Volume III: Details of Online Public Feedback – January - CRD

April 22, 2015

CRD DRAFT REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY (OCTOBER 2014-REVISED)

Volume III: Details of Online Public Feedback – January/ February 2015 – Appendices

REP

OR

T

Report Number: 1214220002-015-R-Rev0

Distribution:

2 copies - Capital Regional District 2 copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to:Planning and Protective Services Capital Regional District

DETAILS OF ONLINE FEEDBACK

April 22, 2015 Report No. 1214220002-015-R-Rev0 i

Table of Contents

APPENDIX A DETAILED ONLINE PUBLIC FEEDBACK 2015 ............................................................................................... 1

PART A: GENERAL RESPONDENT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 2

PART B: THE BIG PICTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 4

PART C: TARGETS ................................................................................................................................................................ 87

1.0 CLIMATE AND GREENHOUSE GASES........................................................................................................................ 87

2.0 COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 120

3.0 MOBILITY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 184

4.0 WELLBEING ................................................................................................................................................................. 224

5.0 JOBS TARGET ............................................................................................................................................................. 258

6.0 AGRICULTURE TARGET ............................................................................................................................................ 273

7.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 296

8.0 INFRASTRUCTURE TARGET ..................................................................................................................................... 317

9.0 WATER TARGET ......................................................................................................................................................... 331

10.0 WASTE TARGET ......................................................................................................................................................... 345

11.0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TARGET ................................................................................................................. 360

12.0 ENERGY TARGET ....................................................................................................................................................... 370

13.0 RATE OF PROGRESS ................................................................................................................................................. 381

14.0 ADDITIONAL TARGET SUGGESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 393

PART D: OTHER ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................................... 411

1.0 WATER SERVICING .................................................................................................................................................... 411

PART E: GENERAL COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 432

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC FEEDBACK ONLINE FORM QUESTIONS ..................................................................................... 461

APPENDIX C: TARGETS BACKGROUNDER ...................................................................................................................... 478


April 22, 2015 Report No. 1214220002-015-R-Rev0 ii

STRUCTURE OF DRAFT RSS FEEDBACK REPORTS Feedback to CRD on the Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy (Draft RSS) from public and stakeholders in the period from October 23, 2014 to March 9, 2015 is structured into three volumes, each with an increasing level of

detail:

Volume I: Integrated Summary of Public & Stakeholder Input (approximately 26 pages plus

Appendices): a high level overview of the public online feedback, email and letter input, as well as notes since October 2014 from meetings of related committees.

Volume II: Summary of Online Public Feedback – (approximately 40 pages): an intermediate

level of detail regarding online input, drawing out major themes that appear in both quantitative questions

and in the extensive written submissions.

Volume III: Details of Online Public Feedback –January/February 2015– Appendices (this document, over 500 pages): a verbatim record of all online input analyzed.

We encourage readers to consider all these documents, and to review the depth of comments in the Appendices.

As well as providing a public record, the input from public and stakeholders / interest groups is shared with the review and decision-making bodies of the CRD Board of Directors through the Committee of the Whole (COW).


April 22, 2015 Report No. 1214220002-015-R-Rev0 iii

VOLUME III: DETAILS OF ONLINE PUBLIC FEEDBACK Feedback to CRD on the Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy (Draft RSS) from public and stakeholders in the

period from October 23, 2014 to March 9, 2015 is structured into three volumes, each with an increasing level of

detail:

This document of Appendices is a companion to Volume I: Integrated Summary of Public and Stakeholder Input

and Volume II: Summary of Online Public Feedback. Please refer to Volume I and II for context and higher level

summary of the Draft RSS Process and input received.

We trust the information contained in this report is sufficient for your present needs. Should you have any

additional questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Jana Zelenski, B.L.A., M.L.A., BCSLA, LEED® AP David Reid, B.L.A., BCSLA, FCSLA Associate, Senior Landscape Architect Principal, Senior Landscape Architect

JZ/DR/jlj

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\golder.gds\gal\vancouver\final\2012\1442\12-1442-0002\1214420002-015-r-rev0\1214420002-015-r-rev0-vol iii details of online feedback 22apr_15.docx

lijones

Stamp

lijones

Stamp


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 1

APPENDIX A Detailed Online Public Feedback 2015


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 2

PART A: GENERAL RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1) To help us assess whether we collected input from across the region, please tell us where you live:

Response Categories Count Percent

Campbell River 1 0.1%

Central Saanich 68 5.6%

Colwood 19 1.6%

Cortes Island 1 0.1%

Cowichan 1 0.1%

CRD wide organizational submission from BCSEA, Victoria Chapter 1 0.1%

Delta 1 0.1%

East Sooke 10 0.8%

Esquimalt 33 2.7%

Highlands 12 1.0%

Juan de Fuca 29 2.4%

Ladysmith (but Saanich for 15 years, Oak Bay 10) 1 0.1%

Langford 39 3.2%

Langley, BC. 1 0.1%

Malahat 1 0.1%

Metchosin 58 4.8%

Nanaimo 1 0.1%

North Saanich 65 5.4%

Oak Bay 53 4.4%

Otter Point 1 0.1%

Pender Island 5 0.4%

Piers Island 1 0.1%

Saanich 230 19.1%

Salt Spring Island (various) 23 1.9%

Shawnigan lake 1 0.1%

Shirley 2 0.2%

Sidney 15 1.2%

Sooke 59 4.9%

Southern Gulf Islands 2 0.2%

Tsawout First Nation 3 0.2%

Vancouver 1 0.1%

Victoria 431 35.8%

View Royal 34 2.8%

Willis Point 1 0.1%

TOTAL 1204 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 3

2) To help us assess whether we collected input from all age groups, please tell us your age:


19 and under 2 0.2%

20 - 44 348 29.1%

45 - 64 503 42.0%

65+ 344 28.7%

TOTAL 1197 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 4

PART B: THE BIG PICTURE 3) What do you think is the most important action we should take as a region to become more

sustainable for future generations?

