physicalenvironment, human and natural attributes. (Hodge, p.256) This fact becameincreasingly apparent with the introduction of the electric streetcar and later, theautomobile, which greatly increased the distance that people could travel forwork or leisure.Under Howard Odum in the 1930’s, the ‘Southern Regionalists’ -- regionalsociologists at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill--along with theRegional Planning Association of America set themselves apart from the work ofearlier planners in that their focus was on the region as a planning unit. For bothof these latter groups, the region was conceived of as the primary building blockof human culture and social life. Regions were real historical places, not merelylarge industrial cities, that shared a common history, social institutions, andpatterns of human/environmental relationships (Weaver, p.60). It is this versionof a region that reflects the history of the Capital Region.John Friedmann, in the 1950’s, was among the first post World War II plannersto relate regional economic growth to development of the urban system(Friedmann came out of the Chicago School of Planning were the scientificnotion of planning was first developed). This meant that regional planning mustbecome spatial planning systems and that the main concern of planners shouldbe optimizing the location of economic activities (Weaver, p.81).. Friedmann,had thus joined the budding multidisciplinary field of regional science. RegionalPlanning as a field of study and professional practice was to interest itself ineconomic location theory, central place studies, urbanization, and regionaleconomic development. Its methods were to be rigorously scientific and its goalV 21was to be the functional integration of the space economy -- concentratingpeople, resources, and economic activities, into a tightly woven network of citiesand their adjoining regions.It is this scientific form of regional planning that the Capital Region PlanningBoard was created to undertake in the 1950’s in Victoria, though there has beensome tempering of this philosophy in the 1980’s and 90’s to more of theSouthern Regionalist and environmental streams. The Capital Regional Districtand the Capital Region Planning Board undertook to begin a regional plan with aregional resource inventory and to use this information as the initial guide forsubsequent development patterns. Chapter 4 will examine whether the CapitalRegional District followed this form of regional planning or whether there was amovement towards the provision of individual regional services.Regional planning theory in the 1990’s has an added emphasis onenvironmental protection and its integration with the social, economic andphysical requirements of humanity, and has become a higher theoretical concernsince the works of Artur Glickson, Ian McHarg, and John Simmonds in the1960’s. Regional planning, however, has typically not been able to fulfill itsdesigned role because of two fatal flaws: political boundaries and human nature.Though many attempts to appease political sensitivities have been utilized overthe past century, few have been successful in achieving comprehensive regionalplanning.222.5 APPucA’rIoN OF PLANNING TO REGIONSThe Garden City ideology as it affected regional planning was brought into realitywith the aid of Thomas Adams who took his ideas to Europe and North America.Once such example was the Advisory Plan for Greater Manchester, Englandcompleted in 1926. Using the ideas of Adams, the Manchester and District JointTown Planning Advisory completed a regional plan covering 4 counties and 96local authorities dealing with industrial parks, the preservation of farmland,regional parks and open space, and all undeveloped land: not too dissimilar fromthe recurring concerns expressed in the Capital Region since the 1950’s.Unfortunately, as so often seems to be the case, the legislation required to giveauthority and legal backing to the plan and the Planning Advisory was stalled.The result was that ultimately only minor portions of the plan were ever put intoeffect (Gordon, p.54).Over the past 50 years regional planning institutions have been created in orderto allow larger metropolitan regions the ability to coordinate planning functionsamong many local participants. Gill Lim in 1983 (p.9) identified six varieties ofregional planning institutions that are utilized throughout the Western World.(1) Consolidation of City and County Governments.(2) More planning authority conferred upon Counties along with new taxingcapabilities to finance regional projects (e.g. sewerage, Parks, water).(3) Two tier governments like those in Toronto and Miami.(4) The creation of a regional government such as was the case in Portland(Ore.), and Minneapolis-St.Paul.23(5) The voluntary Council-of-Governments approach.(6) Special purpose districts such as the Port Authority in New York City, or theBay Area Rapid Transit Authority in San Francisco.Each of these forms of regional planning offers an interesting perspective andreveals the different approaches utilized when converting regional planningtheory into action. Some approaches can be categorized as being from theenvironmental stream or the policy stream but in reality the majority ofapproaches is a mixture.The Achilles heel of these regional authorities or agencies “... as political andeconomic institutions, lies in their multi-jurisdictional nature and in the politicaldivergence of their constituencies (Lim, p.11).” Regional planning has not,except in a few isolated instances, made the successful leap from theory topractice.Peter Self feels that a common error in discussions of comprehensive planninginvolves identifying this activity with a power(ul central agency issuinginstructions in a hierarchical or dictatorial manner (Self, p.5). Comprehensiveplanning is, perhaps, more properly viewed as providing a framework for themore limited plans prepared by functional agencies or municipalities.The comprehensive planning agency will, it is true, need someeffective powers, such as the authority to lay down guidelines forother agencies and to override them or act directly on occasion, butits effectiveness still turns upon mutual dialogue and harmonizationof objectives (Self, p.15).24Because regional planning is an organic rather than mechanistic process, itentails teamwork between organization conditions. Thus, the differing factorbetween the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict (both of which were established with the same basic objectives) is thatthe former focused less on regional planning and more on functional activitieswhile the latter kept planning as its primary function.In the range of planning authorities identified by Lim, the Metro government hasthe most legislated control over planning in a region while a Council ofGovernment has the least. Regional Planning Boards lie midway along thisspectrum.A Metro scheme, as practiced in London, Stockholm, and Toronto, brings localgovernment structure into “social and economic realities by recognizing themany interdependencies and joint functional interests which exist in a greaturban area.” (Self. p.61) This is done by setting up an overall public authority forthe entire region. A Metro system will, in theory, promote equality. It canassume control over functions which have broad catchment areas -- liketransportation or recreation facilities -- and others which have a very unevenincidence of need -- like health and social housing.“If the regional authority is no more than a coordinating committee of the otherlocal governments with few or no executive powers then it is a step towardsmetro government rather than its achievement (Self, p.61).” Metrogovernments, like all regional governments, encounter the political problem ofwinning support, or overcoming the opposition, of second tier municipalities.25Self notes (p.70) that there are few metro governments of any success in theUnited States, listing only Dade County Florida. A more common approach inmetropolitan areas is the Council of Governments. The Council of Governmentsis an assembly of elected officials drawn from local governments. It generallylacks executive power and exist only because the federal government mademoney available for metro planning.“A Council of Government’s teeth derive solely from the ability of afederal or state agency to nominate it as the relevant clearinghousefor ensuring that a grant paid to a local municipality accords withthe provision of an area wide plan (Self, p.85).”The Council of Governments is not a metro government, rather, it is a weakagency for overall coordination and planning that is reluctant to offend any of itslocal governments.The regional planning authority in Canada generally has more powers than aCouncil of Governments in many regional activities except planning. Regionalplanning is an activity that can be carried out by the Regional District if asked todo so by a majority of the local governments comprising the region. SomeRegional Districts in British Columbia choose to offer plans in an advisorycapacity only, while others choose to focus on regional activities over which theyhave control.262.5.1 Metro GovernmentsThe Metro form of government was pioneered primarily by three cities, London,Stockholm, and Toronto. In 1968 in Stockholm, the Greater Stockholm TrafficAssociation, the last and strongest of a series of coordinating bodies, took onregional planning and water and sewer planning on an interim basis. In 1971this changed with a directly elected Greater Stockholm County Council takingover responsibility for regional planning, health, water supplies and sewerage,while the city and suburban communities kept local planning and housing. (Self,p.66) The Stockholm County Council actively purchases land for developmentand has strong control over regional issues.The Greater London Reform of 1963 was not supported by many of the morethan 100 local authorities, but was enacted by a Conservative Government onthe advice of a Royal Commission (Self, p.66). The Commission put a greatdeal of stress upon the functional needs of urban planning and transportation aswell as upon the argument that London comprised a single great city. Only theCity of London survived with its original boundaries intact. All the other unitswere abolished and replaced with thirty-two directly elected Boroughs -- apopulation of 250,000 was used as a minimum figure -- and a directly electedGreater London Council. Concurrent powers for many functions were given toboth levels of government, especially for planning and housing. (Self, p.66) TheGreater London Development Plan appeared in 1969 and received formalapproval in 1976 on a much revised basis. It is interesting to note that bothStockholm and London chose to have political representation through directelections. This ensures that the first priority of the politicians is the region ratherthan a municipality.27The Toronto Metro government wasnot an accident, but was the culmination of a long history ofcitizen and official concern with generally poor housing conditions,with grossly inadequate housing for families of low income, withinadequate attention to physical planning, and with an almost totalabsence of federal and provincial legislation in these fields (Rose,p.11).The central city grew 7% between 1930 and 1953 while the suburban areasgrew in population by more than 200% (Goldenburg, p.22). Only the City ofToronto, out of thirteen municipalities making up the region, had full sewerageand utilities.The City of Toronto faced a massive backlog of public works projects due toaging of the infrastructure and overuse from the daily influx of commuters fromthe suburbs (Goldenburg, p.22). The inner city residential areas had becomerundown, the welfare roles had increased ,and traffic congestion caused by thegrowing number of suburban commuters had become a massive concern. Thisresulted in the construction of the Don Valley Parkway and the Queen ElizabethExpressway as well as the 401 and 404 highways and the aborted SpadinaExpressway (Goldenburg, p.23).It was during this period of rapid growth that the push towards regionalgovernment began. In 1925, a Bill seeking to establish a Metropolitan Area ofToronto, died on the floor of the Provincial House (Goldenburg, p.23). Asubsequent 1935 Ministry of Municipal Affairs report written by a University ofToronto Political Economics professor (A.Plumptre) urged the amalgamation ofthe urban sections of the Toronto Area. On December 20, 1945, a white paperentitled Where are Toronto and its Metropolitan Area Heading?, was published28by the Bureau of Municipal Research. Within this paper it is pointed out thatToronto and the suburbs were “one social and economic unit and any attempt totreat them as a series of independent units cannot but lead to grave failure in theend.” (Goldenburg, p.24)When in 1949, the Toronto and York Planning Board recommended theunification of the City of Toronto with the other 7 municipalities lying between theHumber River and the Township of Scarborough, many local politicians inToronto felt that the erosion of local powers was simply too great a price to payfor any venture towards metropolitan or regional administration. Opposition, inthe various forms, would continue until overridden by the province in the creationof Metro Toronto.In 1953 the Ontario Municipal Board, a permanent review body, suggested theconcept of a regional authority. This was combined in the report with partialamalgamations which would reduce the thirteen central municipalities to only six.The 0MB metropolitan suggestion was put into effect on January 1, 1954. Thereport recommended a two-tier form of government which was described as aversion of the federal system of government which duplicated that which existsat the federal-provincial level. The Metro Council consisted of twenty-fivemembers, twelve from the City of Toronto and one from each of the twelvesuburbs, an independent chairman appointed by the Province for the first twoyears and thereafter a chairman was to be elected by the Metro Council (Self,66; Horan, p.115).The case for financial equalization between municipalities and a solid directiveduring this period of explosive growth, were major factors in the Metro scheme’s29design and acceptability (Self, p.68). Part XIV of the new Metro Toronto Act (Bill80) excluded all powers with respect to redevelopment, subdivision control,zoning and building by-laws at the local level from Metropolitan control. It didauthorize agreements with Metro Toronto and its member municipalities as theyrelated to conditions for the approval of subdivision plans (Goldenburg, p.33).The Metro Government was, however, charged with the responsibilities for thepreparation of an official plan for the Metro Planning Area (Report of the RoyalCommission, p.207). This Planning Area included the 240 square miles withinthe Metro boundary plus an additional 480 square miles in rural townshipsadjacent to Metro Toronto. The additional coverage was to ensure that growth inthe rural areas bounding Metro would follow Metro’s policies.In 1959, six years after the creation of Metro Toronto, a Regional Plan waspublished in draft form and the Planning Board of Metro Council had the finalword on all subdivision applications throughout the region. This draft OfficialRegional Plan, the first of its kind in North America (Governing Metro Toronto,p.105) was intended to be a framework for public discussion (Report of the RoyalCommission, p.208) and was therefore never submitted to the province forratification as an ‘official’ plan. The plan established a basic land use anddevelopment framework, proposed decentralizing employment, and emphasizedthe need for public transit. Also proposed were policies for the distribution ofresidential population, the preservation of open space, and the redevelopment ofdeclining areas.The 0MB, in response to a request by the City of Toronto to reconsider theamalgamation issue of 1950, prepared a report that ultimately resulted in fourBoroughs being created out of the 13 surrounding municipalities. Furthermore,30the Province has since created regional governments around Metro Toronto inthe form of York, Peel, and Durham in order to reduce the number of agenciesrequired to act on any issue.Metro Toronto’s population grew rapidly from 1.1 million in to 2.8 million in 1980.Initially, Metro Toronto was busy with the provision of new infrastructure to thetwelve municipalities. Zoning laws and development control were responsibilitiesof the Boroughs and Metro’s formal role was to advise the provincial reviewbodies (the 0MB for zoning and the Ministry of Housing for subdivisions) aboutthe wisdom of local proposals; but in practice, Metro could influence localdevelopment decisions fairly effectively because of this infrastructure worksprogram (Self, p.69).In theory, the answers to development problems lay in the official metro plan,which, it was hoped at the time, would establish basic policies for future changeand development (Self, p.69). Considerable staff time was given to preparingOfficial plans in London and Toronto, and their political importance was oftenstressed, yet “...their history in both cases has been one of ineffectiveness andfrustration, if not futility (Self, p.69).” Such is not the case in Stockholm becausethe County Council is actively involved in the purchase and development of landthus helping pursue regional plans for development. In Toronto, a draft metroplan was published in 1959, and a final plan, unofficially adopted by Council, in1966. Twelve years later a second Royal Commission to investigate Metro wasdeploring the absence of an official plan.312.5.2 Council of GovernmentsThe American contribution to the various forms of regional planning authorities isthe Council of Governments. As noted earlier, the Council of Governments isessentially a coordinating committee of other local governments. It has very few,if any, executive powers, but can be considered at least a step towards fullregional government. By the term ‘full’, it is meant the regional authority hassufficient legal authority to enforce its policies.Although the major activity of the COG is regional planning and the formulationof regional policy, the most publicized function is the ability to provide a forum forlocal government leaders to discuss their problems. This second function wouldappear critical to the success of the COG because, “once local officials are ableto converse and accept the institutional setting of Council of Governments, theycan begin the task of identifying mutual regional problems (Horan, p.157).”Council of Governments do not have the legal authority to levy taxes, passordinances, or require legislation or action from local governments (Horan andTaylor, p.155).One example of this form of regional authority is Portland, Maine. The PortlandMetro area is located in the Casio Bay portion of Cumberland County, Maine.The most densely populated county in the state, Casio Bay contains twomoderately sized cities, Portland (65,000) and South Portland, plus a largesuburban base. In 1956, the Greater Portland Regional Planning Commissionwas formed to develop comprehensive plans for the Portland Region - the firstregional planning attempt in the State of Maine (Horan, p.163). However, noenforcement powers were granted to the Commission. Therefore, the GPRPC32could only produce plans and policies that acted as guidelines for the membermunicipalities. It was the choice of each municipality whether or not to adhere tothese plans and policies.In Portland, concerns over the clean up of an estuary led Senator EdmundMuskie to suggest the notion of a COG for Portland in 1966. The GreaterPortland COG jurisdiction was extended to the 22 communities that compromisethe Cumberland Planning and Development District. The COG consists of twomajor bodies: the General Assembly, the legal policy making body, and a smallerExecutive Committee. Each member municipality has a minimum 2 members inthe Assembly plus 1 additional representative for each 10,000 persons in themunicipality. At least one half of the representatives must be, by law, municipalofficers.The General Assembly meets once a year chiefly to: adopt a budget, adopt amembership fee schedule, and to establish guidelines for the ExecutiveCommittee. It is this Executive Committee--composed of 1 elected official fromeach member town, the Chairperson of the GPCOG planning committee, and aCumberland County Commissioner--that makes the decisions regarding regionalissues. This committee meets monthly but delegates work to a variety of subcommittees.Several problems exist in the Council of Governments. First, it is withoutlegislative authority because it is a voluntary collection of municipalities. Further,there is no political accountability to the COG. Without legal authority, there isno recourse for the authority when local areas are in conflict with regional goals.332.5.3 Regional DistrictsRegional Districts in British Columbia share some of the characteristics of theAmerican Council of Governments, and some characteristics of the Metro formof government. With respect to the unincorporated areas under a regionaldistrict’s sphere of influence, the executive powers of the regional district arecomplete. Incorporated areas, though compelled by law to be members of theregional district, are not required to follow regional development plans. Typically,only regional health and welfare, water and sewerage, and parks are within thepowers of the regional district. Some regional districts, however, have voluntarycontrol over other regional issues through agreement with the municipalities.The regional district is a step closer to the metro form of government than is theCouncil of Governments, but it still has limitations -- particularly in relation toregional planning.Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, is one regional district that has beensuccessful in promoting regional planning despite the lack of regulatory powers.Greater Vancouver is located in the south west corner of British Columbia and injust over 100 years has grown from a series of small towns to a largemetropolitan region with well over 1.5 million inhabitants.During World War II, the Province of British Columbia was petitioned by a groupof municipalities to undertake regional planning in the Lower Mainland area. TheVancouver Town Planning Commission then submitted a draft bill to thelegislature which included provisions for regional planning.34This move towards a regional planning authority was given a considerable pushin 1947 when the British Columbia division of the Community PlanningAssociation of Canada(CPAC) undertook the establishment of the LowerMainland Regional Planning Board as one of its main objectives. As a result ofmeetings arranged by the CPAC between local municipalities and the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs, an amendment to the Town Planning Act in 1948 to allow forthe definition of ‘regional areas’ and the establishment of ‘regional planningboards’ was established (Lower Mainland Planning Board, p. 1). This merelyallowed for the creation of a planning board but did not denote specific powers tobe given to the boards.The creation of a regional planning board in Greater Vancouver was madetechnically possible through an official agreement between all Lower Mainlandmunicipalities that stated that each member municipality recognized the need fora regional outlook as regards to growth and development in the region as awhole. Using this agreement, the provincial government was petitioned,resulting in the creation of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board(LMRPB) and the gazetting of the planning area on June 21, 1949 (LMRPB, p.5).This was the first planning body of its kind in British Columbia. The Boardconsisted of one member from each of the twenty-eight municipalities. TheBoard was then empowered to hire staff, prepare an official regional plan, plusother sundry reports (Tennant, p.11). The creation of the first regional plan wasstarted immediately, though the publishing of a background report entitled, ]IiLower Mainland Looks Ahead took until 1952 to produce.The LMRP Board stated that the aim of regional planning, as the Boardinterpreted it was, “to anticipate certain basic needs of man; to assess his35resources; and to advise him as to the wisest use of his resources (LMRP, p.2).”The LMRP Board advocated a higher level of government not unlike that whichwas to occur in London, Stockholm, and Toronto, though, they also noted thatother options existed such as a Regional Council.In 1957, the Province of B.C. brought the provisions for community and regionalplanning under the authority of the Municipal Act as follows:It is the duty of the [Regional Planning] Board to prepare regionalplans applicable to the planning area, and for this purpose mayappoint and employ such planning engineers or consultants andsuch other persons as may be necessary, whose salaries andother remuneration shall be paid from the general funds of theBoards (S.721(1) RSBC 1960).Within this revised statute the Board membership is described as the ‘parliament’of the region with all Board members required to be members of local councils.Between 1949 and 1969 some 40 major regional reports were produced andacted upon including the 1966 Official Regional Plan.In 1957, the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board and the Metro JointCouncil studied the creation of an effective form of regional government. TheMetro Joint Committee, consisting of a Chairman and two delegates from eachof eleven municipalities, was enacted to study the feasibility of placing singlepurpose regional authorities such as the Greater Vancouver Water District, theGreater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, and the Greater VancouverPark District, under the jurisdiction of a single metropolitan board. This conceptwas adopted by the Province of British Columbia in 1965 and gave the Ministerof Municipal Affairs the power to establish, by letter patent, Regional Districts.