Verbatim Comments

Improving the design landscape and future plans so that there is less concrete, more public park spaces, less parking. - Improving bike lanes across all the region, and it would be great if they were luminescent (glowing) so it's visible in the dark.

More bike lanes - hiking/biking connections in rural areas not just along main roads - improving commuter routes and calming rural areas with farms, more hiking options, biking/hiking routes so people don't always use their cars - more food security.

"Green" policies anywhere possible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 5

#1: Lobby the Federal government and Provincial government to eliminate subdues to fossil fuels. #2: Amalgamate as many municipalities as possible and following this, with the municipalities that are remaining, institute a regional transportation committee that has the budgetary freedom to actually accomplish goals and encompasses both the greater Victoria area as well as representation from the gulf islands as well as Vancouver and municipalities up island from as far away as Campbell river. #3 Within this region, institute tolls on provincial highways that reflect the true cost of road construction and maintenance. As well, within this region collect user fees from road users to discourage two main users of roads; the private automobile and the transport truck. Every effort should be made to transition as quickly as possible to electrified rail based transport For both public transit as well as using the tracks for freight. This should be accomplished by having the municipalities own the tracks and control the traffic that uses them to ensure safe, reliable transit for people ahead of freight.

(This is my second attempt to do the survey - the first was eaten up in cyberspace, don't know what I did wrong. I'll try to say what I did on first attempt.) I believe that our species needs to experience a 'conversion'. When considering human-directed development we need to place greater value on the needs of the voiceless - animals, water-courses, plants, rocks and the earth beneath our feet - and significantly less value on the wishes of the powerful - that's all of our human-driven dreams and nightmares. So, we need to be converted: to become merely equal members of the greater whole of the Earth. Working from that perspective, we will no longer accept that streams should be confined to culverts, that salmon or trees or water or geese or poor people are 'resources' to 'harvest'.

*Job creation *A proper watchdog and enforcement for housing construction and planning for communities. e.g., not filling up the city with expensive, small condos *Traffic routes need to be streamlined for coming into the city and exiting into the Westshore and Peninsula. Very ridiculous to stop at every light going through downtown, causing congestion, pollution, expense in gas and frustration. *Alternate modes of safe transportation such as safe!!! bicycle lanes. Beacon Hill Park where I walk has a bicycle lane and pedestrian lane together literally, I was almost run over. *Coordinated emergency plans for the communities. In the case of emergency where do we all go? The schools that are publicly funded should be safe havens for everyone if there is not a large community center available. Help for small business to keep business viable, more money for the city if everyone is doing well. Keep the streets safe, No police presence, but then again who wants to call them, they should lose the tasers.

*Protect and leave countryside in its wild state *protect farmland and green spaces from development *do not amalgamate rural areas with larger, developed centres *heavily fine municipalities that put subdivisions on farmlands and wetlands *stop allowing developers to make decisions regarding rezoning.

1) Create better accountability and/or wage/salary limits to executive/directors serving in the regional public sectors. 2) Create a world-class affordable, convenient, and energy efficient ("green") urban and rural and transportation network.

1) Discourage car use in Downtown area. Create a car free zone. 2) Divest from all oil and gas stocks. 3) rezoning to allow for wind farms both on land and sea. 4) support local production of food including on boulevards and Parks.

1) Ensure that there is efficient public transit and cycling options available for all residents of the CRD. This means continuing to upgrade and extend dedicated cycling routes, implement priority bus lanes along the major arteries, and developing light rapid transit where applicable (e.g. Victoria to Langford and onto Nanaimo) 2) Prioritizing urban densification along transit corridors and avoiding suburban sprawl onto ALR land and natural landscapes. 3) Protecting the ALR and encouraging local farmers to grow crops that are efficient, economic, and that can be consumed by the residents of the island and Province. This is to work towards food sustainability, particularly relevant in light of the on-going climate change induced drought in California, a major food supplier for our region.

1) Focus on the economy first 1a. Read "Economics in one lesson" - available free online http://fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_EconomicsInOneLesson.pdf 2. Focus on a few core services and not spread yourself thin - focus on doing those few core services really well 3. Move services from mandatory to voluntary 'opt-in' models.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 6

1) Green energy initiatives - solar, wind, geothermal 2. Preserve agricultural and park lands. 3. Contain new development to existing areas, avoid urban sprawl.

1. Increase energy efficiency of buildings 2. Decrease fossil fuel demand for transportation (public and private) 3. Secure local organic year round food supply 4. Promote alternative energies for buildings and vehicles 5. Cap removal of trees and start planting 6. Stop raw sewage going into the ocean directly and via storm overflow.

1. Light rail transit to get cars off the road and help end traffic congestion. 2. Protecting ALR and increasing it where possible.

1a promote alternatives to using air travel 1 Promote More energy efficient buildings 2 Promote Less fuel using / carbon producing vehicles 3 ensure availability of local organic food 4 remove raw sewage from flows to the ocean via sewer and storm overflow 5 Stop cutting trees for development and start planting more of them.

20 years??!! Future generations need today's planners to think of infrastructure in terms of Centuries, not just a couple of decades. I think the most important action is: Encourage urban centers for people and not cars by say, having car-free Sundays to open up the minds of the driving public (to come to know that cars are not really all that critical). I also urge prohibiting high-rises higher than six stories as those become very toxic ways of living for people, (though just fine for cars). Suggested viewing: (DVD) The Human Scale: Bringing Cities to Life (2014).