(Tennant, p.44) The Regional District of Fraser-Burrard was created in June361967, though no functions were initially assigned it. Ultimately, the LowerMainland Regional Planning Board was dissolved and the function was absorbedby the Greater Vancouver Regional District which had greater boundaries thanthat of its predecessors.In 1968, the name of the Regional District of Fraser-Burrard was changed to theGreater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). For the first three years theGVRD was relatively inert, not even acting as a coordinating body for planningbetween the existing regional authorities. Finally between 1971 and 1973 manyregional functions that had previously been the responsibility of independentregional agencies were absorbed by the GVRD (such as sewerage and parks).Regional planning was, however, removed as a function of all British ColumbiaRegional District’s by the Provincial Government in 1983.The cooperative strategy of the Livable Region Strategy was continued to 1989when the GVRD began a process involving all Lower Mainland politicians andthe public to update the Livable Region Strategy. This new Regional Surveywould be termed ‘Creating Our Future’. It was developed coincident with a minorchange to the Municipal Act which gave Regional Districts the power to establishand operate regional district development services consisting of coordination,research and analytical services as they related to the development of theRegional District. The survey was used to update the policies and practices ofthe Livable Region Strategy.Thus, though devoid of legal backing to enforce or ensure adherence to aregional goal or plan, the GVRD managed to continue as a regional force byusing the process of information gathering and input.372.6 SuMMYWe thus have a unique situation in Greater Vancouver:municipalities looking primarily after local neighbourhoods; regionalgovernments trying to govern by consensus which eludes them;and provincial authorities simply incorporating municipal plans intotheir larger ones. And no one is addressing the general regionalissues that are most critical -- the environment, housing, theeconomy, transportation, and the overall quality of life (Artibise andSeelig, p.91).The effectiveness of planning in any large organization is entirelydependent on the adequacy of the machinery and processes setup, not only to do the planning, but to ensure that it is put into effect(N.H.Richardson, p.570).All planning implies some organizational framework, and there are severalframeworks, according to Peter Self (p.14), for comprehensive planning. Onesuch framework is the coordinated exercise of powers by a multifunotional unitsuch as a city government in pursuit of general objectives. Another example isthe planning done by some coordinating agency in some broad field such astransportation or energy policies. A third example is planning by a multi purposepublic corporation or special agency. A fourth, is a broad inter-organizationalagency such as a regional planning body.Metropolitan centred regions dominate the field of regional planning primarilybecause the need to resolve conflicts that occur between densely populatedmunicipalities is more pronounced than those of a more rural regional area.The voluntary Council of Governments approach has had by far the leastsuccess in terms of implementing any policies. Clearly, participation bymunicipalities in regional planning on a volunteer basis can be successful to a38degree, however, the resolution of politically volatile issues becomesexceedingly difficult.Having municipalities volunteer to participate in a process that views the regionas a whole has had a greater degree of success in Vancouver (notwithstandingthe criticisms of Artibise and Seelig). Despite a lack of legislated authority, theGVRD has managed to create a positive atmosphere within the region regardingits policies and plans. The GVRD has succeeded because they invited publicinput, had a clear set of goals, and a planning process that was understood byall. Thus, planning efforts such as “Creating Our Future” have the support, fromthe beginning, of politicians and the populace though recent events (such asSurrey refusing to agree with growth projections for its area) have shown that themunicipalities tend to agree with those policies and goals that will not affect theirarea to any great degree.In 1975, the GVRD presented to the public a regional strategy that would setgoals and policies for the entire Lower Mainland. Termed the Livable RegionStrategy, it made regional town centres a priority in decentralizing growth, andlooked at values that required public and political support if Greater Vancouverwas to remain a livable region. The Greater Vancouver Regional District hopedthat together with massive public support (there was considerable public andlocal political input into the Strategy) and local municipal support, the provincialgovernment would be forced to act upon the Strategy and create the necessarylegislative support for regional planning in the lower Mainland (Bernard andLevelle, p.3).39The Metro form of regional government has had the greatest impact on theimplementation of regional planning policy than any of the other forms ofregional planning authority. Though regional agencies involved in the applicationof a single service have success, it is for the same reason as Metro governments-- the executive authority to implement policy. Moreover, these regionalagencies are not involved in regional planning over a broad range of issues.Toronto has had success for several reasons: first, there was such a massivedevelopment boom that caused the inner municipalities to recognize early in thetwentieth century that they would need to work together to reduce the costs ofgrowth. As the Ontario Municipal Board noted of the pre-Metro situation:the present division of jurisdiction with respect to communityplanning and the control of land uses is considered by the Board tobe a most serious weakness of the present system of localgovernment. No intelligent or efficient extension of municipalservices throughout the Metropolitan area can be expected in theabsence of a comprehensive metropolitan plan of development andsome centralized control of major land uses (Rose, p.29).Second, the creation of a Metro government coincided with a reduction in thenumber of municipalities in existence; therefore, there were fewer municipalitiesto create conflict. Third, the Metro government was given the necessaryauthority it required to enact regional policies as were the County Councils ofLondon and Stockholm.If there is one factor that flows through all the examples of planning applications,it is that a higher level of government must be committed to regional planningand must allow the regional authority the necessary legal means to implementregional policies. As seen in Vancouver, mutual co-operation can be successful40in the creation of policies, however, the implementation of these policies liespurely with the municipalities. By creating a process which includes themunicipalities and the people of the region, it is possible to foster a positiveatmosphere regarding regional planning. The reduction of conflict in regionalplanning is a key in getting policies or plans implemented if the regional authorityhas no legal means to do so. To create this positive atmosphere, the regionalauthority must be clear and consistent in its goals.2.7 RECIPES FOR SuccESsBased upon the theory, it would appear that there are several ‘recipes’ forcreating a successful regional planning authority. N.H.Richardson (InsubstantialPageant), conceived of five goals which would allow regional planning tobecome a reality:1) A planning program must be clear and consistent - that is must beunderstood by all.2) The main aim should not be to produce dramatic concepts or instantgrand designs but to secure an effective planning process basedon soundly conceived institutional arrangements.3) The objectives of the program at any given time should be explicit,limited, and most important, attainable.4) The right locus of responsibility for planning must be found within thestructure of government. Planning should not suffer the jealous41outrages of other departments in government or be left to beimplemented by a different department than that which created thep01 icy.5) The planning process should have broad participation includingconstituent municipalities.Though simple, these five goals seem to be very difficult to reconcile with thepolitics and goals of municipalities with a region. Regional planning is, andshould be considered to be, far more than economic development strategies.Planning must utilize economic theory without becoming a slave to it. There isinteraction within regions, therefore, municipal policies must take account ofsuch interdependence. Moreover, planning must not be viewed as a threat tomunicipal authority rather, regional planning should take into account all factorswithin a region and promote policies based on these factors. However, untilpoliticians come to understand how regions function there likely will continue tobe little planning implemented at the regional level.By 1990, the GVRD had become the fastest growing metropolitan region inCanada despite having the most limited land base of any metro region in NorthAmerica (GVRD, 1991, p.1). With a population base of 1.5 million, some 551politicians, 200 Boards and Commissions all contained in an area split amongeighteen municipalities and three Electoral Areas, regional planning efforts canbe difficult: yet, the GVRD has managed to overcome these obstacles withoutthe authority of a metro government like Toronto. The GVRD’s vision of the42future as seen in the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Long RangeTransportation Plan and rests on a philosophy of three basic principles:1) Knowledge is a powerful tool (the regional information base iscritical)2) Good Ideas, consistently and coherently presented, will triumphover bad ideas.3) Maximizing co-operation will produce the regional interest.(GVRD, The Regional role, p.4)This regional strategy is endorsed locally through the many workshops held bythe GVRD for local politicians and the general public. Despite the apparentsuccess of its program the GVRD gives the following assessment of its currentmandate: (GVRD, Choosing Our Future Discussion Paper, p.3)1) Lacks clear authority, accepted by all parties, to take directaction,2) Inadequate connection to incremental decisions,3) Produces compromise solutions rather than dealing with hardchoices on issues where bold action may be needed,4) Produces situations where independent interpretation and actionby municipalities may not best serve the regional district,5) Follows, rather than leads the cutting edge of urbanization in theFraser Valley43Peter Self feels that the meaning and scale of the ‘urban region’ depends tosome extent upon whether and how it is planned. A long term plan taking intoaccount long term growth usually encompasses a larger physical area than aplan that is short range and conservative. (Self. p.5) Furthermore, Self (p.5)outlines three aims for comprehensive planning in a region:1) The integration and coordination of the three majordeterminants of urbanization patterns: the location orresidences, the location of employment and major servicefacilities, and the transportation network.2) The planning and conservation of the resource base of theurban region, including water, air, and energy.3) The improvement of the urban environment, and the allocationof environmental costs and benefits, across a zone of highinter-dependencies in terms of location possibilities andrelationships.Essentially, this is little different than that put forth by the Southern Regionalistsand Freidmann. Based on these principles a planning authority would beconcerned with general community objectives. Its operating functions would belimited and related clearly to its goals, though it would retain the ability to reviewall physical plans within the region. The Planning Authority would have thepower to provide financial and technical assistance to the municipalities or otherbodies in the region. It would prepare a regional plan and have special powersto ensure the realization of that plan. It would have the financial powers toapprove and coordinate all major investments in its area and have an44independent source of taxation. Finally, it would require an effective politicalbase that is directly elected with full support of a higher level of government(Self, p136). Effectively, this would appear to describe the metro form ofgovernment as practiced in Stockholm. This is also endorsed by the AmericanPlanning Association (So, pp.166-184). It is from this base that the application ofplanning to the Capital Region will be judged.45CHAPIER 3- A SURVEY REGARDING THE ATTITUDES TOWARDS REGIONALPLANNING IN THE CAPITAL REGION.To begin a reconstruction of regional planning and its application to the CapitalRegion, the current (1991) attitude towards this issue was considered vital. Bygaining an understanding of the current state of regional planning and thesuccess of the two planning authorities that have existed in the Capital Region,we can better judge the history of these organizations. Essentially, if theorganizations have created a positive atmosphere for regional planning, it shouldbe prevalent in the attitudes of contemporary politicians and planners. To judgeattitudes towards planning, a questionnaire was developed and sent to everylocal politician within the Capital Region (excluding Sooke and the Gulf Islands),every Director of Planning or Chief Engineer, all local MLA’s as well as 50% ofeach of the Advisory Planning Commissions of Victoria and Saanich. Thissurvey was sent out in July and October of 1991. Additional surveys were alsodistributed to the remaining planners at the Capital Regional District as well asfour Directors.The attitudinal survey consists of thirty questions. The responses to thesequestions will be used in an attempt to gauge the respondents’ understanding ofthe Capital Region, the importance of regional planning, and the views of therespondents on specific regional issues. Gaining an accurate understanding ofpeople’s attitudes and feelings can be a difficult task -- particularly when thesubject is controversial and politically charged. The decision to use a surveywas based on necessity, owing to the difficulty in judging attitudes fromsecondary sources alone.46The majority of questions were phrased to take either a pro- or anti-regionalplanning stance. The respondent was given the choice of four standardresponses as seen below:(9) The City of Victoria must assume the responsibility of increasingpopulation densities in order to slow down suburban sprawl.[ ] Strongly Disagree[1 Disagree]AgreeStrongly AgreeNo neutral option was given in order to reduce the number of responses thatcould not be subject to interpretation. Despite this, several respondents refusedto answer questions that they perceived as being unnecessarily provocative orfalse statements.The survey was designed with the guidance of Professor Henry Hightower andProfessor Brahm Wiesman of the School of Community and Regional Planningat the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, B.C.). The survey waspretested on four active members of the Planning Institute of British Columbia.The survey was a mail back questionnaire with addressed and stamped returnenvelopes included. Of a total 107 distributed, forty-two were returned. Thougha reminder notice was sent out, the unfortunate coincidence with the November1991 Civic elections kept the number of respondents lower than anticipated.However, it is concluded that the sample size is sufficiently large enough to berepresentative of the planners and politicians in the Capital Region. A secondreminder notice was considered but the peak of returned questionnaires wassmall enough after the initial reminder (only six were returned after the initial47reminder) that no significant benefit would likely be derived. Fiscal and timeconstraints did not allow for the personal interviewing of respondents.FIGURE 3.1 RESPONSE RATES OF MUNTCIPALESFigure 3.1 shows the numberof returns by municipality andsub region. Despite thelength of the survey -- 8pages in total -- the responserate was very good for a mailback survey. The overallreturn rate is reflective of the‘sub regional’ return rates. Of_____________________________________the ten municipalitiessurveyed, only two registeredless than a 40% return rate.___________Metchosin’s rate is notsurprising considering therelative youthfulness of themunicipality. It is likely thatlocal issues were, at the time of the survey, still considered more important thanregional ones. The greatest surprise was the lack of response from the Districtof Saanich -- particularly given that Saanich has been leading many regionalstyle plans over the past decade.Saanich has been at the forefront of regional development and growth issuessince the late 1980’s, yet one would never suppose this judging from the poorresponse to the questionnaire. Of the three returned by Saanich, one wasMunicipality Sent Returned PercentCoreOak Bay 9 4 44%Victoria 16 10 66%Esquimalt 7 3 43%Saanich 16 3 19%Total 48 20 41.6%PeninsulaCentral 8 4 50%SaanichNorth 7 3 43%SaanichSidney 8 4 50%Total 23 11 47.8%Western CommunitiesView Royal 7 3 435Colwood 9 5 56%Metchosin 5 1 20%Total 21 9 42.9%OtherC.R.D. 7 5 72%MLA 6 1 17%48deemed to be unusable as it was only partially completed by the PlanningDirector. One particular note is that there was no response from either of theAdvisory Planning Commissions of Victoria or Saanich. Public perception of theissue of regional planning in the Capital Region, is, therefore, a matter of somespeculation. Sampling current public perception is considered to be too large atask for this thesis and is, therefore, left as an unknown.Questions One and Two of the survey were open ended and attempted toencourage the respondent to identify the region they lived and worked in, andhow they would describe the region. Unfortunately, the questions wereinterpreted by all respondents in such a manner as to render the answersunusable. Virtually all responses simply indicated the existing boundaries of theCapital Region with little thought or explanation as to why those boundariesexist.Question 3 asked the following two questions:(a) Where (on a scale for one to ten, with 10 signifying thatregional issues were the most important issues and 1 identifyinglocal issues as most important) would you place the current state ofregional planning?49witnessed here.Figure 3.3- Where Regional Planning Should Be1086C00.U,scale should regional planning be?Figure 3.2 shows that only three of forty-tworespondents felt that regional planning in 1991was a strong force in the community. Themajority placed regional planning as a less thanaverage force within the community. Certainly,given that there was fifty years of regionalplanning history in the Capital Region, onewould have anticipated higher results thanFigure 3.3 shows virtually the exact oppositeresponse to Figure 3.2. A majority ofrespondents felt that regional planning in itscurrent state, was not a regional influenceand that it should be. It is interesting to notethat eleven respondents, some 25%, believethat regional planning should remain in itscurrent state.Questions 5 and 6 were simple indicators used to identify the extent of theknowledge of the history of regional planning efforts in the Capital Region.Rgu,e3.4-uamottlGWB? Question 5 asked therespondents if they knew aboutthe Capital Region PlanningBoard without giving details ofwhen the Board existed or whatit did. The response was split(b) Where on thisRgLiea2 Oiirt SIedFci Rai*1I__IO10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1se10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2Scale50as shown in Figure 3.4 with a slim majority having some knowledge of the Board.Note that this question did not ask for any details of the Capital Region PlanningBoard’s work or its relevance to the region. This continuation of history wouldappear to be one important element in fostering a positive atmosphere towardsplanning.Figure 3.5 shows the responseto Question 6: Are you aware ofthe Visions Victoria Conferenceof 1989. Only 2 respondentshad no knowledge of this 1989conference sponsored by theCity of Victoria to discussregional issues. it is regrettablethat a follow up question regarding the participants thoughts on the conferencewas not included in the survey, however, the conference statements compiled byCitySpaces Consulting showed that a majority of participants felt that they shouldbe directing their comments to the Capital Regional District and not the City ofVictoria. Figure 3.5 does show that the virtually all planners and politicians in theregion -- in 1991 -- knew of the conference and were interested enough in thesubject matter to obtain some information on it.Questions 9 through 29, as noted earlier, focused upon gaining an51understanding of the attitudestowards regional planning andplanning issues. The questionswere divided into pro- and anti-regional planning sections. An anti-regional planning question wouldphrase a regional issue in such amanner as to encourage therespondent who is against regionalplanning to agree with the issue. The reverse is true for pro-planning questions.Questions 9, 10, 15, 16, and 23 were considered to be anti-regional planningquestions with the remainder in the pro camp. The anti-planning questionsacted as checks to ensure that the respondents were properly interpreting thequestions. Figure 3.7 shows the total response numbers by category -- stronglydisagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.The responses to anti-planning questions show a majority of respondents indisagreement with the statements made in the questionnaire. Pro planningquestion responsesupports this with themajority of responses infavour of regionalLI Crdplanning. Note that this• Coreagreement is not 100%• Penn.El pro planning, however,the overall responsesindicate a favourableStngIy Disagree Agree StronglyDisagree AgreeFigure 