A better and sustainable transportation system (Electric in some way). Decrease the use of cars if possible. An emphasis and help for local food producers.

A complete halt on suburban development, especially on agricultural land.

A more comprehensive public transportation policy - including implementation of Light Rail as well as a commuter system run along the E&N rail line.

A system of incentives to people to drive less and use public transportation, walk or, at least drive hybrids/electric cars more.

A transition from gasoline powered cars to electrical powered ones.

Uphold urban containment boundary; Control development; conserve habitat and natural areas; Take action on climate change (esp. Transportation Sector); Preserve agricultural land; Encourage renewable energy initiatives.

Absolutely limit human development activities to the Growth Containment Area and quickly expand protected areas to cover a considerably greater percentage of the JDF area.

Absolutely stop any new pipelines from coming to BC and very carefully check oil tankers that travel our coast now for safety and spill prevention.

Accessible, affordable, far reaching public transportation; water conservation.

Achieve net zero carbon emissions before 2050.

Act quickly. Changes need to be made as soon as possible for a sustainable future.

Active transportation infrastructure improvements for safe, convenient, and comfortable walking, cycling, and public transportation.

Actually follow your vision statement; avoid the temptation to use it as a Greenwash".

Adapt to climate change drivers; figure out water/ integrated water management, including sewage and stormwater aspects, to address marine health ( i.e., oxygen that oceans create) Stop "developments on wetlands; Actually support densification, in concert with protecting and restoring urban forests so we will have clean air in future; If developers build and hardsurface areas, they pay for green space/ tree planting/ greenscaping TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL FEASIBLE; Figure out how young people are going to be able to live here: employment wages in line with costs of living here.

Add density to CRD and reduce house sizes.

Added to previous submission.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 7

ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING: end fossil fuel use; promote renewable energy; public transit; cycling; walking.

Address issues of inequality and environmental discrimination. Climate change and environmental degradation are results of flawed systems of wealth and resource distribution. If we can, or will not first address the inequalities and injustices placed upon marginalized peoples, in forms of classism, racism, patriarchy and capitalism, then we fail as a society to fix the problem at its root - we only lightly apply a band aid when all efforts focus on the technical or the physical. Consider and ask: what is a healthy society where we actively work to dismantle harmful systems of power, while we create equity and justice in our communities? As the leaders of this region, it is your responsibility to answer this question first - then work to save our butts from sea-level rise - which is only a result of our bad behavior and greed as a capitalist, racist and patriarchal culture.

Address under-employment and provide more inclusive employment opportunities high cost of housing for middle-income earners--- stable, long term rental; affordable homeownership walkable neighbourhoods with sidewalks separated biking lanes support for entrepreneurs.

Addressing the challenges of climate change.

Adopt a "living wage" minimum wage policy within the CRD and a means to keep it current on an ongoing basis. This will ensure ability to participate by an optimum of CRD residents.

Adopt user pay and avoid externalized costs as far as is practical. Examples would be charging full cost for water, with the capital cost/value of the catchment lands included in the price of water. Resulting profit returned to taxpayers on per capita basis.

Affordable and appropriate housing in ALL areas for ALL ages. Creating densely populated housing areas encourages crime and does nothing to teach youth to appreciate nature. Stop assuming we live in a 'perfect' society populated by "greenies" and "do-gooders".

Affordable housing for local residents.

Affordable housing in city centres.

Affordable housing/land co-ownership.

All 4 actions described in an attempt to do our part in reversing climate change: reduce energy demand increase energy efficiency reduce waste and use it as an energy source strongly encourage a switch from using fossil fuels.

Allow densification in the core urban areas to make complete communities where local neighborhoods support recreation, shopping and work without the use of cars to reduce GHG emissions. Encourage use of walking, bicycles and low emission vehicles. Vigorously restrict housing and box store development in rural areas. Avoid servicing of rural areas with water and sewer to protect against rural sprawl.

Allow higher density in all municipalities.

Allow more densification in the urban core to make more complete communities where people can live , work, shop and have recreation close by to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles to reduce GHG emissions. Encourage the use of walking, biking and transit. Increase transit service in rural communities, make an HOV lane and central transit lane on the Trans-Canada Highway. Restrict the development of housing and box stores in suburban and rural areas to reduce urban and rural sprawl. Prohibit water and sewer servicing outside the current urban containment boundary to restrict development and rural sprawl, especially in the Juan de Fuca Electoral area.

Allowing solar panels on houses (encouraging this!) and there should be NO SUCH thing as a toilet that is not low flow. That would be a start...

Amalgamate.

Amalgamate.

Amalgamate.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 8

Amalgamate as many municipalities as possible . After this is complete form a regional transportation committee that can implement rail based rapid transit with the CRD owning the tracks and having private operators be they freight transportation companies or people moving companies paying to use the tracks. Priority is given to people moving vehicles.

Amalgamate into much fewer organizations and deal with things at a 'lower island' level, rather than having multiple organizations heading in multiple different directions. This applies to the CRD just as much as the municipalities, because the CRD often operates contrary to the municipality requirements.

Amalgamate municipalities and create a CRD with expanded powers to institute tolls on roads to collect the funding available to truly maintain the roads systems that we currently have. Use federal/ provincial funds to build rail lines running from Schwartz bay to Victoria and connect to the E&N as well as to trams connecting universities, hospitals in various parts of the city.

Amalgamate municipalities to reduce costs, and to ensure waste & recycling initiatives are consistent - as one.

Amalgamate parts; work towards comprehensive transit that people will increasingly use; use modern sewage treatment to use our waste.

Amalgamate the municipalities of the Capital Regional District!

Amalgamate. The politics of 13 different municipalities is the single most important barrier to implementing the RSS. Future generations will thank us.

Amalgamation.

Amalgamation - To improve efficiency, cost effectiveness and reduce duplication of services.

Amalgamation down to 2 or 3 municipalities!

Amalgamation of 13 municipalities into 3: Victoria core, including Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Victoria and Saanich; Peninsula including Sidney, Central Saanich, North Saanich and Highlands; and West Shore including Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, View Royal and (if needed) Sooke. There is no doubt this will save money for the entire region while being the best alternative to keeping areas as distinct as possible. One municipality does not make sense now, but 3 do. As both Central Saanich and North Saanich have a rural atmosphere same as Highlands, and do connect geographically, I think it makes better sense for Highlands to join them rather than develop-friendly Langford.

Amalgamation.

Ambitiously focusing growth in complete, compact communities that offer a diverse range of uses/amenities and are walkable, bikeable and serviced by very good transit. In other words, sustainable communities that are designed for humans, not cars.

An action plan that leads to increased awareness and strategies for ways of dealing some of the possible outcomes of climate changes and the chaos these changes could lead to. Plans re water, food security, and communications are of utmost importance and need plans in place.

An aggressive shift to consumption of locally produced resources particularly energy, food, and where possible manufactured goods; combined with aggressive increases in efficiency and adoption of closed loop processes to minimize resource extraction; and with local, responsible management of byproducts (waste).

An economy transition towards happiness over profit, meaningful work over service/retail sectors, and encouragement of cottage industry and local business while continuing to encourage the innovative tech sector.

An efficient, effective, cost effective regional transportation system. One that overcomes municipal restrictions, utilizes modern and evolving technologies for rapid bus / transit that serves western communities, core and peninsula. One that recognizes rail transportation corridors, using multi-use "trails" fairly and equally for both pedestrians and cyclists. One that permits efficient flow of goods to businesses and is easy & a pleasure for tourists to use.

An integrated and effective transportation plan that encourages transportation options that are not cars.

An urban containment plan is definitely needed.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 9

Base all environmental decisions on science, not enviro-religion. Be practical and realistic in what and how programs are imposed on residents. The blue box program is an example of a good thing badly managed. Diverting the majority of the waste stream from the land fill to recycling is a good thing. Insisting that those materials be diverted from large covered garbage cans into cute little uncovered blue boxes is the height of stupidity. Little children know you can't fit the contents of a large container into a small one and on a windy day materials are redistributed around the neighbourhood. If the CRD can't manage the blue box program, how can they be trusted to implement more complex and costly programs.

Basic necessities such as: a minimum 10 bed "country" hospital for Sooke and area. Green self-sustaining energy generation such as solar, wind etc. Alternate other than Sooke rd/hwy14 Dissect CRD to have community control rather than one centralized bureaucracy.

Be bold in setting a vision and targets for regional food production. This includes urban agriculture, regional strategies to make farmland more accessible and affordable, better transport networks, food hubs, and supporting research into nontraditional crops that could do well in a changing climate (ex. nuts, berries, fruit trees), perennial food forestry, and permaculture techniques. Taking responsibility for our waters - marine and freshwater - to protect ecosystems and our water supply. CRD needs to become a more vocal opponent of supertanker traffic.

Be bold, and embrace the principles of Permaculture and Transition Towns.

Become aligned with the vision supporting Metchosin and their very rural community.

Become more realistic using common sense instead of being so greatly influenced by lobbyist agendas. We can only have economic sustainability as long as the average citizen can afford the to pay for it.

Becoming carbon neutral and healthy place to live.

Becoming more energy efficient.

Before I answer, I'd like to make a couple of comments: 1) this survey is resetting a bit too quickly (I've had to answer this several times); 2) this is a bit early to ask the respondents the most important action. It's probably best to prime the respondent with the other, more guided questions before asking this big question. That said, I would say the most important thing the CRD and its member local governments can do is fulfill its Climate Action Charter commitment of "creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.)".

Begin to take even better care of our water and farmland resources. This includes a proactive attention to water and sewer underground infrastructure (i.e. keeping leakage to an absolute and well monitored minimum) as well as a complete ban on municipal sewage sludge land application, and highly regulated application of chemical fertilizers and animal manures to land. It includes encouraging more active and funded organic farming ventures designed to reduce runoff of excess nutrients, into bodies of water. It includes requiring all new developments such as the one in View Royal by VGH, to provide their own onsite minimum tertiary level sewage treatment.

Better alternative transportation choices to single occupancy vehicles.

Better cycling trails and secure parking.

Better public transportation options that buses. Cost (figures provided by BC Transit) for the average bus is $500,000 with another $320,000 in maintenance and carrying costs over the 10-year lifespan. Taxpayers pay for 2/3 of each ride, yet other forms of public transit are expected to be 100% user pay. Get the train rolling with a proper schedule. Fix the Johnston Street bring to put the rail back.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 10

Better recycling and lobbying governments, particularly the federal government, to push for regulations to make all products, especially single use food product packages recyclable and even more than that, easier to recycle. Cosmetic, food, all product garbage must be recyclable we should be working to make zero waste and public shaming companies that pollute. We also need to see if there are ways that we can start growing bio-fuel such as hemp or flax to not only make the CRD zero emission but negative emission. CRD could even be a carbon creditor. Possibly consuming products that are on a closed cycle that don't leave plastics as their waste, or bio fuel like hemp that is on a closed carbon cycle (it only releases carbon that it took out of the environment while growing). I think we also need to move to bio-plastics which can also be made out of hemp! I feel like a broken record but I think trying to encourage "hemp-crete" (concrete) in buildings and greener building products could also help.

Better transit. Buses, lightrail, better road planning. An overpass at McKenzie avenue. Amalgamation is key. Rebates and tax breaks to promote the use of green energy and renewables.