3.7 - Pro Regional Planning QuestionsS.D. D. A. S.A.52climate for regional planning within the Capital Region.Prior to conducting this survey, it was believed that only the ‘core’ municipalities(Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt, and Oak Bay) would be in favour of regionalplanning while the suburban municipalities would be neutral or lean away fromregional planning. Figure 3.7 shows the response by category for each subregion and the CRD. Note that the Core responses are virtually devoid of anyinfluence by the District of Saanich due to the lack of response to the survey.The CRD refers to the organization rather than the region.The Peninsula includes Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney, while W.C.refers to the Western Communities of View Royal, Colwood and Metchosin.Langforci and the Highlands were not part of this study because they were eithernot incorporated at the time or were not yet organized enough to have staff. Theresponses confirm the earlier noted trend of a positive atmosphere for regionalplanning throughout the Capital Region. The anticipated results of having onlythe CRD and Core municipalities in favour of regional planning was proved falsewith respect to the Western Communities. The respondents from the Peninsulacommunities were split with a majority against the principle of regional planning.Judging from comments included with the questionnaire, the Peninsularespondents view regional planning as an intrusive instrument for altering theirown destiny.53Figure 3.8 shows the distribution of responses to the anti-regional planningFigure 3.8 - Anti Regional Planning Questions questions. Thesequestions wereLI Crd placed so as to act• Coreas a check against• Penn.the pro-planningLI w.c.responses. TheCRD and Corerespondents were incomplete disagreement with the anti-planning aspects of the questions as wouldbe expected from their support of pro-planning questions. The WesternCommunities leaned in favour of regional planning but with a larger number inagreement with the anti-planning questions. The Peninsula respondents weresplit again with a slight majority disagreeing with the anti-planning sentiment.This seems to show that the Core municipalities agree with regional planningregardless of the issue, whereas the suburban communities are very issuesensitive with regards to their support of regional planning.3.1 SuMMARYThe survey has shown that there is a base of support for the concept of regionalplanning in the Capital Region. The Core municipalities were in favour of theconcept as were the Western Communities -- though the Western Communitysupport wavers depending upon the issue. It is difficult to gauge the attitudes inSaanich given the lack of response to the survey. Only the Peninsulacommunities were split with a majority of respondents against regional planning.It is interesting to note that most respondents, while in favour of regional54planning, were negative towards the Capital Regional District as the agency forplanning.There is a knowledge of the history of regional planning in the Capital Regionand a high level of awareness regarding regional issues. It would appear, basedon the results of this survey, that a regional planning process should be able tobe effective and have the support of a majority of the municipalities in the region.That this is not currently the case means that there has been something in thehistory of the Capital Region Planning Board or the Capital Regional District thathas created a negative attitude towards the Capital Regional District as aplanning agency. Regional planning in the Capital Region has been affected asa result. Chapter 4 will review the history of the application of planning to theCapital Region and attempt to understand why the Capital Regional District isheld in such low regard in the region with respect to regional planning.554.0 REGIONAL PLANNING IN THE CAPITAL REGION“Thus, in many ways this region is an indivisible whole, knit together by commoninterests, so that many of its problems can be tackled only as a whole problemand not on a piecemeal basis (CRPB, 1954, p.1)”.The preceding chapters have served to identify regional planning, examineseveral different methods of creating a regional authority responsible for theplanning of a prescribed region, and to identify some ‘recipes for success’ forpursuing regional planning. This chapter wil[focus exclusively on the GreaterVictoria region, utilizing the previous chapters as guideposts, to examine thehistory of the regional authorities in the Capital Region. The underlyingassumption is that the two regional authorities that have existed in Victoria havehad the potential to create a regional planning process and to implementregional plans. This chapter will seek to understand the history of bothorganizations, the changes in planning philosophy and ability that have occurredand determine whether regional planning has been successfully applied to theCapital Region.In researching the history of the Capital Regional District, there were severaltypes of information utilized. The greatest portion of the history of the CapitalRegional District and its predecessor, the Capital Region Planning Board, isrecorded in the lives of the planners involved. The planners, professional staff ofmunicipalities, the people and the politicians of the Board and the Councils holdmost of the history of the Capital Regional District within them. Some of thesethoughts are in the plans of the Board or municipalities, or can be judgedthrough newspaper articles and interviews. However, much of the reason56behind the disputes within the Capital Regional District, and externally with themunicipalities, can only be speculated upon using few sources. There are fewwritten records of this era of planning and fewer still are the non-planners whoare willing to share their version of history. The planners who were willing todiscuss the history of regional planning in Victoria were Brahm Weisman (CRPB1950’s), Charlie Wakelin (Capital Regional District regional planner 1970-1983),Jim Masterton (Director of Community Planning, CRD, 1978-1989), Mike Bennett(Capital Region Planning Board and Capital Regional District, 1960’s to present),Yoon Chee (Capital Regional District planner 1978 to present), GeoffGreenhalgh (Director of Planning for City of Victoria 1960’s), and Raul Allueva(District of Saanich Planner 1988 to present).Because of the above mentioned lack of willing participation, in many instances,newspaper articles were relied upon, in conjunction with the interviews that wereconducted. Regional plans were checked against these statements to verifysome of the accuracy of the interview statements. However, much of the historyremains hearsay. An attempt to identify these attitudes towards regionalplanning through the attitudinal survey showed the resounding acknowledgmentof the need for regional planning. There was not, however, total unanimity fromall municipalities of the issue of the Capital Regional District as the proper vesselto bring about such planning. Much of the available information has beenbrought together in this chapter to give a glimpse into the history of planning forthe Victoria region and how its successes varied through the first 40 years.574.1 INTRODUCTIONThere are three distinct phases of regional governance which will be examined.The first begins with the founding of the Capital Region Planning Board in 1951and continues to the creation of the Capital Regional District in 1970. Thesecond phase follows the Capital Regional District from its inception in 1970 (asthe planning authority for the region) until 1983 when regional planning powerswere removed from Regional Districts by the Province of BC. The last period isfrom 1983 to the present to review the events that have transpired since theCapital Regional District’s legal planning powers were removed. This chapterwill be an examination of the different episodes in the life of the application ofregional planning to the Capital Region and how events from each era affectedthe ability of the Capital Regional District to produce regional consensus.FIGURE 4.1: THE CAPITAL REGIONFigure 4.1THE CAPITAL REGION58This region, encompassing the southern tip of Vancouver Island in BritishColumbia, currently (1994) consists of twelve municipalities and four ElectoralAreas. For the purposes of this analysis, the Gulf Islands component will beexcluded because the permanent residents of these Islands are, for the mostpart, independent from the Greater Victoria Area and have not been included inthe local definition of the Capital Regional since 1978. Moreover, they arecurrently under the planning jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. The CapitalRegional District covers a land area of 2300 square kilometres and holds apopulation currently estimated (1993) to be 290,000 -- excluding the GulfIslands. Individual municipalities range in size from Saanich with 90,000+ to theHighlands with a population of 1,500.Although the City of Victoria is the physical and economic centre of the region, itis not the largest municipality, containing less than 70,000 residents (the Districtof Saanich is the largest, approaching 100,000). There are essentially threeareas within the region: the core (Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Saanich); theWestern Communities (View Royal, Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, Highlandsand the Sooke and Langford Electoral Areas); and the Peninsula (CentralSaanich, North Saanich, and Sydney).Each of these areas of the region is distinct due to the history of development ineach sub-region. The ‘Core’, due to the harbours and early settlement patternsdeveloped first and most densely with development spreading outward asavailable land dwindled in the core and transportation links to the rural areasimproved. The Peninsula grew faster than did the Western Communities chieflydue to the accessibility of land and harbour facilities in Sidney which helped59reduce the distance to Vancouver. Both of the non-core areas remain semi-ruralwith clusters of dense settlement.Until recently, much of the Western Communities was under the jurisdiction ofthe Capital Regional District, however, the communities of View Royal, Colwood,Metchosin, the Highlands, and Langford have incorporated since 1984 whileSooke has made moves towards incorporated status.4.2 1951- 1970-- TH CAPITAL REGIoN PLANNING BoARDThe very essence of planning is looking ahead; and there shouldbe looking ahead in British Columbia ... But we are not alive to thedesirability of planning or to the benefits which planning could giveus. We have no enthusiasm for planning. At most we tolerate it,and we shall never get very far that way. (from a Vancouver Dailypaper, quoted in Proposed Provincial Planning Act with SupportingBrief, Vancouver Town Planning Commission. Vancouver: 1943.p.6.)Regional planning in the Capital Region was given its first opportunity by theprovincial government when it created the Capital Region Planning Board ofBritish Columbia in 1951. This Board operated under the stewardship of J.W.Wilson, chairman of the Lower Mainland Planning Board, and was fundedthrough grants from the province and grants on a per capita basis from themunicipalities - though this funding was initially withheld until 1954. (DailyColonist, November 1954) According to B. Wiesman, former Director ofPlanning for the Capital Region Planning Board from 1952-1959, the limited staffconcerned itself primarily with selling the concept of regional planning and thebenefits of the Capital Region Planning Board to the municipalities. Whenfunding finally became available in 1954, the province allocated $10,000 to theBoard. The City of Victoria contributed $4900, Saanich $2700, Oak Bay $1200,60Esquimalt $1000, and Central Saanich declined to provide any funds. TheBoard initially consisted of five members with one appointed by the province andthe remaining four from the participating municipalities. The Board consisted ofPlanning Commission members, though this was subsequently changed toinclude political representation in order to give the Board some legitimacy at thelocal level. This change was initiated internally and was based upon work doneby Wiesman.The duties of the Board, according to a report in the Daily Colonist (“PlanningGroup...”, November 1954) were listed as follows:1) To prepare and maintain regional and metropolitan plans for landdevelopment, major streets, and parks,2) to assist town planning commissions (there were only two at thistime in Victoria and Saanich) in preparing, maintaining andadministering plans for zoning, streets, parking, parks, et cetera,3) to assist existing inter-municipal bodies such as school boards,water boards and civil defense boards with appropriate aspects oftheir work,4) to advise on layout of new subdivisions,615) to act as a source of information to the general public on population,economics, and land resources in the region,6) to cooperate with bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce in theirpromotional and development activities.Thus the Board was to act as the guide for planning in the region both bycreating regional plans and by providing assistance in municipal planning. Thefirst few years of the Capital Region Planning Board’s existence (as noted byWiesman) were occupied with acquiring a staff of professional planners andidentifying the extent of the development that had taken place to date (i.e.examining the rate and type of development within the region over the previoustwenty-five years).The working group of professional planners in the Capital Region was limited atthis time to only those employed by the Capital Region Planning Board. Therewere no existing regional authorities or services, nor were there any municipalplanners. There were only a dozen ‘professional citizens’ - those involved inlocal planning commissions and interested in the affairs of the region - and noplanning departments when the Capital Region Planning Board was formalizedin 1951.The expectations of the five Board staff members were quite high with respect tocharting the future of the region, though visions regarding the controlling ofgrowth were less than clear (Brahm Wiesman, Dec. 1991). There was,according to Wiesman, a naiveté regarding the amount of work involved in62regional planning. Many felt that the mere creation of a metropolitan planningagency would solve the problems of the region (later events would prove thisassumption incorrect). Yet, there was, according to Wiesman (Director ofPlanning for the Capital Region Planning Board from 1952-59) a feeling amongmany politicians and engineers that the professional staff of the Capital RegionPlanning Board could solve all the problems of the region. The first two largedocuments produced by the Board would show that the Board’s planners couldenvision a future for the region, however, the implementation of this future wouldprove to be a far more difficult task to handle.In October, 1954, the first document produced for public consumption was abroad review of resources and development potential entitled The CapitalRegion Takes Stock. Of prime importance for the Capital Region PlanningBoard was to establish the physical parameters of study -- in essence, definingthe borders of this ‘Capital Region’. The Capital Region Planning Boarddetermined these borders to be the area from Greater Victoria to the peninsula,the area east to Sooke and lying south of the Island Highway because, “itcontains almost all the land on the Southern tip of Vancouver Island which issuitable for development. In addition, it is fairly well defined by mountains andsea (J.M.Wilson, 1954, p.1).” The report is a catalogue of the natural and manmade landscape of the region and basic assessments of development potential.The main purpose of this report was to establish a basis for a regional plan andto act as a promotional document for convincing politicians and the public of theneed for both regional planning and the Capital Region Planning Board(Weisman, 1991).63In 1955, the Capital Region Planning Board began the task of creating a regionalplan based upon the resource inventory, as well as producing numerous studieson regional transportation, schools and parks. Though initially to be ready by theend of 1957, it was not until 1959 that the draft regional plan was released.There was no force behind the Board’s plan until the 1957 Provincial provisionthat mandated authority to Regional Planning Boards to prepare regional plansand hire staff. Therefore, the CRPB had to remain open to discussion andensure that the planning process was correct, open and understood in order tosell it to the municipalities.However, such was the Board’s initial difficulty in convincing local municipalitiesof the benefits of regional planning, that Oak Bay withheld its funding in 1958stating that “. . .since the Board has been operating for the area we have gotnothing from it yet (Norris, Daily Colonist, 1958).” This seems to indicate that theregional board had yet to be viewed, by one of the larger municipalities -- afterfour years of operation as a planning body -- doing practical rather than justtheoretical planning. It is, however, evident from newspaper articles andeditorials of the day that some municipalities or members of the press were ableto appreciate the Board’s holistic vision of the region. The following page showssome examples of the attitudes both for and against the Board. One example isthe following Daily Colonist editorial (January 31, 1958):The Regional Planning Board is to be commended for a steady andobjective approach to one of the crucial needs of the region. Thedays are past when communities can be left to ‘just grow’.The Capital Region Plan of 1959 was an example of long term regional planning.Looking ahead 25 years, the Board proposed possible growth patterns, a basictransportation network, regional parks and other regional needs. However,64transportation network, regional parks and other regional needs. However,suggestions of amalgamation, in order to reduce the number of municipalitiesand the proposed regional growth nodes, were not received well by themunicipalities. Unfortunately, according to newspaper articles of the time (seeFigure 4.2 previous page), these proposed policies helped foster a fear of theCapital Region Planning Board as a hostile agency with a goal of taking overpowers from the municipalities.Though the Capital Region Planning Board had tried, the lack of municipalplanners in the Capital Region, meant that the regional staff had to convincelocal politicians about regional planning, and indeed, the very issue of planningitself. It also meant that because the Capital Region Planning Board had to actalone in the regional planning process. The main aim of the regional plan was toproduce grand designs, however, the issue of securing an effective planningprocess was not included in this initial planning effort in the region. In addition,there simply was not broad enough planning participation and support from all ofthe municipalities to allow the planning concepts to be put into effect.The Capital Region Plan predicted growth sweeping through the peninsula if theregional plan was not taken seriously by the municipalities. There was anemphasis upon the restriction of growth in the Western Communities unless fullservices (water and sewerage) could be provided, while the matter of a regionaltransportation grid was examined in great detail. The underlying principle for theregional road plan was that motor vehicle traffic is generated by land use andtherefore satisfactory regional road plans could only be prepared in conjunction65FIGURE 4.2 NEWSPAPER ARTICLESThe Daily Colonist: Victoria. Dec.31, 1954.pROGRESS on a suggested master plan It will surely be a gain for the munifor the physical development of the cipalilies in the Greater Victoria regionto have laid before them a suggestedcapital city area and the Greater Victoriascheme of development. Anything thatregion was reported this week by officials might lead to a co-ordination of publicof the Regional Planning Board. The effort and the avoidance in future of over-first full draft of the scheme may not be lapping would help the taxpayers.completed for some weeks yet, but publi- It may prove a more difficult taskcation of. the plan will be expected then, to persuade industry and businesses nIi it the regional board is attempting to general, and private owners of presty.forecast what may be the actual growth in particular, to march in the— sa,pleof the ,Greater Victoria region in con- parade. That has been the chief sttimbstruction, services, traffic, highways and block over which zoning plans of t-át.so forth in the years ahead. That is an have fallen. They were good inextremely difficult thing to do, but there and practical enough in their ‘jat”is no question that a determined study one by one they fell before the- d€co- ‘of the subject such as is being made now mined “exceptions.’ The successful devis-should be a very useful guide. ing of any master plan for the futureAlthough planning is a relatively new- will need to include full public under-adjunct to municipal administration, one standing and discussion of what is pro-.has only to look at the past to under- posed, majority decision to abide by the,stand how the bsence of any agreed-upon plan, and then the educational projectiondesign has militated against the wisest of that accord until through custom anduse of even public property. When there usage it becomes fully Operative.is added to that the much larger scope The. Regional Planning Board is toof private endeavor, growing pressure be commended for a steady and objectiveof population and the ever-shrinking. pproach to one of the crucial needs ofavailability of open spaces, the coñplexjty the region. The days are past whenof the present problem will be realized, communities can be left to “just grow.”Tempest Brewing..On Capital PlanA storm is brewing over the long-awaited plan forthe future physical development of the_Victoria“capitalregion.”The mayor and aldermen Saanich, a Proponent of theyesterday had a Ionic at the plan. said later it Wmxld be aplan, a secret shared by only pity if the plan were not20 others. But even before see- adopted. But he agreed thatIng it, Mayor Perry Scurrah the system of representaUnesaid he personally would oh- on the board under existingject to adopting it. He sad -too legislation could stand a newthat he thought two other I look.Greater Victoria municipal. The plan has been preparedhUes would reject It. by the board and its technicol I- His reason, he indicated, was staff over several years and Inot connected with the con- Was at first scheduled to be Itents of the plan, but with loss presented to the municipal Iof council power to the non• councils as a Christihas gift Ielected Capital Region Plan-i for 1957..fling Board, on which Victoria A first section deahihg withcity has only one vote, the I the present and forecast altos-same as Sidney, Central I tion in the capital region was iSaanich, Saanich. Oak Bay,’ printed in late spring of 1958,Esquimalt and the provincial and the plan for the future igovernment I was promised for “im.TwoTHmo vom mediately after Labor Day.”But printing and other con.If the plan Is adopted by artioos delayed its comple.two-thirds vote of these -boardmembers, the municipalities ton until recently.will be barred from making PBFSEN!l! Izoning changes in conflict with1 Present Idea is to let the Iit, except with te board’s member councils see it priconsent I vately, then publish it, Saan“We ought to be extremely Irk council saw It first; nowcareful in dealing with this I Victoria’s council as well asplan,” the mayor told city the Sasnich councillors, thecouncil finance committee, board and its technical stall“Once we adopt the plan we- and advisers are “in on” the -are in their (the board’s) secret.hands.”-Although few details of theThe representatives of the master plan recommendationsoutside municipalities, he said, I have leaked out, it Is reputed!