Better transportation infrastructure, better solid waste management and tertiary sewage treatment with resource recovery.

Better transportation options.

Bicycle lanes everywhere -- and reducing reliance on cars -- encouraging municipalities to create mini-villages throughout their areas (such as Cook Street village, etc.) where people can walk or bike to amenities. And encouraging municipalities to remove bylaws that limit local food production (in front years and boulevards, harmonizing bylaws across municipalities for chickens, etc.).

Bio-gas electrical generation stations: generate electrical power with the sewage and organic waste. great jobs, electrical energy for local use and export. Large scale green houses that grow fruit, vegetables, botanicals, spices. create jobs and produce for local and export use. 90% mandatory electrical vehicle use on island.

Broader and more encompassing structure of governance which actually gives locals a meaningful voice and a reason to engage rather than feel "done to".

Build a green economy Foster a systems-based thinking approach to working on environmental issues across municipal boundaries Reduce waste (consider source control solutions here) Protect natural areas.

Build a proper infrastructure based on reality not idealism.

Build better active transportation facilities for the region (cycling, walking, public transit) and do more to encourage density in regional growth areas.

Build cheaper housing - encourage people to grow food by creating allotment gardens tax automobiles and trucks that are commuting unless carpooling and subsidize public transit shift property taxes that are used for public roads and tax cars that are using them (road taxes from property only for emergency vehicles and public services) subsidize photo voltaic panels for roof tops increase taxes on fossil fuels build separated bike lanes eliminate cars from some roads and build gardens, parks playgrounds and community spaces get moving on this NOW not next year.

Build distinct, sustainable communities but limit development to within set boundaries avoiding urban sprawl.

Build infrastructure that encourages walking, cycling and transit use and discourages use of the private auto...Assure food security by actively and immediately taking measures to promote local agriculture.

Build infrastructure to encourage cyclists and pedestrians, also roller blades and electric scooters, protect what's left of the wild spaces, honour indigenous cultures, and encourage everyone towards plant-based lifestyles to free up the excessive land and water resources that animal agriculture requires.

Build light rapid transit from the western communities via the General Hospital to Victoria City centre and the Jubilee Hospital.

Bus transportation should be cheaper than parking downtown.

Carbon neutral.

Carbon reduction & food security.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 11

Care for elder residents, economic development and environmental care of our park areas.

Centralized public transit, reduction of SOVs.

Change our way of thinking about the environment and our place in it, so our actions individually and collectively are guided by respect for all beings.

Change transportation infrastructure by facilitating public transit, cycling, and walking.

Cheaper access to the island. To make it more attractive for companies to move here so there are jobs for our youth.

Clean rapid transit.

Climate & environmental quality, addressing: - greenhouse gasses - preserving green areas/forests/natural parks/clean water/health of our oceans/reducing pollutants/toxic substances on land, air, water - production of food products within l00 K. to be more self-sustaining in this.

Climate and ecologically healthy action steps, Reduce carbon energy dependency and transition to renewable sustainable energy.

Climate change action (reducing energy/fuel use & emissions and preparing for impacts) To me this is all about TRANSPORTATION and LAND USE.

Climate change mitigation through the enhancement of natural areas within the CRD and improved transportation. When I say enhancement of natural areas, I mean to address all areas of the CRD. The natural areas in highly concentrated urban areas can also contribute to climate change mitigation, overall community health, and local food security, and this needs to be strongly considered in future plans. By improved transportation, I mean efficient transit made accessible to all people. I also mean improved cycling networks--several parts of the CRD lack safe bicycle lanes or paths that allow residents to access their needs in a way that does not harm the environment or human health.

Community gardens and removing water restrictions when obviously not necessary.

Community green space.

Compact growth, use existing infrastructure to fullest.

Competence governance ( decision making) is the most important action. It is the responsibility of elected officials to lead, and reflect the public will (the what). Elected officials are not doing their jobs when they simply approve what is presented to them by staff. Competent staff present options to the elected officials for their consideration ( the how) who will then deliberate on which course of action is best. At present there is great confusion in the roles by both. Staff are not doing their job, when the majority of what is presented to them by the public is rejected because it is "impossible." Good decisions are based on sound information, can be successfully implemented and will have a positive impact. Will this become the standard for the CRD?

Completely stop urban sprawl.

Concentrate growth in walkable/bikeable areas.

Concentrate growth within transit-oriented, walkable, bikeable areas.

Concentrate new growth in already established urban locals. Build on rock. Leave good soil and farmland alone. Improve public transit. Support public education including "continuing education" for adults. Support innovative low cost low impact housing options like co-housing, live aboard boats, "tiny houses". Develop a waste management plan that converts waste into power.

Concentrate urban development in areas already zoned for non-agricultural or non-natural uses. Preserve our limited agricultural and natural habitats throughout the Capital Region. Prevent further urban sprawl through the expansion of suburbs. Better support through transport links the Western communities that suffer the costs of rapid development without adequate services.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 12

Concentrate urban growth in the core city centres already established. Concentrate building on rock. Leave good soil and farmland alone and rural. Develop a waste management strategy that converts waste into fuel. Fund and build infrastructure that supports mass public transit. Support quality public education, including libraries and "containing education" for the adult population. Support innovative low cost housing solutions, such as live aboard vessels, co-housing, and housing for the n homeless.

Connect colleges and universities together, especially its student clubs, along with elementary and secondary school students and locals to create a large event (i.e. international day for environment - International Biodiversity Day on May 22, 2015) to encourage and promote sustainability.

Consume less.

Contain density within already designated urban areas, keep the rural / green belt areas for agriculture and or green space.

Contain development to existing urban areas.

Contain growth within well-defined urban containment boundaries. This limits sprawl and reduces infrastructure costs.

Contain growth; make it easier for people to get out of their cars.