“could dictate to us.” Ito be flexible, and written inReeve George Chatterton of broad terms.The Daily Colonist:Victoria. Jan.15, 1959.Planning for the FutureQNE of the most difficult hurdles regulated in such a ay’ as to enhanc thewhich community planners every- appearance of the city with ‘advantage towhere have to surmount is the resistance everyone, including property osgrc who -to change put up by property owners who ma fancy themselves the victin ‘if aSec or imagine financial disadvantages to too-stringenl building code.1 hemselves. The announcement of any This it what the -Town. Planning Comfarsighted plans by those-trained in the mission is trying to accomplish in partrecognition of trends and in preparing through its proposal: approved by thenow for conditions calculated to develop city council this week, that in future newyears hence almost invariably provokcs apartment buildings be set back a miniinsular obections. mum of 25 feet from the property lines.Like most other cities in Canada, When one envisages the improvementVictoria unfortunately contains abundant this would bring about in the appearanceevidence of past hesitancy and of either of apartment districts it is rather hardinability or refusal to look ahead. The to understand why the city buildingbeauty which Victoria possesses it owes inspector should have added his voice tomainly to nature—in its setting and those protesting.natural surroundings and in its cultivated Mr. C. D. Stockdill, a member of thecharm. Architecturally it is not as a commission and a practising architect,whole a beautiful city, leaving out some has presented convincing arguments inof its more recently developed residential favor of the new regulations, showingparts. In fact if one pauses to look at. Victoria where its chief opportunities toit critically, Victorfa’s business section. beautify the city lie, while. at the sameafid the. immediate outskirts are ugli’, time disposing of the points of objectioncontainirlg.pèrhaps one building in.a score in a way which should imptss ownersthat is pleasing to the eye. as well as the council with the--advantagesExcept where an old building is torn frm the investment point of view,down to make way for a new, not very The adoption of this new code formuch can be- done today about yester- apartment buildings, which are multiply-day’s failure to plan, at least so far as ing rapidly. is one of the most encouragthe heart of the city is concerned, jog town planning developments in recentIn the residential field, however, new years. As Mr. Stockdill summarizes theconstruction is taking place at a rapid need for it: “If we wish our city to growrate, wjth a strong trend towards large in a beautiful and healthful way, lookmgapartment, blocks. Here is a typo of 25 years and more ahead, we must startdevelopment which can be molded and working toward that end now.”-.‘:, s-i.-;.C 0 -s,,Regional PlanningThe Daily Colonist: Victoria. Jan.31, 1958.66with plans for the location and extent of residential, commercial and industrialdevelopment within the region. Furthermore, the regional plan recommendedbold measures which would improve public access to the waterfront, preservefarmland and natural wilderness areas, control urban sprawl and coordinateschools, shopping centres, industry and tourist accommodation.The Capital Region Plan was never officially adopted. The lack of substantialproblems that accompany economic growth and population booms (such astraffic congestion, housing shortages, increased housing costs, wear and tear onroads and utilities) meant that there was no sense of urgency at the municipallevel to engage collectively in long range regional planning. Furthermore, thelack of any municipal planning departments meant that the Board was essentiallyon its own in convincing all municipalities of the benefits of the regional plan.Moreover, the Regional Board acted unilaterally in the planning process and didnot appear to set up an effective planning process that included themunicipalities (though the planning theory of the 1950’s was not based uponconsultation and process but instead upon the ‘top-down’ scientific planning),and produced a plan that predicted dire consequences unless this regional planwas followed.The City of Victoria was against the regional plan based upon the loss of zoningpower that was assumed from the need to comply with the Plan (Victoria Times,January 15, 1959) and that the two-thirds majority vote concept within the Board(which meant that a dissenting municipality could be overruled by the Boardbecause of the weighting of votes in favour of the larger municipalities) wastroubling to all of the suburban municipalities. Central Saanich attempted towithdraw from the regional board because it felt that it should not be obliged to67hire the required professional staff (indeed, Central Saanich hired its first planneronly in 1991). Oak Bay opposed both the structure of the Board and the votingprocedure. Only Esquimalt appears to have been a vocal supporter of the plan.(Victoria Times, March 17, 1959)As the editors of the Daily Colonist noted: (Daily Colonist, March 11, 1959)it is idle to overlook the existing state of affairs among these fivemunicipalities. They have rejected civic union. They are opposedto regional board extension. Not one of them will hold itselfdependent upon another. It is expecting too much, no doubt, thatwith no real unity of aim in mind the five areas would consent nowto placing themselves unreservedly under the provincial townplanning statute. VInterestingly enough, these five (Victoria, Sannich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt andSidney) municipalities have now become 13 and the rejection of civic union -even at the planning level - has never abated. Thus the stage was set: theCapital Region Planning Board against the municipalities and in such anatmosphere no regional planning or cooperation was likely. Though the CapitalRegion Planning Board cannot be blamed for the state of affairs when it wascreated, it did not seek to follow the same path as the Lower Mainland RegionalPlanning Board in establishing a consultation process in conjunction with thecreation of a plan.The Capital Region Planning Board, subsequent to the rejection of the regionalplan, shifted much of its manpower towards the development of a regional parksystem and a health care program (both conducted as separate issues) thoughlocal planning remained one of its central mandated functions (the Board did aplan for Victoria on contract and acted as a planning consultant for all68municipalities in the region until 1983). The Capital Region Planning Boardfunctioned more in an advisory capacity than as a regulatory body, though it issurprising how much this advice was followed in the Capital Region given theantagonism towards the Capital Region Planning Board created by the draftregional plan. However, it was in this advisory capacity that the Capital RegionPlanning Board managed to build up a good working arrangement with themunicipalities on non-planning regional issues such as regional parks andhospital planning.The City of Victoria began doing planning through its engineering department inthe early 1960’s and established a city planning department in 1966 with GeoffGreenhalgh as Director. Saanich similarly broke from the Capital RegionPlanning Board establishing a planning department in 1958 with Tom Loney asDirector. The good relations between the Capital Region Planning Board andthe municipalities was due in part to the addition of professional planners to theregion. The key factor was that the Mayors of Victoria (Hugh Stevens) andSaanich (Hugh Curtis) tried to establish a good working relationship betweenthem. This reflected in the attitudes of the municipal staff and the staff of theCapital Region Planning Board. The lack of fragmentation of the Capital Regionat the time meant that if the three had political relations, then working relationswould follow (Greenhalgh, 1994).This allowed the municipalities to observe the work of the Capital RegionPlanning Board in less politically sensitive arenas and would ultimately lead tothe Capital Regional District undertaking some regional planning during the1970’s. Once the Capital Region Planning Board was no longer viewed as a69threat from the planning standpoint, municipalities seemed to find use in theCapital Region Planning Board in non-land use regional or local capacities.4.3 1970- 1983 -- TILE BIRTh OF E CITAL REGIONAL DIsmIcTUnder the 1965 Statute (Ch. 28 of the Revised Statues of British Columbia),regional districts could be created by letters patent by the Minister of MunicipalAffairs. In the late 1960’s, the Capital Region Planning Board attempted to gainlegislative authority over regional zoning and planning through a move toRegional District status because it appeared, according to both Wiesman andWakelin, that the province might remove its support of the Capital RegionPlanning Board as an organization. This move, on December 31, 1969 was adecisive step taken to “... weld the fragmented rural-urban Greater Victoria Areainto a cohesive unit capable of decisions and planning on a regional rather thanparochial scale (Murphy, Daily Colonist, 1969).” Indeed, it is this rural-urbandichotomy that remained difficult to overcome throughout the history of theCapital Regional District. On January 21, 1970 the Capital Region PlanningBoard was incorporated into the Capital Regional District and regional planningwas made a function of the Capital Regional District via an amendment to theMunicipalities Enabling and Validating Act.At this time, Regional Districts gained power over a function through the processof Letters Patent. The Capital Regional District, which had been created in1965, had effectively no staff until it gained the planning function in 1970. At thispoint the process of hiring planning and engineering staff began, though CapitalRegion Planning Board staff were initially carried over. The Capital RegionalDistrict’s first course of action was to complete planning work on the Gulf Islands.70At the time, according to planners and newspaper accounts, there was a fairamount of speculative development occurring in the Islands yet there was nocontrolling force. The citizens of several Islands appealed to the Capital RegionPlanning Board for assistance. The Capital Regional District followed up thisassistance and completed subdivision plans and zoning by-laws for all theIslands.The Director of Planning for the Capital Region Planning Board and the CapitalRegional District from 1959 to 1972 was Tony Roberts. Mr. Roberts, accordingto Graham Stallard (planner with the City of Victoria in the late 1960’s) practicedthe art of planning through consensus. Cognizant of the problems created forregional planning in the 1950’s, Mr. Roberts moved to create a positiveatmosphere towards regional planning through discussion, education andpatience. This would change abruptly in 1972 with the firing of Mr. Roberts (whowent on to work with the Islands Trust) and the introduction of his replacement,Peter Hammer. Mr.Hammer was vocal in his views of planning and dismissive ofthose who could not share his viewpoint or vision. J.Masterton, who workedunder Hammer for several years at the Capital Regional District described himas arrogant with respect to the issue of planning and reluctant to permitopposing viewpoints of planning. This change of Directors led to a less thanpositive atmosphere for planning because of the antagonism created byHammer in dealing with other planners and politicians in the region.This is corroborated by G.Stallard who served on the Technical PlanningCommittee and helped critique the draft View Royal Official Settlement Plan.When Stallard and others did not agree with the contents, Hammer publiclydenounced the interference from faceless bureaucrats. This lead to an71alienation of the Capital Regional District by the City of Victoria and some staff ofthe Ministry of Highways.The next major step for the Capital Regional District was to produce a newRegional Plan and have it adopted as the official regional plan. According toformer regional planner, Charlie Wakelin (with the Capital Regional District from1970 until the demise of regional planning in 1983), the planning staff felt theCapital Region Plan of 1959 to be a failure because it had not been officiallyadopted and contained, in their eyes, some serious planning flaws (Wakelin,1991) particularly from the transportation viewpoint and the distribution ofgrowth. However, the plan was followed to a degree because it was the onlyregional guide available to the municipalities.The Capital Regional District proceeded to produce a major regional park plan in1972 followed by the production of the Official Regional Plan in 1974. Despitethe sense of optimism resulting from the move to an Official Regional Plan,Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen sounded a somber note by suggesting that the deathof the Capital Regional District would not come about suddenly, but rather slowlyas the result of obsolescence and total ineffectiveness. (Pollen, “Dictatorialmeasures ...,Vancouver Sun, 1974) It is interesting to note that Pollen, the mostvocal political proponent of regional planning (though there is some question inthe minds of the planners of the time as to whether Pollen actually believed inregional planning or merely chose it as a political avenue to follow), was alreadypredicting its’ demise just a few years after the creation of the Capital RegionalDistrict.72The creation of the Official Regional Plan took fully two years due to the need tofully catalogue the physical environment. This was to be much more extensiveand scientific than the simple resource inventory of the 1959 Plan. Utilizing theMinistry of the Environment’s Resource Analysis Unit, the Capital RegionalDistrict was able to catalogue and map all of the physical, biological, climatic,wildlife and geological resources of the region. The 1959 Plan merely statedphysical attributes of areas and did not go into geomorphology and environmentdetail. This laid the foundation at last for the Capital Regional District to becomea vital information resource base for the region. In 1972 however, came achange in provincial governments.The new government, formed by the New Democratic Party created theAgricultural Land Reserve program and required each Regional District to mapout all agricultural lands within their domain. Due to the lack of planningdepartments within Greater Victoria, there were no base maps of anymunicipality to use as guides except for Saanich; thus, the Capital RegionalDistrict had to analyze all available land and produce the first base maps of theregion. Only then could the Capital Regional District map out the agriculturallands.These two efforts -- the ALR maps and the resource inventory of the CapitalRegional District -- provided an excellent base upon which to produce a regionalplan. However, it also led to a continuance of the technocratic style of planningpracticed by the Capital Region Planning Board in the 1950’s and again to alesser degree in the 1970’s, and according to Wakelin, led to the CapitalRegional District planning staff to develop a lack of respect for the idea thatcooperation with municipal professional staff was required for any regional73initiatives to succeed. Vancouver, conversely, had to work with existingmunicipal staff which would serve to reduce the potential for autocratic planning.In Victoria this meant that the Capital Regional District was further removed fromthe municipalities and continued on the same planning path as had the CapitalRegion Planning Board which led inevitably to the alienation of the municipalitiesin the Capital Region.According to G. Greenhalgh, there was little actual contact with the CapitalRegional District as a matter of course and little contact during the creation ofthe plan. As noted, the Capital Regional District simply picked up the planningalready done for Saanich and Victoria for use in the regional plan. The creationof the rest of the plan was through monthly meetings between the municipalities,the Ministry of Highways, and the Capital Regional District as the TechnicalPlanning Committee. As already noted, the change of Capital Regional DistrictPlanning Directors from Roberts to Hammer already created a difficultatmosphere within the Committee because of the attitude of Hammer. Thechange of mayors in Saanich from Curtis to Mel Couvelier also meant that theworking relationship between the Capital Regional District, Victoria, and Saanichdeteriorated because Couvelier was interested in Saanich first and the region adistant second. Naturally, this was the opposite opinion to that held by Hammer.Without the positive atmosphere between the municipalities and the RegionalDistrict, the working relations for the plan were not as fully developed as theyhad been in the late 1960’s.The Official Regional Plan, adopted November 27, 1974, was based upon aprojected population of 370,000 by the year 2000 (CRD, Official Region Plan,1974, p.1) and was intended to lay a foundation for regional planning in the74Victoria metropolitan area. The Official Regional Plan was not intended to be astatic document, as many local municipalities feared (particularly Oak Bay), butrather a stage in a continuous process of planning for the area. (CRD; 1974, p.2)The Plan was based upon the following goals and principles: (CRD, 1974, p.3)1) To conserve the Region’s non-renewable resources, including landwith enduring value for agriculture, forestry or recreation,2) To preserve the varied and interrelated biological systems of thearea, including plant, animal, fish and bird life,3) To maintain the natural beauty of the region in all its diversity,4) To provide for a variety of residential opportunities, differing incharacter, location, and density of population so that people havean effective choice of environments for living,5) To ensure that people have basic services including water supply,means of waste disposal and transportation facilities, at the lowestpossible cost,6) To provide residents with a variety of employment opportunitieswhich were consistent with the other goals,7) To reduce dependence on private automobiles by establishing aneffective system of public transportation,8) To base decisions relating to land use on objective studies of theland’s capability for different purposes,9) To leave opportunity for decisions to be taken on land use questionswhich cannot be anticipated today,7510) To locate and distribute employment opportunities in proximity toresidential neighbourhoods.It is important to note that the plan did not discuss the creation of a publicconsultation process or an implementation strategy that would allow these tengoals to be put into practice. This plan was very much in the environmental styleadvocated by Simmonds and McHarg and encountered little of the resistanceseen in the 1959 Plan. The most controversial decisions were those to dedicategrowth to specific municipalities and to regulate the construction of regional towncentres. Saanich and the Western Communities would grow, based on the Plan,to hold 55% of the total population for the region while the peninsulacommunities were to virtually stop any future growth as a result of theAgricultural Land Reserve protection of lands. The notion of urban containmentareas was to be used in the peninsula and Western Communities (indeed, theDistrict of Saanich has used this strategy since the 1960’s with some degree ofsuccess at containing development), with these areas linked by acomprehensive transportation system. The City of Victoria central businessdistrict was to remain the business centre of the region with no regional towncentres to exist outside of the four core municipalities.The transportation component was the most flawed portion of this new plan,according to Wakelin, because the Capital Regional District had notransportation planner on staff. Most of this planning was attempted via theCommittee with the Department of Highways, Victoria and Saanich and theresult would seem to be less than perrect. Another factor at the time was thenew provincial crown corporation, the Bureau of Transit, which zealously76guarded the public transit function, transferred to it by BC Hydro which did notcooperate actively with the Capital Regional District.The implementation of this Official Regional Plan was to be undertaken at themunicipal level by means of Official Community Plans which were to beamended so that they were consistent with the Official Regional Plan by 1976.The Oak Bay Suggested Community Plan of 1976 states that the physicalchanges required to meet the growth allocation (from the Official Regional Plan)were not considered desirable by the municipality and therefore proposed analternate policy whereby the Official Regional Plan should be amended tocoincide with Oak Bay’s Official Community Plan. This shows that the CapitalRegional District had not been completely successful in its sale of the OfficialRegional Plan. However, because there were no other conflicts found betweenany other local Official Community Plan’s and the Official Regional Plan, only theOak Bay plan and the Western Community Official Settlement Plan, which wasunder the mandate of the Capital Regional District, required alteration. Theunicorporated areas were still under the local planning jurisdiction of the CapitalRegional District, thus any conflicts could easily be dealt with. The reason forthe lack of conflicts was that the Capital Regional District merely picked up theOfficial Community Plans of Victoria and Saanich as the basis for the corerecommendations of the plan because the municipal planning departments werefurther along in their planning process than was the Regional District(Greenhalgh, 1994).After the adoption of the Official Regional Plan, the next phase for the CapitalRegional District was a continuation of the background work needed to establisha comprehensive regional base of information regarding the land and the77resources. In addition, according to M.Bennett (a member of the planning stafffor the past 25 years), the Capital Regional District wanted to establish atransportation capability within the department. This capability would allow theCapital Regional District to improve upon the transportation results of theprevious draft Official Regional Plan (though cooperation with the provincialtransit bureau was limited and antagonistic according to former employees of theMetro Transit Authority until the removal of the transit planning function from theCapital Regional.)The Capital Regional District spent much of the next 6 years increasing theresource inventory to include the Langford Highlands, most of region’s coast line,and the Gulf Islands. One major enterprise was to study the cost of servicing allcommunities within the region (this eventually lead to the Cost of Growth study in1982 and the Official Regional Plan update in 1983). Another pursuit was thestudy of affordable housing in the region which would ultimately lead to thecreation of the Capital Regional Housing Corporation in 1983.By 1977, the Capital Regional District was at its height in terms of the variedamount of planning work being produced, and the size of the staff. The CapitalRegional District had also produce Official Community Plans for all the GulfIslands, as well as new zoning by-laws (the planning function for the Gulf Islandswas transferred to the Islands Trust in 1978). The removal of Peter Hammerfrom the position of Director of Planning saw planning divided into RegionalPlanning under Wakelin and Development Services under Masterton. Inaddition, under the Regional Planning department, the Capital Regional Districtwas undertaking major plans in transportation, economic development andregional planning. The Regional District was also acting as a planning78consultant for many of the municipalities, producing the North Saanich OCP,tourism studies and helping to produce the important Douclas/BlanshardCorridor Study with Victoria and Saanich.However, the years 1978 - 1983 would witness the slow demise of the CapitalRegional District as a regional planning organization and the municipal supportof the Capital Regional District would diminish to virtually nil. Internal politicswithin the Capital Regional District regarding how much support for regionalversus parochial planning, acrimonious challenges to the Official Regional Plan(from Saanich over the regional town centre limitations), and a lack of politicalsupport from core area municipalities all played a part in the slow decline ofpopularity for the regional planning component of the Capital Regional District.The aggressive nature of Hammer and the generally low profile of the planningstaff also played a role in the demise of any support for regional planning.The Social Credit Government voted on a resolution favouring the abolition ofRegional Districts at the Party’s annual meeting in 1978 (the resolution failed).In addition, the provincial government set up a commission headed by DanCampbell, a former Socred Minister, to examine all aspects of Regional Districts.It was felt by planners at the time that the Province, through the commission,was merely seeking reasons to justify the dissolution of Regional Districts (J.Masterton, 1991). The stress of the potential dissolution impacted upon the staffand, to a degree, undermined activities of the Capital Regional District at thetime.In 1978, the seven Gulf Islands were removed from the jurisdiction of the CapitalRegional District and all planning powers for these areas were turned over to the79Islands Trust (an organization which was without any powers previously) - thusbeginning the reduction of areas under the Capital Regional District localplanning jurisdiction. Though planning in the remainder of the region continuedwith a focus revising of the 1974 Official Regional Plan, the level of localmunicipal cooperation with the Capital Regional District was starting to dwindle.A confrontation over the regional town centre policy of the Official Regional Planbetween the Capital Regional District and the District of Saanich (over the floorspace area of the Tillicum Shopping Centre) would spell the end of planningcooperation between these two particular organizations until the early 1990’s.The mayors of Victoria following Peter Pollen - Tindall, Young, Brewin andTurner - were all non-committal regarding regional policy (in contrast to Mr.Pollen who was an outspoken proponent of regional planning and the CapitalRegional District); Oak Bay was belligerently opposed as were Central and NorthSaanich; and Esquimalt was silent.The regional town centre policy of the Official Regional Plan was developed inorder to protect the Central Business District from direct competition withinspecific physical parameters. The business centres of Oak Bay and Esquimaltwere sufficiently disparate not to provide any commercial threat to the City ofVictoria Downtown. Saanich, however, was lacking a cohesive core aroundwhich to focus public identity for the municipality. Therefore, Saanich chose toencourage the development of the Tillicum Drive-In site as a possible towncentre.80FIGuRE 4.3 THE TILLICTJM MALL SITE:%;...