Contain Urban development!

Contain urban development, save farmland and undeveloped or wild space.

Contain urban sprawl and preserve green spaces and forests.

Contain urban sprawl and protect farm land and wild spaces.

Contain urban sprawl, preserve ALR and agriculturally productive lands, minimize development in outlying areas, further protect natural wilderness areas. We also need a solid strategy to deal with the increase in traffic that has already taken place through growth in westshore.

Contain urban sprawl, protect our coast and farmlands.

Contain urban sprawl.

Contain urban sprawl........

Containing urban growth by maintaining the urban containment boundary and increasing the target of containment to 95% from 90%; build compact, comprehensive communities within the boundary including urban densification.

Continue to develop transportation alternatives that reduce the number of cars on the roads, such as cycling and walking trails, public transit.

Continue to limit urban sprawl, develop a plan for installing geothermal energy for heating all public buildings and work with the Provincial Government to develop a reasonable way to be able to reuse beams and 2 X 6s being removed from houses that are being demolished.

Continue to work together on common issues. however be aware that every area is different and needs to have its voice heard on local issues. The most important action should be to work collaboratively to make the CRD the best place to live and raise a family in B.C.

Control growth.. keep green space Farmland as is.

Control rampant growth.

Coordinated planning to tie transportation with urban planning to significantly reduce dependence on the automobile and encourage the use of sustainable energy. One of the best ways is to develop a rail based arterial network (computer rail, LRT & streetcar) tied to electric feeder buses, TOD, work-live homes and island based sustainable energy grid.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 13

Cost of Living, seems whenever Governments want a project they up our cost of living with higher taxes. Transportation should be available 7 days a week, especially holidays. It's Hard on Workers & the public trying to commute around the region. Recycling is a fine idea, but now overboard, crazy to be shipping food wastes out of town, each municipality should have their own composting and or home owners. Middle Gover should be or only local government, No need for 13 of everything thing likes Councils, firemen, Municipal Staff etc.

Couple regional growth to food security.

Create a better sewage solution. STOP dumping sewage into our oceans! Engage communities more in recycling and composting efforts. Build a massive indoor centre for teens to spend time. It should house areas to watch TV, to play games, to skateboard or roller skate, to put on shows etc. A world class facility. Swimming pools are dead. They are not used by the majority of folks in community so perhaps convert Crystal pool to such a centre. STOP culling deer and start culling RATS. Finally and MOST importantly, build sustainable energy! Scotland is fully green by 2020 and Victoria has not one Wind turbine or wave machine!

Create a sustainable and liveable place for future generations.

Create compact complete cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries. This will also help in curtailing GHG emissions.

Create compact, complete, affordable communities by containing growth within well- defined urban growth boundaries. Complete includes regional food production and municipal services (water, energy, waste) that are resilient to the impacts of climate change.

Create compact, complete, communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries.

Create compact, complete, cost efficient communities by containing growth within well- defined urban growth boundaries.

Create compact, complete, cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries.






Create compact, complete, cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries. Most of the CRD GHG emissions are from vehicle traffic. We cannot order people out of their vehicles. And most of the time vehicles are more convenient and often more time efficient ways of traveling. So we need those complete communities so for work, goods, services and recreating people do not feel the need to leave their communities. Then we will reduce GHG emissions. And we need to support local businesses that employ locally, sell to locals, hopefully are able to buy supplies locally and much of their merchandise more locally than big box stores. We need to limit and eliminate big box stores that create destination shopping and other unfair competition for local businesses.

Create compact, complete, cost efficient communities.

Create dense, livable, urban communities.

Create more sustainable transportation methods, like bike lanes. Also, conserving farm land and encouraging new farms to start up.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 14

Create more walkable, cyclable communities with excellent transit options so that less people need a car. This will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will also lead to a healthier, happier population.

Creating more walkable communities by increasing housing density and locating services near housing areas. This would also include stopping urban sprawl.

Creation and protection of a clean healthy environment in the air and surrounding waters. More local food production. Affordable housing with urban containment. Job growth, with heavy industries located in industrial parks. Limit the number of large retail malls. Good bus service to Saanich Peninsula. Possibly light rail trains between Sidney and Victoria. More bike paths in Victoria. More housing for the homeless.

Creative ways to ameliorate and reduce greenhouse gas effects on global warming, through measures such as farmland retention, wise urban containment boundaries, and integrated transportation networks.

Cut taxes, streamline services. My biggest expense isn't food or shelter, it's taxes. What is the CRD doing to reduce its share of my taxes?

Cut the reliance on fossil fuels to as close to zero as possible by shifting as quickly as possible to clean energy technologies. Cede title for all crown land to the First Nations whose territory it lies in. Include in all land title documents for all commercial and private property the fact that the original titleholder is not the Queen but is the First Nation in whose territory the property lies. Abolish the falsehood of ownership of land and reissue all land title as a stewardship certificate that may be revoked at any time if the current stewards of the land do not treat it in accordance with basic standards to be established under the leadership of First Nations. Establish a living wage for all residents. Legislate the rights of all residents and their descendants to a clean and healthy environment.

Cycling infrastructure Public transit (light rail to West Shore) More maintained trails Sewage solution Green economy (grants).

Cycling lanes.

Deal with transportation issues since the majority of our municipal GHGs are occurring due to transportation.

Decentralize Provincial and Federal services from the Victoria Downtown core. Relocate and balance government in the Westshore. The same goes for colleges, universities, vocational schools, etc. This would lead to sustainability. Less vehicles travel, lineups, off ramps, interchanges, would be needed. Greener transportation could be used in communities. Victoria is 69% renters because the distribution of government and educational services is unbalanced. Balance government and educational services in communities, and as Langford puts it you can live work and play in your community. Start balancing the CRD and we have something that works to pass onto future generations. Not just a four lane highway to Victoria and a bus pass.