‘:.*:.fflgure4.2ijilitcum Mall Site)Town &Co Mall. . Trans . .- 1111(11 SaamAdmiralsT4lhcwnLw ChnredaleTflhcum Buansnlei:.:.:. .;•..W’er°t7% \ in ru.-. •.• .. . ... .Vict.na UnbwarThe Official Regional Plan specifically limited the size of commercialdevelopments within a certain distance from the identified Central BusinessDistrict (the Tillicum site was within this distance limitation). Note from figure 4.2that within the same distance from Downtown to Tillicum Mall, there werealready two existing malls serving the area. The rationale behind the limitationwas to ensure the vibrancy of business in the downtown core. The Tillicum sitewas of sufficient size that it was felt to be a threat to Downtown businesses. Theresulting dispute ended with both parties in court arguing definitions of shopping81malls and department stores. Ultimately, the Tillicum Mall was built -- despitethe opposition from the Capital Regional District and the City of Victoria planners--owing to a political compromise after Saanich lost the court case. This dealt aserious blow to the credibility of the Capital Regional District and the regionalplan and the desire of the Capital Regional District to establish a town centre inthe Western Communities (Greenhalgh, 1994). Ironically, the creation of theEaton Centre in downtown Victoria some ten years later would be opposed bySaanich on the same grounds as the Capital Regional District had opposed theTillicum shopping centre.1982 heralded the first serious provincial attack on the regional planning powersof Regional Districts (albeit an abortive measure). Bill 9 was put forward toCabinet by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill Vander Zalm and was aproposed Planning Act limiting the powers of Regional Districts. Though it waswithdrawn due to a lack of support from the Cabinet, Bill 9 created stress uponprofessional planning staff of the Capital Regional District who (as noted inconversations with former planners of the Capital Regional District and those stillemployed by the Capital Regional District) saw local cooperation evaporatingand provincial support temporary at best.The Cost of Growth Study. carried out by the Capital Regional District between1980 and 1982, identified growth options for the region with respect to fiscal,social, and environmental costs and recommended a course of action for therevised Official Regional Plan. This approach was requested by Saanich asmunicipalities in the region began to look at restricting growth in individualattempts to deflect growth away from themselves. This plan recommended thatthe Western Communities be serviced by sewerage by 1996 at the latest.82Ultimately, growth was merely pushed from the peripheral suburbs to District ofSaanich which itself had a growth restriction program (the Urban Containmentpolicy).The Cost of Growth Study suffered from criticism that it was an exercise incomputer programming that produced very little for the money (Stallard, 1994).Ironically, a regional transportation plan that took three years to produce andrelied upon computer modeling would be under the same attack in 1994 asbeing a waste of money and not having produced anything new. The Cost ofGrowth study simplified the complex issues of restricted growth by merelyreviewing the areas best able to take growth based on existing services andavailable developable lots. Unfortunately, the plan was not so much a guide forthe region as a brief answer to the two questions posed by Saanich -- whatgrowth can portions of the region handle and what if there is no growth?1983 was a year of change for the Capital Regional District. The Capital RegionPlan was produced as an update of the Official Regional Plan which followed upon the Cost of Growth study. This new Plan was 20 years in vision and calledfor updates every 5 years. The Plan extended the region outwards to include allof the Sooke Electoral Area and was particularly concerned with the restrictivegrowth programs of some municipalities as well as the issue of regionaltransportation. This transportation focus was the first time any regional plan forthe Capital Region had been created with it as a prime objective (Wakelin, 1990)and with transportation professionals on staff; however, the restriction on growthemerged as the major point of contention in the plan.83As noted in the Capital Region Plan,(CRD, 1983, p.3.)Such a [restrictive growth] policy for a single municipality canperhaps succeed in a narrow sense, but in many cases, from abroader regional perspective, these programs are often lesssuccessful because the growth and burden is not eliminated butonly shifted to adjoining areas which have not instituted a restrictivepolicy.The 1983 plan was made in order to update the previous Official Regional Planand to introduce a transportation component as a prime objective. Furthermore,the Cost of Growth study, along with sewerage and water studies, led to a muchgreater detailed background examination of the region and an estimate of whichareas could potentially accommodate growth. It is noted within the plan that theCapital Regional District was not advocating growth, merely anticipating wheregrowth could occur and the cost of accepting this growth without majorenvironmental problems occurring. The major physical accomplishment arisingfrom this plan was the servicing of the Peninsula communities with water. Thesuccess of this version of the Official Regional Plan was that growth pressureswere starting to cause problems in the core municipalities and that the CapitalRegional District had a clear set of objectives for the study and did not dictatesolutions but rather sought them through consultation and an open process.4.4 1983 TO PRESENT - A Tm OF CHANGEThe first hints of change from the reasonably successful regional cooperativeatmosphere of the previous five years was the removal of the transit planningfunction by the Province and the transferal of this function to BC Transit in March84of 1983. The result was a reduction in staff within the Capital Regional Districtalong with some lingering effect on the confidence of the remaining staff.At the same time the province accelerated change by pushing forth anincorporation vote for a combined Colwood and Langford (earlier incorporationvotes for Langford, Coiwood, and Metchosin had all been rejected in public votesduring 1979) -- despite the protestations of local politicians who did not wishsuch a combined vote. (Wakelin, 1991) The vote failed but, subsequently, thesuccessful incorporation votes between 1984 and 1993 in View Royal, Coiwood,Langford, and the Highlands, effectively reduced the area of effective localplanning responsibility of the Capital Regional District to the remaining electoralarea of Sooke and the small unicorporated portion of Langford, thereby reducingthe direct sphere of influence of the Capital Regional District.The major blow to the Capital Regional District, and all other Regional Districts inBritish Columbia, came on November 18, 1983 when a revised Bill 9 wasproclaimed repealing sections 807, 808, 812, 813, and 815 of the Municipal Act.It stated, “all Regional Plans prepared or designated before sections 807 and808 were repealed are canceled and have no effect.” Thus in one stroke allRegional Districts had their regional planning function dissolved by the Province.The Capital Regional District concentrated on the regional information base andthe provision of regional services confined to parks, health services, sewagedisposal and recycling. However, the Board of the Capital Regional Districtchose not to follow the approach of the Greater Vancouver Regional Districtwhich continued producing regional growth strategies and policies as well assuggesting growth guidelines. As a result, the Greater Vancouver Regional85District managed to gain some influence among politicians and the generalpublic as a body concerned about the growth of the region and offering solutionsto regional problems. The Capital Regional District’s preoccupation withstatutory regional plans only meant that there would naturally be a void once thestatutory basis for regional planning was removed. The Capital Regional District,in contrast, put all regional planning files either into storage or destroyed them --only the resource inventory remains available. Half the professional planningstaff positions were terminated leaving only the local planning staff. (Masterton,1991) Thus, the Capital Regional District Board of Directors chose to absolvethemselves and the organization of any responsibility for the planning of theregion. Overnight, the Capital Regional District was reduced in 1984 to a localplanning agency for the lightly inhabited unincorporated areas of Langford,Sooke, Coiwood, Metchosin and View Royal, and even this responsibilitysubsequently shrank dramatically with incorporations.The rationale and reasons for the very different approaches to the 1983 repeal inVictoria and Vancouver are straightforward. First and foremost was the lack oftrained professional planners on municipal staffs throughout the Capital Regionin the preceding thirty years. In 1983, apart from the Capital Regional District,only Victoria and Saanich had professional planning staffs with most othermunicipalities relying either upon consultants or their own engineering staff. TheCapital Regional District had a large planning staff for regional planning and theElectoral Area services, however, they functioned in the same environment.Once various areas incorporated and did not hire planners then the planning‘atmosphere’ of the region was further diluted and the ability of bringmunicipalities together in a planning environment was made more difficult. Thislack of planners on staff may be the direct result of the small size of the86municipalities which makes the hiring of professional planning staff fiscallydifficult to justify. Esquimalt and Oak Bay have traditionally preferred to useengineering staff to provide the planning function.Therefore, there has been no established history of planners working togetheralong with engineers and other professional staff to eliminate problems betweenmunicipalities- as was the case in Vancouver, Toronto, and Portland. The resulthas been that the municipalities have not developed a solid professional workingrelationship over the past forty years with the Capital Region Planning Board orits successor, the Capital Regional District.Moreover, the Capital Regional District was viewed in a harsh light (judging bynewspaper accounts and editorials) by the smaller municipalities because allvoting on regional issues, due to the weighting of votes (one vote per 5,000population), could be carried by Victoria and Saanich even if all othermunicipalities objected. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, though somemunicipalities would occasionally be against specific policies, could weathercriticism because they constantly strove for regional consensus and politicalenlightenment once the regulatory ability to enforce regional planning wasremoved. When the opportunity came during the recession of the early 1980’s toreduce the operating cost of the Capital Regional District and to make a politicalstatement, regional planning was easily swept aside by the Regional Board.Moreover, the first twenty years of planning had not created either a solidprocess for resolving planning differences, nor had it created an atmosphere oftrust of the Capital Regional District.87Yet, continuing through the 1983 repeal of regional planning powers was theRegional Information Service which was to continue the process of adding to theregional database collected over the preceding twenty years. Unfortunately,without the planning staff to utilize this database, little has been done with theinformation to date. The data base could be utilized to defend the cause ofregional planning by tracking and identifying growth issues (or transportation,social and economic issues) if used properly by a regional board that wasproactively campaigning for municipalities to get into the regional process.However, even the Capital Regional District itself has refused to allow its ownplanning staff the ability to use and expand upon this regional base.Included within the 1983 provincial revocation of regional planning powers wasthe ability of unincorporated areas to opt out of Regional District plans.Metchosin incorporated in 1984, Colwood in 1985, View Royal in 1987, Langfordin 1992, and the Highlands in 1993. Also in 1987, the Langford E.A. chose toignore long-standing Capital Regional District growth policies and removed theHighlands area from future development in its 1987 update of its OfficialCommunity Plan. This area had been projected and planned fully for a new townof 35,000 and 50,000 people since 1959. Subsequently, Langford hasincorporated and in 1993 the Highlands incorporated (mainly to prevent growthin the area). The issue of growth for other municipalities has since become thenumber one regional priority around the Capital Region.In 1987 there were but four professional land use planners on staff for the localplanning of the electoral areas with the main regional functions limited to theRegional Information Service, recycling, coordinating low cost housing, sewer,and health services. Each of these is planned for by a separate department with88no coordinating regional guidelines or plan. Out of a total budget of $47 millionfor the Capital Regional District in 1987, some $600,000 went to communityplanning (or 12.8% of the budget) and a mere $450 on regional planning (CRD,1988 Budget, 1988). The majority of spending was for waste disposal, sewage,community health, regional parks and recreation services. By 1988, the moneysspent on regional planning totalled $0 and the function was no longer listed as aservice provided by the Capital Regional District (CRD, Corporate Structure,1988.).Ironically, while the Capital Regional District had completely absolved itself ofany regional planning by 1988, an upswing in the local economy began with theresultant building boom continuing through to the present day. Thus, just whenregional planning was most needed, there was no strong planning agency toguide and coordinate the municipalities in dealing with growth.Saanich had withdrawn its support of regional planning in 1981 after the Tillicumshopping centre issue, yet it has borne the brunt of development. This is evenmore evident after the closure of the Langford Highlands to development and theadoption of no growth policies by the peninsula communities. The resultingpressure on Saanich’s ability to provide services brought calls from theMunicipality for a resurgence -- in some limited form -- of regional planning(particularly from Saanich Alderman and Capital Regional District ChairmanFrank Leonard). Saanich seems recently to have realized the need to plan forgrowth strategically at the regional level in order to reduce the negative impactsof growth. Saanich is now the largest municipality in the Capital Region withover 90,000 residents including a new town centre at Royal OaklBroadmead,and the new regional swimming complex.89Calls for a renewal of regional planning in some form began appearing in localnewspaper articles in 1989 and the issue dominated local political debatesduring the 1991 Civic elections. A forum was held in February 1989 called theVisions Victoria Symposium. It was sponsored by the City of Victoria in order todiscuss topics concerning the City and the Capital Region. (CitySpacesConsulting, 1990) However, the opportunity presented by such an event wasnegated as the principle sponsor, the City of Victoria, concentrated on the Cityand did not invite the Capital Regional District or other core municipalities to helpin producing the event. The published results of the symposium showed thatonly 6 of the 218 issues identified could be classified as not regional in nature. Itwas noted in the summary that many attendees felt that their questions were notbeing directed to the proper jurisdiction - the Capital Regional District. The lackof concrete results coming out of the Visions Victoria Symposium is indicative ofthe casual attitude taken to regional planning in Victoria. Political support isthere in the initial stages, however, there is no capitalization of this support intoaffirmative action.As noted by Jim Masterton, then Manager of Municipal Services for the CapitalRegional District (Hume, 1989), “while the region is becoming more complex andthe population ... continues to grow, the mechanisms for co-ordination havedisappeared.” Some of that mechanism has returned due to the District ofSaanich Councilor Frank Leonard who also serves as the chairman of theCapital Regional District (1991 to present). Thus the largest municipality had alarger say in bringing regional issues to public debate -- at least those issues thatconcerned Saanich.90The Regional Growth Review was a substantial document published in April1990 as a review of possible growth scenarios for the 20 year period between1989 and 2011. The study was initiated by the District of Saanich (rather thanthe Capital Regional District) to create household and population projections forall areas of the Capital Regional District and, based on these projections, toidentify the shortfall of houses (Allueva, Interview) likely over the study period.The work was coordinated by the Capital Regional District Regional InformationServices Department rather than the Capital Regional District planningdepartment. Regional Information Services was chosen as the vehicle for thestudy because its’ staff were paid for on a regional basis. If planning departmentstaff had been used (and they were paid 100% for by the Electoral Areas) therewould have been objections from local politicians who thought the exercise wasa waste of time (Masterton, 1994).The Capital Regional District Board subsequently decided to proceed with afollow up study to examine the potential for implementing some form of growthstrategy. This Capital Regional District study was possible as a result of anamendment to the Municipal Act in 1989 that, though vaguely worded, allowedRegional Districts to once again offer regional development services if asked todo so by participant municipalities. Thus, the regional planning was now drivenby individual municipalities rather than by the regional body.The subcommittee for the Regional Growth Review consisted of one officialplanner from each of the Greater Victoria municipalities plus the Capital RegionalDistrict planning department representing the Langford and Sooke ElectoralAreas. The Review noted that in order to accommodate the projected 52,000new residents by 2001 (CRD, April 1990) in Greater Victoria, sewerage of91Colwood and Central Saanich must occur and there must be a 100% build out ofavailable land within the Capital Region. Figure 4.3 shows that between 1986and 1991, some 35,000 new residents had already arrived in the Capital Region.Saanich is not expected to grow beyond its current Urban ContainmentBoundaries while most other Western Community and Peninsula municipalitieshave ‘no growth’ policies. The concluded results is a projected single familydwelling shortfall in Saanich, Langford, North Saanich, Sooke, Victoria, andMetchosin by 2001. (CRD, April, 1990) This projection was based upon a totalgrowth rate for the region of 1.4% per annum.FIGURE 4.4 GROWTH RATES IN THE CAPITAL REGION 1986-1991Figure 4.4 Langtord Sooke Central Cal- Esqal- Match- North Oak ViewC.R.D. E.A. E.A. Saanich wood malt osin Saanich Bay Saanich Sidney Victoria RoyalPopulation 1986 264,614 15,247 7,882 11,475 11,432 15,972 3,676 7,247 17,065 82,940 8,982 66,303 4,963Population 1991 299,550 17,276 9,564 13,684 13,468 16,192 4,232 9,645 17,815 95,577 10,082 71,228 5,925Percent Change 13.2% 133% 21.3% 19.3% 17.8% 1.4% 15.1% 33.1% 4.4% 15.2% 12.2% 7.4% 19.4%Note that the growth rates for the Capital Regional District as a whole, as shownin Figure 4.3, far exceed the 1.4% growth rate predicted in the Regional GrowthReview with an average growth rate per annum of 2.64%. These figures arebased on Canada Census information. With the total growth rate at 13.2% forthe census period and remaining steady through 1994, the Capital Region willlikely be experiencing a shortage of housing stock long before 2001. Thismeans that every available piece of land suitable for housing will be developedbefore 2001, leaving only densification as an option for housing a growingpopulation within the current boundaries of the Capital Region.Resulting from the Regional Growth Review, was the creation of a DevelopmentStrategy Task Force at the Capital Regional District, which was designed tocreate a regional growth strategy. It is interesting to note that this is not being92undertaken by the planning department of the Capital Regional District but ratherby the Resource Inventory section. Separate from the Regional Growth Reviewwas the creation of a regional transportation plan which was begun at therequest of Saanich and BC Transit. Once again this did not involve the CapitalRegional District Planning Department other than