Decentralized energy systems -- a strategic map and plan for developing medium and small scale renewable resources -- tides, water flow, solar -- for energy use that is owned and controlled by the municipality and community partners. Focus on systems that support local food production, farmers, including the distribution of foods. For example: an executed action plan to have year round farmer's markets in 8 Victoria neighborhoods. A massive increase in affordable housing for low income, the working poor and first time home owners.

Decrease dependence on fossil fuels--start with infrastructure. Improve transportation including adding rapid transit throughout the reason BEFORE highways, bypasses &etc. Bring on sewage treatment plant(s) soon. Invest in local business and use local industries.

Decrease reliance on fossil fuels/lower emissions.

Decrease the number of Municipalities. Not a total amalgamation. Decrease it by joining some and getting it down to 5 or 6 municipalities and get rid of the unincorporated areas. Increase local production of fruit and vegetables.

Define sustainable on its ecological basis " development that conserves an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources." -that is best accomplished by confining 97.5% of growth to Growth Containment Areas -acknowledge that land use deci

Densification in core area municipalities. No development of any agricultural lands or natural areas. And avoid the creation of any more municipalities within the CRD.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 15

Densify and improve public transit.

Densify in the growth centres, as this has best potential long term to reduce GHG.

Develop a comprehensive transportation strategy which embraces low carbon, energy efficient modes of transport and ensure there is sufficient commitment from all levels of government to this strategy.

Develop a Green Belt strategy to avoid more urban sprawl. If possible consolidate the Agricultural Land Reserve policy within the Capital Regional District and beyond if you have either the authority or the influence to protect areas under threat.

Develop a mass transit rail system; preserve parks and rural areas.

Develop a more efficient governance model, focus on economic sustainability along with environmental protection, and improve transportation.

Develop and implement a climate action plan that addresses economic, environmental, social, cultural and ecological goals for significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Develop extensive cycling routes/infrastructure.

Develop smart growth plans that include emergency preparedness for both local government and personal.

Develop urban and rural residential and business/industrial areas in such a way that the rate of population increase and use is in balance with the capacity of the land and water to support them. This translates to green spaces for wildlife, carbon sequestration, healthy local food production and clean air, healthy intact watersheds, high groundwater levels, resilient marine shores to accommodate climate changes, healthy marine nearshores for viable healthy biodiversity and vibrant transportation systems that are low to zero carbon emitters and accessible to all.

Developing sustainable infrastructure is of utmost importance. A great example of sustainable infrastructure in the Victoria area is the initiative to develop rain gardens to divert storm water from city drains. Another great way to develop sustainable infrastructure would be to use longer lasting building materials, such as HDPE pipe instead of PVC for underground pipes. City infrastructure is a great place to continue sustainability efforts because updates are continually required and if the right choices are made, not only could sustainability initiatives make more impact, but costs could also be lowered in the long run.

Development of a comprehensive neighbourhood development plan for the Keating West Saanich area of Central Saanich.

Discourage car use. Improved transportation.

Discourage single occupancy vehicle traffic by encouraging public transit and bicycling.

Dissolve the crd.

Do everything possible to stop Fossil Fuel extraction and shipping.

Do not implement Agenda 21. We can come up with local policies all on our own. Get tertiary sewage treatment right, if you are competent enough to not waste $1bn.

Do not know.

Do not strive for "sustainable" - strive for "regenerative." Climate change buffering, food security, and affordable housing.

Don't do things that will make our grandchildren's lives worse than our own. At the global scale, this means GHG reduction, reducing wealth disparity, and ending the decline in biodiversity and natural space. At the local scale, it means reducing the costs in money, time, aggravation and energy of getting between the different parts of our daily routines, and filling more of our needs very locally.

Don't lose the Farmlands.

Don't spend money we don't have or can't afford.. Watch wages, salaries & benefits of municipal employees...they don't have to be increased all the time. It's easy to spend other peoples' money.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 16

East Sooke to align to the visions that are keeping Metchosin and the Malahat committed to being rural. This is a requirement for keeping East Sooke Regional Park as an area for wildlife and for human enjoyment.

Educate children to be aware of their responsibility to be custodians of the land.; to be aware of the need to reserve and enhance farmland and to encourage them to learn about growing their own food.

Educate Residents about importance of Sustainability.

Educate the population while conducting a brief energy audit of ALL buildings in the region.

Educating the public on climate change, causes, and what municipalities hope to achieve. Why changes must begin to be implemented at the municipal level is key. Areas of transportation and energy-producing buildings should be focused on.

Electrify all motor vehicles starting with all CRD vehicles, but working with BC Transit to electrify theirs and establishing charging stations throughout the region and pressing for policies to cover all rooftops with photovoltaics.

Amalgamation.

Embrace clean energy and other solutions to become energy and food self-sufficient. Do everything we can to give future generations a chance.

Emphasis on sustainable practices re construction and tree-harvesting as well as marine activities.

Encourage a diverse economy and enhance the traffic flow of goods and people.

Encourage alternative transportation. Increase funding and options for public transit. Create more bike lanes and bike friendly routes.

Encourage and foster domestic business opportunities, especially in areas of value added products made from BC raw resources. e.g. refined lumber and wood products made from BC timber. e.g. incentives for building out infrastructure for electric transportation across the district.

Encourage and support agriculture, there is plenty of land, the Ag. community needs support for promotion and marketing. With reasonable returns to the farms, local employable people could be used at a fair wage rate. Need to ensure that water is provided to the agriculture community at a very reasonable cost, the present bulk rate works well and should not be adjusted. Seriously think about rapid transit corridors, set them aside for the future so that we can transport people from the ferry and local outlying communities to the core areas. It was a shame not to preserve the old Railway R/W for future rapid transit corridors. We need to plan ahead. Allow for multi-family use of residential buildings, too many exceedingly large homes that could accommodate more than one family, i.e. allow rental suites in larger homes to densify the population closer to the core areas.