as a local capacityrepresenting the Langford and Sooke Electoral Areas. These two recentdevelopments show the extent to which the Capital Regional District limits itsplanning resources, and would seem to indicate a desire on the part ofmunicipalities to stay away from comprehensive regional planning andinvolvement of the Capital Regional District as a planning force -- or even as aregional coordinator for the plans.In October 1990 at the same time as the Regional Growth Review was prepared,the local chapter of the Urban Development Institute, a body created bymembers of the business community to study development and growth in thearea and the effects on business, produced a study entitled Growing Pains. Thisstudy reviewed the growth issue in the Capital Region from the perspective ofthe business community. The Urban Development Institute report states that therise of the “no growth” scenario in the region’s municipal goals is a direct resultof the inability of planners and politicians both in the Capital Regional District andin each municipality, to better manage the past and current growth. (UDI, p.2)Interestingly, given the Urban Development Institutes focus on the rights ofdevelopers to pursue higher densities, the Urban Development Institutequestions the assumption of the Review for 100% build out (this refers to thecomplete use of all available and zoned developable land). Further, the UrbanDevelopment Institute examines the problems currently taking place due to the93lack of municipal coordination on planning and servicing throughout the region.Situations cited include the widening of Cook Street in Victoria by the City ofVictoria to an arterial along with the continued refusal of Saanich to upgrade thetwo main connecting streets to a similar status; the opposite situation occurringalong Shelbourne Street. Regional planning could have helped alleviate thissituation through a regional transportation plan which would show the roadslikely to be termed regional arterials or connectors. In the existing situation,each municipality considers its local traffic patterns only and not the regionaltraffic issues. Highway alterations have been planned without input from theCapital Regional District or BC Transit, in some instances, the local municipalityThe cost of sewerage was found to be beyond the ability of either Coiwood orLangford residents to afford locally, requiring some sort of regional cost sharingto be acceptable.The Urban Development Institute also resurrected the issue of amalgamationinto three large municipalities (the core, peninsula, and western communities) inorder to reduce the bureaucracy currently in place. Though the UrbanDevelopment Institute does represent a business rather than planning viewpoint,many of the observations regarding the lack of regional coordination andplanning are accurate and reflect the level of disintegration that has occurred inthe Capital Regional District regarding regional planning since 1983.The Capital Regional District is, through the Regional Development Committee --the Regional Growth Review Subcommittee was renamed after the RegionalGrowth Review was made public in 1990 -- pursuing a three phase plan to studyfuture growth, model options to control growth and examine the needed94infrastructure for this growth. In essence, it is a skeletal regional plan. The threephases consist of: (CRD, March 1990)1) Urban Capacity Inventory - to be based on Official CommunityPlans, the identification of protected environments, the OfficialRegional Plan’s of 1974 and 1983, the 1982 Cost of Growth study,and all relevant plans by BC Transit and the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways,2) modeling growth options - included within this is a review of theimplications of adopting a no-growth policy in the VictoriaMetropolitan Area,3) evaluation of development strategies, including the necessaryinfrastructure requirements.The first of these phases was scheduled for completion by a consultant byDecember 1991, with $40,000 of the total dedicated sum of $50,000 for phase 1to come from a grant from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The report, as ofJanuary 1992, was presented by Westland Resources to the Capital RegionalDistrict for consideration though it is doubtful that the funds dedicated to theproject can produce quality work in the scope desired or needed by the CapitalRegional District. Phases 2 and 3 were to be finished by 1992 and 1993respectively though no funding had been set aside.4.5 SuIA1The Capital District stretches from Sooke to the Outer Gulf Islands.The urban areas range from the provincial capital to pocketcommunities like Saanichton and Ganges. The rural land rangesfrom the Highlands of Langford to the farm fields of Central95Saanich or Metchosin to the forests near Sooke. . . Each of thesehas attracted a particular segment of our population. Eachenriches the whole. Because all need to be respected andprotected, collectively they present a planning challenge rife withdifferent and sometimes conflicting priorities (Times-Colonist,October 29, 1991).Regional planning in Victoria in 1994 is nonexistent while the control ofdevelopment and growth by municipalities is done without the benefit of anycoordinating regional vision. There seems to have been little public knowledge,input, or education regarding the Capital Regional District and the need for orprocess of regional planning. The public must be as involved in the process asare the politicians if any regional planning forays are to succeed.The Capital Regional District has diminished as a regional planning organizationsince 1983. There has been little in the past decade from the Capital RegionalDistrict in terms of educating both the public and politicians as to thecomprehensive scale required for regional planning or even of the necessity forregional planning.One cannot plan merely parks or sewerage or health services without alsolooking at such issues as economics, commerce, development, work andresidential location, location of industry, transportation and recreational facilitieset cetera. There is no single regional issue which is not compromised bychanges to other regional issues. Yet, the Capital Regional District has donelittle to promote regional planning since the removal of the function in 1983.John Ranns, Mayor of Metchosin (1993), states clearly the misconceptions thatexist with regards to the definition of regional planning: “we already haveeffective regional planning. Parks, transit, hospitals, libraries, the recent96adoption of 911, are all examples of cooperative efforts between municipalities.(Ranns, 1991) However, these activities are being carried out by other agenciesand by the Capital Regional District and are not being done with a masterregional plan to refer to. Furthermore, these activities are not regional planning.Clearly there is an educational gap between the planners and the politiciansregarding what regional planning consists of. Moreover, the Capital RegionalDistrict has no regional planners on staff, no transit planners on staff, and, as ofJanuary 1994, no Hospital planners on staff.The regional plans of 1959, 1974, and 1983 have been shelved in favour ofinaction and an approach to regional planning that is driven by a no-growthscenario. Regional planning seems, at the moment, to be municipally-driven. Itis clear that there are large public and political misconceptions regarding boththe Capital Regional District as an organization and about the need for regionalplanning- even within the Capital Regional District.Without the presence of a strong regional advocate, there can be little positiveaction with regard to regional issues in Greater Victoria. Unlike the GreaterVancouver Regional District, the Capital Regional District simply does not havethe capability nor does it have the municipal support to accomplish regionalplanning or even the suggestion of regional policies and goals without legislatedauthority.Greater Victoria had the potential to have an effective voluntary regionalplanning function similar to Vancouver, yet the Capital Regional District did notestablish a satisfactory regional planning process and as a result has beenunable to continue in a regional planning capacity since the 1983 repeal of97legislated authority. Rather than continue using its research section as a politicalconvenience to put forth a platform of regional planning as is the case inVancouver, the Capital Regional District has voluntarily abdicated majorresponsibility in this area. There is, however, hope for the future as Victoriaappears to be reaching the necessary growth threshold required to createconditions that force municipalities within a region to cooperate.985.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS“Men come together in order to live: they remain together in orderto live the good life (Aristotle).”Planning should be intimately related to political-decision-makingstructures, and planning policies should provide a coherentdirection to the development of the municipality but retain sufficientflexibility to permit adapting to changing circumstances. Moreover,the planning process must ensure an adequate degree of planningco-ordination within governments and among the various levels ofgovernment, as well as the appropriate means of resolving conflictsbetween governments on planning matters. Finally, the processmust be open, clear and easy for citizens to understand, and itmust operate with sufficient speed and finality to ensure thatneither the public interest nor the rights of the interested parties areunduly reduced by lengthy delays (Report of the Royal Commissionon Metropolitan Toronto, V.2., p.215.).5.1 SuMMARYThis thesis focused upon the application of regional planning to the CapitalRegion. Regional Planning has existed in the Capital Region since the 1950’s,however, in 1994, the Capital Regional District is not currently involved in thepursuit of regional planning. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis was toexamine the history of planning in the Capital Regional and determine whatoccurred over forty plus years to allow regional planning to cease to exist as anactive function of the Capital Regional District.The notion of comprehensive land use planning has expanded considerablysince the utopian ideas of the late 1800’s -- led by Ebenezer Howard and PatrickGeddes along with later planners like Mumford and Odum -- first developed theidea of planning for a region. Regional planning was, and remains, a responseto explosive growth in an urban centred region. The late eighteenth century bore99witness to the destructive elements arising from the Industrial Revolution and thepopulation boom that accompanied it. Theorists Fournier and Owen put forth thesocial theory that urban life could be transformed by building new plannedindustrial towns - mixing urban and rural pursuits in self sufficient regions.This theory was expanded upon by Patrick Le Play who also related sociology tothe geographical environment and tried to understand how it related to humanoccupation. Geddes felt that to start the process of planning, it was firstnecessary to acquire an in depth knowledge of the city and the regionsurrounding it. Howard Odum and the ‘Southern Regionalists’ of the 1930’s,focused on the region as the primary building block of human culture and sociallife. John Friedmann and the Chicago School of Planning of the 1950’s, helpedmove this block of planning history into the realm of the soft sciences byincorporating spatial location theories and urban economics to the field ofregional planning. By understanding the theory of regional planning one canbetter comprehend the issue in the Capital Region and why the Capital RegionPlanning Board and the Capital Regional District practiced planning in certainways as the theory changed from the scientific planning of the 1950’s to thecontemporary environmental style that reflects the earlier views of the lateNineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.Regional planning as understood within this thesis implies planning the overallcourses for land use, water use, sewerage, transportation, recreation, andeconomics for a region. Regional planning is not simply the provision ofseparate regional services -- it is the process involved in finding the best use ofresources for a given region. Moreover, it is a continual process, not static; andit includes the municipalities of the region as part of a whole.100The region to which the planning is applied is, as noted earlier in Chapter 2, areal historical place that has shared a common history, social institutions andhuman/environmental relationships (Weaver, p.60). The region is a contiguousarea within which there is a higher degree of interaction and connectivity thanwith other regions (Blumenfeld, p.87). The region is also a politically boundedzone over which population and economic activities are scattered but whichconcentrate in and around a specific focus of activity (H. Richardson, p.4). Theboundaries of the region correspond to the boundaries of the planning area ofthe current Capital Regional District which excludes the Gulf Islands and much ofthe Sooke Electoral Area. It could include the southern portion of the CowichanValley, north of Goldstream Park and south of Duncan, given the number ofcommuters (1100 per hour during the peak periods in a single direction -- BCTransit 1994), however, that is a future consideration and is not of concern inexamining the history of planning in the Capital Region.If a regional planning authority exists solely through the graces of themunicipalities within the urban centred region, the likelihood is that the authoritywill be able to do little other than offer advice. If, on the other hand, the regionalbody has the legislative backing to actually implement policies when stalematesoccur, then it will be successful (though the policies will likely be fought at thelocal level if the procedure for settling disputes is not perceived as neutral andfair). The best option is a mix of the two scenarios which can eliminate thehierarchical stigma attached to higher tier government, but leave an open, easilyunderstood process for developing regional policies that could be seen to benefitthe region as a whole even if it requires some municipal sacrifice.101As noted in Chapter 2, the forms of regional planning institutions are varied anddepend upon the role required for the institution and the political mandate it isgiven. G.Lim noted the six most common types used in the Western World (Lim,p.9):(1) Consolidation of City and County Governments.(2) More planning authority conferred upon Counties along with new taxingcapabilities to finance regional projects (e.g. sewerage, Parks, water).(3) Two tier governments like those in Toronto and Miami.(4) The creation of a regional government such as was the case in Portland(Ore.), and Minneapolis-St.PauI.(5) The voluntary Council-of-Governments approach.(6) Special purpose districts like the Port Authority in New York City, or the BayArea Rapid Transit Authority in San Francisco.The achilles heel of these regional authorities, according to Lim (p.11) lies intheir multi-jurisdictional nature and the political divergence of theirconstituencies. Many authorities or agencies make the error of trying to conductcomprehensive planning by issuing instructions in a hierarchical or dictatorialmanner (Self, p. 15). Yet, because regional planning is an organic, rather thanmechanical process, it entails teamwork between organizations. As Self notes(p. 15) the effectiveness of a planning process still turns upon mutual dialogueand the harmonization of objectives.102Typically, without a highly effective process, the success of an authority inguiding a region is directly proportional to the amount of legislated control theauthority is given (i.e. the legal authority to enforce regional policies and overridemunicipal policies). However, even Metro governments, which have the greatestability to enforce regional policies, rely upon planning processes and dialogue toachieve the best results and maintain some semblance of unanimity in pursuingregional goals.The Metro systems of London, Stockholm, and Toronto, arose as a result ofmassive population spurts and the need to provide water and sewerage andinfrastructure to large populations of residents. This form of regional authority isusually created by the state to oversee large urban centres which have beenunable to keep municipal services in pace with population increases. The regionis normally given priority over the municipalities or boroughs though the mandateof the Metro government is normally associated specifically with regional mattersand not local planning or zoning. A good planning process does ensure asmoother application of planning to the region despite a strong mandate andcurtails any friction.The American Council of Governments is somewhat similar to British Columbia’sregional districts with two key exceptions. Joining the Council of Governments isvoluntary in nature and there is little authority given to the Council ofGovernments to implement plans. Therefore, the Council of Governments mustrely on a smooth planning process and extensive public and political participationif it wishes to have its regional advice followed.103The Regional Districts of British Columbia are structured in a similar manner asthe Council of Governments, however, there is a great deal more ability to putregional goals into practice. All municipalities must join the regional district andthe district has the legal authority to ensure conformity to a variety of regionalpolicies such as parks, hospitals, sewerage and water. However, one key areawhere there is no authority is regional planning. In this area, the regional districtrelies on process and participation to convince municipalities of the benefits of aregional plan. However, following a regional plan is voluntary in nature,therefore, the regional district can only act in an advisory capacity in the planningrealm. This was not the case prior to 1983 in British Columbia. However,harmonious relations with the municipalities within a region prior to the repeal ofplanning authority for regional districts was critical to the success of planningafterwards.By creating a process which includes the municipalities and the people of aregion, regardless of the legal mandate the authority has to enforce conformity toa regional plan, it is possible to foster a positive atmosphere regarding regionalplanning. To create this positive atmosphere, the regional authority must beclear and consistent in its goals and establish a well-understood planningprocess that includes the municipalities and the residents of the region.The Greater Vancouver Regional District policy of creating consensus throughpublic and political participation rests on three simple principles (GVRD, flRegional Role, p.4).1) Knowledge is a powerful tool. The Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict states that a regional information base is critical. This is104consistent with the planning theory of the social theorists andplanners form the Eighteenth Century to the present whichbases all planning on an extensive knowledge of the physical,environmental, and sociological attributes of a region.2) Good ideas, consistently and coherently presented, will triumphover bad ideas.3) Maximizing cooperation will produce the regional interest. Againthis is the issue of creating a good planning process.N.H.Richardson’s five planning goals (as noted in Chapter 2) follow a similar tackto that of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. In essence, a planningprogram must be clear and consistent with objectives that are explicit andattainable. Furthermore, the process should have broad participation and shouldbe aimed at securing an effective planning process rather than grand designs orconcepts. Finally, planning must be allowed to proceed without interferencefrom other agencies or departments within an authority.Based on the preceding theory regarding planning within a region, the followingsix points [which are also echoed by P.Self (p.136) and the A.P.A. (pp.166-i 84)]are used as the model against which the history of planning in the CapitalRegion can be assessed.105FIGURE 5.1-- PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING WITHIN A REGION1. A regional planning authority should be concerned with general communityobjectives;2. The Authority’s operating functions would be limited and related clearly to itsgoals. These goals must be explicit and attainable not grandiose concepts.However, the authority would retain the ability to review all physical planswithin the region;3. It would have the financial powers to approve and coordinate all majorinvestments in its area and have an independent source of taxation. This issimilar to powers given to the Metro government in Stockholm;4. It would have the power to provide financial and technical assistance to themunicipalities or other bodies in the region;5. It would require an effective political base that is regionally accountable withthe full support of a higher level of government (such as the Province);6. It would prepare a regional plan and have special powers to facilitate therealization of the plan. The base of this plan would be a regional survey ofthe environment, geography, and the people;7. Finally, it would secure an effective planning process -- with broadparticipation -- that is consistent with its goals and is understood by all.Stockholm has managed to follow all seven steps and is highly successful inguiding the Greater Stockholm region. The London County Council issuccessful, though the boroughs still retain a great deal of power. Metro Torontohas also had a great deal of success with the exception of completing andrealizing a regional plan. The Council of Governments, as already noted, dofollow a few of these principles, however, the mandate given them is so limitedas to render them an advisory body only. Regional Districts have been given theability, at times, to follow most of these principles, though the current mandate inGreater Vancouver and Greater Victoria is more limited than in previous times(pre-1983). The Greater Vancouver Regional District has had a degree ofsuccess because it actively pursued the final principle -- securing an effective106planning process -- believing that it could overcome shortfalls in its regionalplanning mandate.The Capital Region has had two regional planning authorities since 1950. Thesecond organization created an excellent regional health and hospital network,furthered water and sewerage services for residents of the region, andestablished a good regional parks program. Both authorities success in the areaof urban planning has been mixed over the past forty years.The creation of the Capital Region Planning Board in 1951, began the process ofregional planning in the Capital Region. The original mandate of the PlanningBoard was quite strong and followed virtually all seven principles for planningwithin a region. Though it had neither a fully elected political base nor fullauthority over all major investments in the region, the Planning Board had similarpowers to a Metro government. The Planning Board began the process ofcreating a regional plan by examining the region and determining the extent ofdevelopment over the previous twenty-five years and identifying theenvironmental and geographical attributes need protection in the future.The Capital Region Planning Board did not, however, create an effective processfor regional planning, nor did it manage to make its objectives easily understoodor accepted by politicians in the region. In defense of the Capital RegionPlanning Board, the board planners had few other planners with which to dealwith, no history of cooperation among the municipalities and no backgroundregional information upon which to base their plans.107Therefore, during the 1950’s, the Capital Region Planning Board acted in adictatorial manner - imposing a grandiose set of concepts upon the region in theguise of the 1959 Draft Regional Plan. Though there was a lot of effort place inattempting to convince the municipalities of the worth of the plan, the avoidanceof a proper planning process during the first six years of planning existence wasdifficult to overcome. Most municipalities, with the exception of Esquimalt, wereagainst the plan and rejected it. Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, and CentralSaanich were against many aspects of the Board itself.As a result of the failure of the Regional Plan, the Board proceeded to tackleregional issues such as parks, health care, and water and sewerage in a mannerwhich should have been followed for planning. An effective process wasestablished for each issue, with specific and attainable objectives set, and broadparticipation from the constituent municipalities. Moreover, the Capital RegionPlanning Board used its strong mandate to provide financial and technicalplanning assistance to the municipalities. Through the 1960’s, the Boardmanaged to create a positive atmosphere regarding regional issues and theability of the Capital Region Planning Board to create regional solutions thatincorporated the concerns of the municipalities.In 1970, the Capital Region Planning Board was incorporated into the CapitalRegional District. The Capital Regional District planning staff felt that theDistrict’s first goal should be to revise the 1959 Draft Regional Plan. Acataloguing of the physical environment and a mapping of the Agriculture LandReserves in the region were the first steps taken in revising the 1959 Plan.However, because there were only two planning departments -- Victoria and108Saanich-- the Capital Regional District had to conduct the analysis of the regionand the mapping by itself.Relations with the municipal planning departments were still cordial at best in1970. The result was again an autocratic style of planning with little processbehind it to validate the plan. However, the Capital Regional District had greaterenforcement powers with regards to planning and could have the plan declaredofficial as well as command conformity from the municipalities. Fortunately,there was little difference between the Official Regional Plan and the existingstate of growth in the region. Therefore, there were few conflicts with OfficialCommunity Plans. The Capital Regional District spent the next few years afterthe 1974 plan, technically assisting the municipalities and again building uponthe positive atmosphere created by the Capital Region Planning Board.In 1978 planning responsibility for the Gulf Islands were transferred from theCapital Regional District to the Islands Trust. Incorporations would increase theoriginal five municipalities to twelve and reduce the actual local planningjurisdiction of the Capital Regional District to only the Sooke Electoral Area andportions of the Langford Electoral Area. Also in 1978 the first major conflict withthe Official Regional Plan occurred and the lack of an effective planning processwould become most evident. The Tillicum mall site embroiled the CapitalRegional District and the District of Saanich in a bitter court battle which resultedin Sannich withdrawing its support of the Capital Regional District as a regionalplanning authority for the next twelve years. Furthermore, the political outfallfrom the case made the Capital Regional Board very aware of the political natureof regional planning issues.109Growth rates began rising in the late 1970’s and resulted in a Cost of Growthstudy by the Capital Regional District in 1982. The impetus of the study was arequest by many of the municipalities who wanted growth options and a courseof action recommended to reduce growth and the costs associated with anincrease in population. Most suburban municipalities opted for minimum growthwhile Saanich assumed the majority of new development.1983 was to be a cathartic year for the Capital Regional District. The 1974Official Regional Plan was updated and the issue of growth was the major newprinciple contained within the 1983 update. The Capital Regional District utilizedan open planning process with extensive consultation and presented a clear setof objectives. Solutions to growth were not dictated, rather growth wasacknowledged and options suggested. The Capital Regional District followedthe principles for the successful application of planning within a region and itsuccessfully completed the update with little controversy. Its powers to ensurethe realization of the plan were, however, to be quickly revoked by the Province.The incorporations of Metchosin, View Royal, Colwood, Langford, the Highlands,Sidney, and North Saanich meant that there were now twelve municipalities toattempt to coordinate and include in a planning process. These smallermunicipalities have argued against the format of the Capital Regional District andthe weighting of votes (see article in Figure 5.2 next page) and are generallyunwilling to put the region’s needs ahead of those of the municipality. Therefore,the atmosphere surrounding the Capital Regional District’s role in regionalgrowth is one of mistrust.110liMES-COLONIST Thursday, December16, 1993 Figure 5.2 CAPiTAL REGIONSmaller cousins stall move to give bigBy Bill CleverleyTwnp.s-Cdonist stiffMetchosin Mayor John Ranns led thefight Wednesday against a proposedchange in Capital Regional District voting rules which he said would emasculatelow-population municipalities.‘ITo have a weighted vote based on theraw population and excluding land massturns areas like Metchosin into simply aresource for the urbanized areas,” Rannssaid.“Metchosin has one of the smallest populations but it is one of the largest municipalities in terms of land mass,” Rannssaid. ‘The concept of regionalism, as Isee it, is that all of us are here as equalpartners. We certainly have a diversitybut we each contribute somethingunique.Under the Municipal Act each municipality or electoral area sends one representative to the CRD board for. every25,000 population or portion thereof. Thathas Saanich with four representatives onthe board, Victoria three and the rest oneeach.For certain matters, such as money is-sues, weighted votes are held. Thatmeans an area gets one vote for every5,000 people or portion thereof. Theseweighted votes mean directors frommore-populated areas wield more powerthan those representing smaller places.A proposal before the new CRD boardWednesday suggested the region apply tothe province to change regulations tomake every voted a weighted vote.CRD chairman Frank Leonard has argued it is needed because as moresmaller areas incorporate, larger areaslike Saanich and Victoria — which paymunicipalities more CRD powerthe bulk of the CRD bills — are losing influence.For example newly incorporated Highlands, which has 0.5 per cent of the population, has five per cent of the votes at theCRD. Victoria pays 28 per cent of theCRD bills, and Saanich pays 29 per cent.Prior to Langford’s incorporation, thearea of roughly 16,000 people had onerepresentative at the CRD. Now in thesame area, incorporated Langford hasone director. Highlands, with a population of 1,400 and formerly part of theLangford electoral area, has one director.Happy Valley, Wills Point and a smallpart of the Malahat which were not included in either the Highlands or Lang-ford’s incorporation also have a director.Ranns argued that with the proposedweighted vote, Saanich and Victoriacould out-vote the rest of the region on allissues.“1 really don’t think that’s what regionalism is all about,” Ranns said.Directors decided to table the issue fora couple of months to give the new boarda chance to feel out board procedures.The transit function of the Capital Regional District was transferred to BC Transitin 1983 and none of the transit and transportation planning staff was retained byeither agency. In November, 1983, the Provincial Government repealedlegislation that gave regional planning powers to Regional Districts. Thereafter,the regional districts could only function in an advisory capacity with respect toregional planning. Whereas the Greater Vancouver Regional District simplycontinued with its existing planning process and convinced its constituentmunicipalities that planning for the region was beneficial, the Capital RegionalDistrict quickly absolved itself of the function. The regional planning processwas abandoned and all regional planning staff had their employment terminated.The Board of the Capital Regional District chose to follow the repeal to the letter111by refusing to act in even an advisory capacity on regional planning issues.Local planning staff has steadily declined parallel to the reduction ofunincorporated areas to the extent that there are two planners left on staff in1994.Growth between 1986 and 1991 totaled 13.2% for the Capital Regional District.The region, in 1994, has more than 300,000 residents and all municipalities areexperiencing a strain on services. The District of Saanich has been the mostaffected, growing by over 13,000 residents in the five year period.The Regional Growth Review was published by the Capital Regional District in1990 reviewing growth patterns and expectations of growth to 2011. The workwas initiated by the District of Saanich and conducted by the RegionalInformation Services Section of the Capital Regional District. A shortfall of singlefamily dwellings was forecast by 2001 based on an annual growth rate of 1.4%.Growth since 1986 has more than exceeded this average. Further growthreports are due to continue the process of analyzing growth. It would appearthat the Capital Region has reached a critical size where the need for regionalplanning is high. Ironically, it is matched by the least amount of regionalplanning advice from the Capital Regional District since 1951.There is some positive movement from the CRD with a limited study onresidents’ values for the region entitled CRD:Tom morrow (similar to the GVRD’sGoals for Vancouver though on a much more limited scale with a budget of$100,000 and due out in February 1993). In addition, there is the regionaltransportation study, Healthy Atmospheres 2000 study, Liquid WasteManagement Plan, solid-waste management proposals, Regional Development112Figure 5.31ncorporatjon‘of Highlands’invites chaos- politiciansBy 8111 CIever1ey/1irnes-Coonist staffif there are enough people in the Highlands to incorporate;the province should let Willis Point and Happy Vall,eyresidents do the same, says Dave Dalby, the CRD’s Langford• electoral area director.-•“J’m going to mak. .cenme-’-’dation to the people there that ii S JUSj1i cr iythey make application to the gov- +ernment to form their own munic- SLURr O eipalities,” said Dalby, who op- H h}n- .--posed Highlands incorporation.theIt®jNJji, hypalities,let’sgivethemasmanyas i ‘Krwwe can give them,” he said Mon- flOt iet,,vvltilS OIflday. “Why not? It’s just incredibly Hstsipid’to let the Highlands go on an appy eytheir own, so why not let Willis +Point and Happy Valley go c go on I. eir owntheir own and maybe the 40 peo- d’””b th 40pleontopoftheMalahat,too?” .7Bighlandersvotedheavil1’j fa- people on top ofyor of incorporation Saturday. Ina two-ballot vote, 479 voted in fa- the Malahat, too? c• vor of a change to the structure of-- local government, while 225 were — Dave Dalbyo.pposed..‘)nthe seeod iallot, 525 voted Vto incorporate on theirown while just like it Is. We see that at mee170 prefered to be aligned with igaermeetingandzoningthftig-Langford. after zoning thing. People turn dist,—;:.Xhe Highlands, Willis Point and in droves to make sure there’sib ,—tHappy VaUey and a small pocketmajor rezoning.” :oftheMalahat were gliced away D chairman Frank Leonad• fronithe former Langford elec- who opposed the incorporatiøtoral area before that area incor- was not surprised by the outcome:porated last year. He has argued an increasing nsm ci.Highlanders will elect their her of tiny municipalities is anfirst council in November munici- impediment to regional planning.: filpal elections. V “Four hundred people Is a nor:-WiUis Point Happy Valley, and mal-sized petition against social-. tbe)(alahat area will continue to housing and churches In- Saanich .,.bepepresented by an electoral di- and the majority of council hasrector until their status is deter- had to vote against those size peW 0mined byratepayers. Dalby said tions for the greater good,” Le- 4.1he would seek re-election to rep- onard said. V: C.).‘resentthethreeareasattheCapi- “Ifthlsisthewaveofthefllture; Ztel Regional District if no one else what’s to say that people on Old’runs. ... • field Road in Saanich shouldn’t-.,,‘Tm ecstatic,” Karel Roessingh, have their own municipality?. :vice-president of the Highlands “We’ve probably got 70 commu; U)District Community Association, nities within Sasnich the size ofsaid f the results. V “rm very the Highlands. Are they going tohsppyalout It.” form their own- municipalities? Is ,-Roessingh said the vote was this provincial government going cãboutkeeplng the Highlands the to realize they are going to be cre- Cisame Vend blocking efforts to in- ating chaos at the local govern--crease- allowable housing V densi- ment level with their policies?” Vties. V Leonard urged Municipal AfV•:c;1.t1ilnk when you ask people in fairs Minister Darlene Marzsri to-dthe’RlgMands, 0 to 95 per cent review the issue, including the Eidänvant change. They want it Highlands vote. V V V V113Study (housing), and a review of the Regional Parks plan. Much of thismovement towards the study of regional issues has been a result of the electionof Frank Leonard to the position of Chairman in the CRD. Mr. Leonard doublesas an Alderman for the District of Saanich, thus the growth pressures on Saanichare effectively being studied through the CRD. Little initiative would likely resultwithout this political leadership though there still is little regional consensus todate. Indeed, the degree of bickering seems to have intensified with theimprovement of the regional profile of the CRD.As noted in the previous article (Figure 5.3), the fragmentation of the CapitalRegion continues and the Board of the Capital Regional District does not appearto be willing to bring back regional planning as a function of the Regional District-- even at the advisory level.5.2 CoNcLusioNsThe Capital Region is now a mosaic of small municipalities of which nine of thetwelve contain fewer than 17,000 residents. Growth within the region hascontinued at such a pace over the past decade that the CRD is currentlyembarking upon a growth review based upon a zero growth option. The cost ofservicing new neighbourhoods in Saanich and the Western Communities isprohibitively expensive without regional support. Transportation problems havearisen as a result of extreme growth in the suburbs without the correspondingdecentralization of the work place away from the core municipalities. There areseven separate economic development commissions, twenty-four fire districts,114and six separate police departments for each municipality -- all for 300,000people.Currently, the Capital Regional District planning division, reduced to only twoprofessional staff members (from five in 1993, eleven in 1989 and twenty-five in1983) has become a local planning office for the Langford and Sooke ElectoralAreas; rather than acting as a guiding regional force. This chapter hasattempted to discover how the Capital Region Planning Board and the CapitalRegional District started with so much promise but devolved to the current statewhere the Capital Regional District undertakes practically no regional planning.The continued fragmentation of the Capital Region means that the planninginfluence of the CRD diminishes as it administers less and less actual area. IfSooke incorporates as is expected over the next few years, the Capital RegionalDistricts planning function will cease to exist. This spread of professionalresources around the Capital region is far too little and too thin. Amalgamationswould certainly allow a better use of existing resources and could likely reducethe cost of bringing services to neighbourhoods. Any reductions in the numberof municipalities would allow the larger units to increase professional staff whowould then be able to cooperate with each other and produce a less insularworking atmosphere within the Capital Region.The regional planning process must be open and better understood by bothpoliticians and the public. It should act as a base for the coordination of thevarious independent regional studies being conducted. The process must alsobe a vessel for regional opinions and ideas from professionals, politicians, andthe public (the current study, CRD: Tomorrow, is the perfect platform from which115to expand the philosophy of a region within which the various municipalities arelocated). Regional Planning cannot be viewed as being forced uponmunicipalities for they must be an integral part of the process as must be theregional public.Better utilization of the land and monetary resources of the region throughamalgamation and the reintroduction of effective regional planning can:1. limit or direct growth;2. potentially create coordinated and therefore cheaper services;3. retain the environment quality so associated with the distinct areas of theCapital Region.Without provincial support, however, the Capital Region may well become achaotic, uncontrolled mix of sprawling residential high priced suburbs; with fewerand more expensive municipal services, worsening traffic problems, and a lossof local identity. This provincial support is needed if there is to be a successfuland effective regional authority to plan and guide the region once again.With respect to the final objective for this thesis -- what have we learned that willadd to the existing base of knowledge -- there are two points. First, is the issueof what should occur within the Capital Region if regional planning is to beginagain. The Capital Regional District clearly is not in a position to begin regionalplanning anytime soon. Moreover, the degree of contempt for the organization isa large stumbling block to overcome. Smaller municipalities no longer availthemselves of the planning services of the Capital Regional District, preferring116instead to contract consultants who do not have a sense of history or the needsof the region.The Capital Region Planning Board once performed this valuable function andthe Capital Regional District should begin to do so again. Though different fromregional planning, it would serve to establish the credentials of the CapitalRegional District as a planning agency and help foster a sense of trust and aworking relationship with the municipalities of the region.By bringing together the scattered knowledge of the history of the Capital RegionPlanning Board and the Capital Regional District, a base of knowledge isestablished. Future planning efforts of the Capital Regional District can benefitfrom first knowing the history of previous efforts and understanding where afocus is required. This particularly clear in the need to recreate a good regionalplanning process with public input and education.It is also obvious that the process of regional planning and regional services arequite different. Regional planning is much more contentious politically andrequires both a commitment of time and serious effort at inclusion and educationof the public. Regional services are more mundane (with the exception ofsewage disposal in Victoria) and readily accepted than the more esoteric ideasof regional planning. The Capital Regional District history illustrates thisdifference quite clearly with demise of regional planning in 1983 and thecontinuance of regional services without much criticism over the years.It would also seem, from the examples and the history of the Capital Region, thata growth threshold is required before the issue of regional planning can even be117brought forth with any serious hope of implementation. Much of the history ofthe Capital Regional District is the struggle to convince the municipalities that infact regional planning is even required. It is only in the past decade that growthhas reached a point where regional issues such as growth management andtransportation are seen as requiring serious study. It is in the near future thatregional planning will be required in the Capital Region if the area is to remain aslivable as it is today.Without the mechanism for bringing municipalities together to discuss regionalissues, it is clear from the Victoria situation that the municipalities will not gettogether on their own accord. An agency, acting for the region, is the onlyvehicle by which regional issues will properly be addressed.5.3 Possirn SoLuTIoNs FOR THE CITAL REGIONIf regional planning is to exist again in the Capital Region, there must be someaction in the following areas:1. There should be a reduction in the number of municipalities throughamalgamation. Regional consensus will not be found with smallmunicipalities which are formed to stop growth with little regard for theregional consequences. The issue of fragmented land stewardship meansthat growth related problems will be more difficult to deal with when there area multitude of small municipalities which are merely incorporatedneighbourhoods.1182. A new Planning Board should be formed to allow for a new start if the CapitalRegion is unable or unwilling to resurrect regional planning. The CapitalRegional District is tainted with the autocratic planning done in the 1950’s and1970’s. A new board with the proper authority could act independently for theregion and not be encumbered with history.3. The Board or Regional Authority should have a mandated authority forregional planning from the Provincial Government and have the ability toensure the realization of the plan. This Board or Authority could act as thecoordinating agency for the region and ensure that its mandate covers onlyplanning. Regional services should be provided with reference to a regionalplan. The Board or Authority must also be able to include the activities ofProvincial and Federal agencies within its power of supervision. If theseexternal agencies can ignore the regional plan then the legitimacy of the plancan easily be compromised.4. The Board or Authority would have to create an effective planning processthat everyone could understand and participate in. This process mustinclude political and public input as well as the education of the regionalpublic on the issues and the impacts of choices. The process must have thetime necessary dedicated to it to allow for proper consultation.1195. The Board or Authority must have either a directly elected political base or aregionally accountable political base. The Board or Authority must beresponsible to the region first and the municipalities second. Direct electionsare one method of achieving this6. The Board or Authority would be concerned with general community planningobjectives which are explicit and attainable. Unreachable goals diminish theinterest and enthusiasm for carrying out a regional plan.7. The Board or Authority should provide technical and planning assistance tothose municipalities unable to support their own planning staff. This createsa working relationship between the Board or Authority and the municipalitiesand can help further goals for the region.Growth issues in the Capital Region have been pushed back into the recentspotlight by growth problems in Saanich. However, there is a realization that thevarious regional strategies important to harnessing growth -- health,transportation, transit, parks, sewerage, water services, et cetera -- areconducted fairly independent of each other without an overall coordinatingstrategy. The survey carried out for this thesis also confirms this finding. A newregional growth strategy conducted by an independent Planning Board may bethe solution to establishing support for the re-emergence of regional planning asa strong regional coordinating force. Such a new Board does not carry thepolitical burden of being a child of the Capital Region Planning Board or the120Capital Regional District and could harness the improved, positive atmosphere toallow regional planning to once again be an effective force for good in the CapitalRegion. “Quod erat demonstrandum.”121Bibliography“Amalgamation Necessary,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. June 3, 1958.“At Tod Inlet, an anti-growth outlet,” Times Colonist. Editorial. Victoria. October9, 1990.“Call Strait a Park,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. April 28, 1970.“Capital city at a crucial time,” Vancouver Sun. Vancouver. September 15,1990.“Compromise Metro Gov’t seen in Intermunicipal Group,” Victoria Daily Times.Victoria. March 10, 1959.“Could 3-way Commission take care of planning,” News Review. Victoria.November 26, 1969.“Greater City plan predicts doubled growth in 25 years,” Victoria Daily Times.Victoria. November 22, 1954.“Growth needs guide Town Planner warns,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria. June22, 1955.“Growth: who needs it?,” Monday Magazine. Victoria. October 18-24, 1990.Vol.16, No.43.“Mayor ‘shoots down’ Capital Region Plan,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria.January 15, 1959.“Money in bag for Esquimalt,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria. March 17, 1959.“Municipality hits snag in try to ditch board,” Sidney Review. Sidney. January21, 1959.“New Road, Park Network Plan for Lower Island,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria.March 7, 1959.“Okay, lets’ revisit the case for merging,” Times Colonist. (Editorial) Victoria.October 1, 1990.“Others benefit - not us,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. April 29, 1958.“Paper shuffling cutting into CRD planning time,” Times Colonist. Victoria.March 28, 1990.“Planning Group,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. November, 1954.“Question of accord,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. March 11, 1959.122“Regional Plan Decision Held,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria. November 8,1969.“Regional Planning,” Daily Colonist. (Editorial) Victoria. January 31, 1958.“Saanich drops police station idea,” Times Colonist. Victoria. September 26,1990.“Seven Months’ work in Planning Report,” Daily Colonist. Victoria. November22, 1955.“Some form of merger necessary,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria. March 9,1959.“Thetis Lake option isn’t acceptable,” Times Colonist. (Editorial) Victoria.September 24, 1990.“Time to grasp the nettle,” Vancouver Sun. (Editorial) Vancouver. November22, 1990.“Top Realtor criticizes downtown,” Oak Bay Star. Victoria. April 1, 1990.“Tourism Victoria wants to have cake and eat it too, sys Warder,” TimesColonist. Victoria. September 30, 1990.“Welded Regional Planning may be achieved today,” Daily Colonist. Victoria.December 31, 1969.“Why sink the plan?,” Victoria Daily Times. Victoria. March 10, 1959.Artibise, Alan and Michael Seelig. “Future Growth, Future Shock,” Vancouveriin. Seven Part Series. Vancouver. November 11 - November 17,1990.Artibise, Alan and Michael Seelig. From Desolation to Hope. University ofBritish Columbia: School of Community and Regional Planning. January,1991.Artibise, Alan, Jay Wollenburg et al, Town Centres and the Livable Region.Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District. September, 1990.Baine, Richard P. and A. Lynn McMurray. Toronto - An Urban Study.Vancouver:C lark, Irwin and Company Ltd. 1977.Bernard, Andre and Jacques Leveille. Profile: Vancouver. University of Quebecat Montreal:Department of Political Science. 1972.Blumenfeld, Hans. The Modern Metropolis. London:The M.I.T. Press. 1971.123Bourne, Larry S. “Planning for the Toronto Region: By whom and for whom,”Plan Canada. Canadian Institute of Planners Journal. 24:3/4 December,1984.Brevers, Robert. The Garden City Utopia. London:MacMillan Press. 1988.Cameron, Ken. “Regional Planning and Regional District DevelopmentServices: Is there a difference?”, PIBC News. Vancouver:PlanningInstitute of British Columbia. July, 1991.Capital Region Planning Board. A study of Central Saanich ... For the CapitalRegion Plan. Victoria:Capital Region Planning Board. 1957.Capital Region Planning Board. The Capital Region Plan. Victoria:TheCapital Region Planning Board. 1959.Capital Regional District. “Staff memorandum on Growth Review” January18, 1991.Capital Regional District. “Staff memorandum on Growth Review” January15, 1991.Capital Regional District. “Staff report on history of Growth Review” January15, 1991.Capital Regional District. 1988 Budget compared with 1987 Budget.pamphlet. Victoria:Capital Regional District. 1988.Capital Regional District. Capital Region Plan - Summary. Capital RegionalDistrict. Victoria:Capital Regional District. May, 1983.Capital Regional District. Capital Region Plan. Capital Regional District.Victoria:Capital Regional District. 1983.Capital Regional District. Expression of Interest for Regional DevelopmentStrategy Phase 1. March, 1991.Capital Regional District, internal memo regarding Development StrategyTask Force. March, 1991.Capital Regional District. Official Regional Plan Victoria Metropolitan Area.Victoria:Capital Regional District. 1974.Capital Regional District. Official Regional Plan. Victoria:Capital RegionalDistrict. 1974.Capital Regional District. Regional Growth Review Victoria Metropolitan Area1989-2011. Victoria:Capital Regional District. April, 1990.Capital Regional District. Regional Parks Review. Victoria:Capital RegionalDistrict. 1972.Capital Regional District. Staff Report to Regional Planning Task Force.Victoria. February 12, 1991.124Capital Regional District. Western Community Official Settlement Plan.Victoria:Capital Regional District. 1979.Captial Regional District. Commercial Facilities in the Victoria MetropolitanArea. Victoria:Capital Regional District. 1977.Captial Regional District. Corporate Structure of the CRD. 1988. pamphlet.Victoria:Captial Regional District. 1988.Cavin, Douglas. “Growth Solutions,” Monday Magazine. Vol.16, No.45.Victoria. November 1-7, 1990.Central Statistics Bureau. 1986 Census. Ottawa:Census Canada. 1988City of Victoria Planning Department. City of Victoria Official CommunityPlan. Victoria:City of Victoria Planning Department. July 1986, AmendedJanuary11, 1990.City of Victoria Planning Department. Downtown Victoria - Draft Plan.Victoria:City of Victoria Planning Department. 1988.City Spaces Consulting Ltd. Visions Victoria Symposium Summary ofRecommendations. Victoria:City Spaces Consulting Ltd. April, 1990.Gillingwater, David and D.A.Hart. The Regional Planning Process. Westmead,England:Saxon House. 1978.Gillingwater, David. Regional Planning and Social Change. London:SaxonHouse Books. 1970.Glasson, John. An Introduction to Regional Planning. London:Hutchinson ofLondon. 1978.Glikson, Artur. The Ecological Basis of Planning. The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff.1971.Gordon, George (Ed.). Regional Cities in the U.K. London:Harper and Row.1981.Greater Vancouver Regional District. “Choosing our future.” Discussionpaper. Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1991.Greater Vancouver Regional District. “Inter-committee report regardingRegional Stategic Plan.” March 8, 1991.Greater Vancouver Regional District. Creating Our Future. Technical Report.Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District. July, 1990.Greater Vancouver Regional District. Creating Our Future: Steps to a MoreLivable Region. Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District.September, 1990.125Greater Vancouver Regional District. Public Response to the Liveable RegionProgram. Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1975.Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Regional Role in Transportationand Land Use Planning in the Lower Mainland. Discussion Paper.Vancouver:Greater Vancouver Regional District. October, 1991.Hall, Peter. The Theory and Practice of Regional Planning. London:PembertonBooks. 1970.Haran, James F. and G.James Taylor Jr. Experiments in MetropolitanGovernment. New York:Praeger Publishers. 1977.Harper, Daniel. “Growth: we don’t need it,” Monday Magazine. Vol.16, No.44.Victoria.Hodge, Gerald. Planning Canadian Communities. Toronto:Methuen. 1986.Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London. 1902.Hufschmidt, Maynard M. (Ed.) Regional Planning - Challenge and Prospects.New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1969.Hume, Stephen. “CRD,” Times Colonist. Victoria. January 8, 1989.Lane, Bill. Planning 525 lecture. University of British Columbia, School ofCommunity and Regional Planning. January 23, 1990.Lee, King. “Integrate police, fire forces now - report,” Times Colonist. Victoria.October 10, 1990.Urn, Gill C. Regional Planning - Evolution. Crisis and Prospects. NewJersey:Allanheld, Osmun Publishers. 1983.Lower Mainland Planning Board. Origin of the Lower Mainland PlanningBoard. New Westminster:Lower Mainland Planning Board. 1966.Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of British Columbia. The LowerMainland Looks Ahead. New Westminster:Lower Mainland RegionalPlanning Board of British Columbia. November 1952.MacDonald, Gracie. “The rough edges,” Monday Magazine. Vol.16, No.45.Victoria. November 1-7, 1990.MacDonald, H.lan. “A Retrospective View from the Top,” Plan Canada.Ottawa:Canadian Institute of Planners Journal. 24:3/4 December, 1984.MacFawdyen, Dugald. Sir Ebenezer Howard and the Town PlanningMovement. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1933.Marrion, R.O. “Blueprint for future by Christmas,” Daily Colonist. Victoria.March 24, 1957.126McCaIlum, Larry. “Study foresees windfall in merger,” Vancouver Sun.Vancouver. October 16, 1990.Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Statistics Relating to Regional and MunicipalGovernments in BC. 1989. Victoria:Central Statistics Bureau, Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs, Province of British Columbia. 1989.Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. New York:Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.1961.Mumford, Lewis. The Urban Prospect. New York:Harcourt, Brace and WorldInc. 1968.Murphy, Patrick. “Developers’ lobby group steps into Oak Bay lions’ den,”Times Colonist. Victoria. February 27, 1991.Murphy, Patrick. “State aims at Victoria sewage treatment,” Times Colonist.Victoria. February 26, 1991.Oak Bay Municipal Services Department The Oak Bay SuggestedCommunity Plan. Victoria:City of Oak Bay. 1976.Parkinson, Tom. Light Rail Potential in Victoria. Paper for BC Transit. Victoria.April, 1990.Paterson, Jody. “Leonard wastes little time mapping out CRD course,” TimesColonist. Victoria. December 14, 1990.Province of British Columbia. Amendment to Municipalities Enabling andValidating Act. Victoria:Queens Printer, Province of British Columbia.January 21, 1970.Province of British Columbia. Revised Statutes of British Columbia. MunicpalAct 1988. Victoria:Queens Printer, Province of British Columbia. 1988.Ranns, John. “Why regional planning doesn’t live up to its promise,” TimesColonist. Victoria. January 2, 1991.Relph, Edward. The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore:The John HopkinsUniversity Press. 1987.Richardson, Harry W. Regional Growth Theory. London: MacMillan Press.1973;Richardson, N.H. “Insubstantial Pagaent,” in Canadian Public Administration.Vol.24, No.4.Richardson, N.H. “Provincial Planning in Ontario,” Canadian PublicAdministration. 1989.Rose, Albert. “The Challenge of Metropolitan Growth.” Adress to theCommunity Planning Association of Canada, 1954.127Rose, Albert. Governing Metropolitan Toronto: A Social and Political Analysis1953-1971. Berkeley:University of California Press. 1972.Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto. Report of the RoyalCommission on Metropolitan Toronto. V.1. June, 1965.Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto. Report of the RoyalCommission on Metropolitan Toronto. V.2. June, 1977.School of Community and Regional Planning. Planning for RegionalDevelopment on Vancouver Island. Multiple authors from the School ofCommunity and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia.Vancouver. 1968.Self, Peter. Planning the Urban Region. University of Alabama Press. 1982.Simonds, John. Earthscape - A Manual of Environmental Planning and Design.New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1978.Smith, Bill. “Fecal Coliform count of 76,000 in open ditches backs call forsewage in Central Saanich,” Times Colonist. Victoria. March 14, 1991.So, Frank, Irving Hand and Bruce McDowell (eds.). The Practice of State andRegional Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association. 1986.Stein, Clarence. Towards New Towns in America. Cambridge, Mass:The M.I.T.Press. 1965.Taffler, Sid. “Growth and Vision: an election challenge,” Monday Magazine.Victoria. October 18-24, 1990.Tennant, Paul. The Evolution of Regional Government in Greater Vancouver:1914-1979. Draft paper. Vancouver. 1980.Urban Development Institute. Growing Pains. Urban Development Institute,Vancouver Island Chapter. Victoria. October, 1990.Urban Development Institute. Planning for Tommorrow: The NextGenerations. Vancouver. September, 1991.Vancouver Board of Trade, Community Affairs Committee. Managing LowerMainland Growth: A Discussion Paper. Vancouver. October, 1991.Vancouver City Planning Commission. Goals for Vancouver. Vancouver.February, 1980.Vancouver Town Planning Commission. Proposed Provincial Planning Actwith Supporting Brief. Vancouver Town Planning Commission.Vancouver. 1943.Watts, Richard. “Sewage in Sea costs Victoria Convention,” Times Colonist.Victoria. March 13, 1991.128Weaver, Clyde. Regional Development and the Local Community: Planning.Politics, and Social Context. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. 1984.Webb, R.K. Modern England. London: Harper and Row Publishers. 1980.Wilson, Carla. “Developers urge amalgamation, mayors disagree,TM TimesColonist. Victoria. October 20, 1990.Wilson, J.W. (Ed.) The Capital Region Takes Stock. The Capital RegionPlanning Board of British Columbia. Victoria. October, 1954.Wronski, Wojciech and John Turnbull. “The Toronto - Centred Region,” PlanCanada. Canadian Institute of Planners Journal. 24:3/4 December,1984.InterviewsAllueva, Raul. Planner, District of Saanich, February 23, 1991Bennett, Mike. CRD Planning Department, October 15, 1990Chee, Yoon. CRD Planner, October 15,1990Greenhalgh, Geoff. Former Director of Planning, City of Victoria, 1960’s. May15, 1994.Masterton, Jim . Former CRD Director of Development Services, December21,1991, May 1994.Stallard, Graham. Former planner for the City of Victoria. May 1994.Wakelin, Charlie. Former CRD Regional Planner, November 10, 1990,December 15, 1991Wiesman, Brahm , Former Planning Director, Captial Regional Planning Board,December 7, 1991.129Appendix AAs a high profile member of the Greater Victoria Community,your opinion is of considerable value. I would like to takethis opportunity to hear your thoughts and opinionsregarding regional planning without the spectre of publicaccess. My name is Graeme Masterton and I am a Master ofArts Candidate at the University of British Columbia, in theSchool of Community and Regional Planning. If the nameseems vaguely familiar, it may be through my father, JamesMasterton who worked at the Capital Regional District formany years.My thesis will attempt to examine the attitude towardsregional planning in Greater Victoria by canvassing youropinion and those of many of your peers. The informationfrom this questionnaire will be used merely to gain insightinto the feelings of the various factions in GreaterVictoria as they apply towards the regional planning issue.It will not be released to the public in any shape or formexcept as numbers in my thesis. Your help is needed andgreatly appreciated.Thank YouGraeme Masterton#304—1233 Fairfield Rd.Victoria, B.C.V8V 3B4(604)361—4320130Graeme Masterton#304—1233 Fairfield Rd.Victoria, B.C.V8V 3B4October 24, 1990DearThis is a reminder to please fill out and return thequestionnaire on regional planning I sent out several weeksago. I realize that with the impending civic electionsthere is a natural reluctance to fill out such a documentbut let me reassure you once again that I will not be usingthe information for any other purpose other than academic.Your assistance is greatly appreciated.Yours Truly,Graeme MastertonP.S. If you have already mailed the questionnaire back thankyou very much.131Regional planning. Greater Victoria had the beginningsof a regional outlook in the early 1950’s, yet the CapitalRegional District has all but faded from the local planningscene. Recent Growth trends in Victoria seem to suggestthat there is a need for regional co—operation and coordination on many issues, from economic growth totransportation and housing. My graduate thesis aims toexamine the attitudes towards regional planning among localNLA’s, politicians, and members of the community who play anintegral part in the daily functioning of municipalities.The following questionnaire will provide the base of mythesis. Your help in completing this questionnaire isgreatly appreciated.(1) Please name the boundaries of the region in which youlive and work.(2) The task of defining a region is often confusing due tothe disparate number of factors involved. Factors usedquite commonly, include climate, biphysical region,environment, economics, political identity/boundaries,and commuting patterns. If a visitor with no knowledgeof British Columbia asked you to describe theseboundaries and explain why they define the region, howwould you respond?(3) For statistical purposes, we wish to define a scale from1 through 10 regarding regional planning. If regionalconcerns were all that mattered then you would rank ita 10. Conversely, if the region was unimportant, thatis local matters invariably take precedence, you rankit a 1.Q?l Where on this scale would you place the current state ofregional planning?10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1132Q?2 Where should regional planning be on this scale?10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1(4) What should be done in your region to promote greaterintra-municipal planning policies?(5) Are you aware of the Capital Region Planning Board andThe Capital Region Plan of the early 1950’s - predatingthe 1973 Official Regional Plan by 20 years?[JYes []No(6) Are you aware of the Visions Victoria Conference thattook place in February 1989?[JYes [JNo(7) Visions Victoria was a series of sessions intended tocreate an awareness of regioal policy issues (similarto the recent - March 1990 - Liveable Region StrategyForums held in Vancouver) that was highlyparticipatory. This approach contrasts strongly withthe 1973 Official Regional Plan which was created withlittle public input.Q?1 What approach to Regional planning do you favourQ?2 On the following map, indicate at what scale regionalplanning should be instituted./ CotJoo133CETL5AlC41LAJ&Fóf5AA 4Icl-g-iO4cAv134(8) Using the following map as a guide, draw a line aroundthe region as you percieve it.LAi6FOO by-Lj74L_____J -135(9) The City of Victoria must assume the responsibility ofincreasing population densities to slow down suburbansprawl.{ j Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ I Agree[ I Strongly Agree(10) Sewage disposal is not the concern of any othermunicipality.[ J Strongly Disagree[ J Disagree[ J Agree] Strongly Agree(11) Saanich must increase its’ housing stock to removepressures to build on penninsula farmland.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ J Disagree[ j Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(12) The widening of the Pat Bay Highway will be a benefitto the region.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ j Strongly Agree(13) Public services (water, sewage) should be provided toall residents of the Greater Victoria Region.[ J Strongly Disagree[ j Disagree[ I Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(14) Road network planning is purelya local matter.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ ] Strongly Agree136(15) Regional Parks should be paid for by the municipalityin which they are situated.[ j Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(16) Each municipality should have the authority to handleits’ own planning issues regardless of the fact thatthe issue crosses municipal boundaries.{ j Strongly Disagree[ j Disagree[ ] Agree[ j Strongly Agree(17) Traffic congestion caused by suburban commuters isgetting worse but could be solved through comprehensiveregional land use policies.[ J Strongly Disagree{ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ j Strongly Agree(18) Cross municipal issues should be dealt with by aregional mechanism.[ J Strongly Disagree[ J Disagree[ j Agree[ j Strongly Agree(19) Are you aware of any mechanism that could handle issuesas suggested by questions 10-19?[]Yes [JN0(20) Should there be a mechanism to handle region-wideissues? -{]Yes []No(21) If a regional planning board, similar to that of 1954,was established by the province today, what would beyour reaction?[ ] Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ j Strongly Agree137(22) Regional planning would help maintain Greater Victoriaand the Penninsula as an attractive, liveableconmiunity.[ j Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ j Agree{ ] Strongly Agree(23) Regional planning is simply an intrusion upon localjurisdiction.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ j Disagree[ J Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(24) A regional planning entity would facilitate greater coordination of regional strategies, such as theCommonwealth Games.[ J Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ ] Strongly Agreeree(25) The Coxnmonwealth Games is an indicator showing the lackof planning and co—ordination between municipalities.[ I Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(26) The loss of agricultural land to urban development hasbeen a concern since the 1950’s. A regional planningboard could help concentrate growth in order topreserve these lands.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ j Strongly Agree138(27) Increasing ferry traffic and suburban commuting shouldbe viewed as a regional problem.[ I Strongly Disagree[ J Disagree[ j Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(28) Economic development requires regionally co—ordinatedaction to improve the effectiveness of growthstrategies.[ I Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ ] Agree[ J Strongly Agree(29) The Capital Regional District should take a more activerole in regional planning issues, much like the GVRDdoes in Vancouver.[ ] Strongly Disagree[ ] Disagree[ j Agree[ ] Strongly Agree(30) For academic purposes of following up this questionaireplease print your name in the space provided. Thiswill enable me merely to determine who the respondantsare when conducting follow up calls. Answers to thisquestionaire will be dealt with strictly as numbers.Confidentiality of the respondant is considered to bepremium.Thank you very much for your time and co—operation.Graeme MastertonM.A. CandidateU.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning.139Appendix BResponse Numbers by MunicipalityPro Regional PlanningNumbers Crd Core Penn. W.C. totalS.D. 15 76D. 16 101A. 22 103S.A. 12 3013 36 1211 49 2515 45 201 11 640 142 63 65Percent for responsePro Regional PlanningPercent Crd Core Penn. W.C. totalS.D. 17% 47% 16% 20% 100%D. 11% 49% 25% 16% 100%A. 15% 45% 19% 21% 100%S.A. 3% 37% 20% 40% 100%Percent for AreaPro Regional PlanningPercent Crd Core Penn. W.C.S.D. 33% 25% 19% 23%D. 28% 35% 40% 25%A. 38% 32% 32% 34%S.A. 3% 8% 10% 18%Total 100% 100% 100% 11)3%Anti-Regional PlanningCore Penn. W.C. Crd Total15 8113 6552 21018 847 24 21‘30 91 3715 49 255 197 co 98Percent for responseAnti Regional PlanningECrd Core Penn. W.C. total100%100%100%700%Percent for AreaAnti Regional PlanningCrd Core Penn. W.C.PercES.D. 5% 17% 33% 15%D. 13% 12% 23% 13%A. 55% 46% 41% 53%S.A. 27% 25% 2% 18%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%blatS.D.D.A.S.A.totalPercS.D.D.A.S.A.AOl iilOl )70/ 100!‘-+/0 ‘-+110 J//0 7/01 10! )70f ‘)(O/ 0O/I I 10 ) I /0 )L (0 .0 /0lAO! .400/ 100/ )tO!I’-+1O ‘-+.)I0 10/0100/ 0O/ 10/ fbIlOb )0/O /O .LI/0/


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items