Encourage and support the development of a local economy that capitalizes on our regional strengths and natural resources and employs local human resources.

Encourage good paying, family supporting jobs. Your Draft report reads like it was written by the Sierra Club and appears to put everything but climate change policies in the back seat. 33% reduction in GHG within 4.5 years. How is the CRD Board planning to achieve that. Can't even plan a sewer system. What a joke.

Encourage increased density residential development in the core municipalities. Discourage any development of agricultural lands or wild, natural areas.

Encourage local food production Create sustainable employment Reduce urban sprawl Reduce traffic Foster the use and creation of renewable energy.

Encourage local food production.

Encourage local food supply. look into solids waste management without landfill (can things be incinerated in an environmentally sound way? we could generate electricity and I believe it is possible to filter the gases to keep them out of the airshed. What are the possibilities? Local compost for kitchen scraps! encourage alternate energies in homes (wind and solar power).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 17

Encourage locally-grown plant-based diets (uses much less resources than animal-based foods), make the city more cyclist-friendly (e.g. more and better/separated bike lanes, bike shares, etc.), increase parking fees downtown.

Encourage residential development within existing urban centres to reduce urban sprawl.

Encourage sustainable farming and ecological practices within the region.

Encourage, protect and promote food farming, develop a sane strategy for sewage treatment, build more affordable housing, protect our water sources from industrial pollution, develop and encourage transportation that is non-polluting.

Encouraging density in housing in village-like centres, and thus protecting currently undeveloped areas.

Encouraging greater density within the City Of Victoria. This will both reduce the scourge of urban sprawl and make a more vital and sustainable city.

Encouraging the local economy by buying locally: goods and services where possible. Local spending has a multiplier effect but buying afar sends the money abroad, never to return. Developing infrastructure to enable this to occur is a positive move.

Enhance public transportation options -protect and preserve green space -enhance public ownership of publicly used facilities; i.e. reverse P3 trend for common utilities.

Enhanced public transit which becomes increasingly affordable and convenient with time as penalties for unnecessary personal transport increase. The long-term goal might be to have public transit services which are fully funded by "the public purse" and personal/commercial transport infrastructure largely funded by those who use it.

Ensure clean water/sustainable groundwater recharge is available, never privatized, and enforce stricter restrictions on land use compromising freshwater resources--including better stormwater management, impervious surfaces, rain gardens, etc.

Ensure enough arable land exists that we can have a self-sustaining food system. Without green spaces for food and recreation, all aspects of community suffer. This would include reducing urban sprawl, and providing explicit protection over existing parks/green spaces/arable land.

Ensure greater density of settlement. It is ludicrous for only 90% of dwelling unit increase to be within the Urban Containment Area. The UCA is also far too large -- it should be REDUCED, especially in Sooke and Langford. Effective action on densification will itself enable substantial improvements in climate, transit, economic, and liveable environmental objectives. Simultaneously, there should be rethinking of the (recently designated) rural settlement areas policies, preferably reducing their size and REDUCING allowed density outside them.

Ensure self-sufficiency to the maximum degree possible with respect to food production, carbon sequestration, energy supply and waste disposal while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. While the RSS defines sustainability in Appendix 2, the RSS makes no attempt to state how far the CRD is from being truly sustainable at present; therefore it is unclear what meaningful value the proposed targets have. Self-sufficiency is a more explicit term that integrates (human) population growth and consumption and the ability of the regional environment to absorb what we dispose into it.

Ensure small farm agriculture survives in Saanich, by subsidies if necessary; move towards sustainable energy, viz. solar mainly, also tidal; encourage small scale vegetable gardens, instead of all our green lawns; address the deer problem, which has become abnormally numerous with no natural predators, otherwise vegetable gardens will just be consumed by deer; encourage households to keep chickens; and really encourage people to buy locally; push for allowing dogs on buses so as to save even more toxic emissions polluting x air.

Ensure sustainable affordable housing and food for all.

Ensure that all arable land, or potentially arable land is not used for other purposes, e.g. no more road encroachment, no more tarmac.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 18

Ensure that our new sewage treatment system or systems options are rated with cradle-to-grave energy consumption accounted for. We must use a system that minimizes energy consumption and maximizes energy recovery. This will save us money in the short and long term, protect us from energy cost shocks of the future, and minimize the carbon footprint of treatment.

Ensure that virtually all future dwelling units are concentrated much more in walkable communities served by transit and services. The draft targets are totally inadequate if the gains in GHG emissions and economical infrastructure (and affordability) are to be met.

Ensure that virtually all future dwelling units are much more concentrated in walkable communities served by transit and services. The draft targets are totally inadequate if the gains in GHG emissions and economical infrastructure (and affordability) are to be met.

Ensure there are jobs for youth.

Environmentally safe waste disposal and resource recovery.

Establish a target for an optimal sustainable population, and ensure that all private and public initiatives (e.g. land use planning, urban densities) conform to it.

Establish and maintain clearly defined areas for both residential and commercial development within current urban areas.

Establish more protected areas / put a cap on development / restore damaged or degraded ecosystems (wetlands, coastal areas, garry oaks, streams).

Even if population is growing, we have to protect the natural habitat.

Everything mentioned under "Natural Environment." Also, under "Well Being" i.e. reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels. Does this mean more low income single dwelling places, in the western communities where there are hardly any? Heat and Hot water should be included in the rent! Food is extremely expensive.

Expand housing availability.

Expand the domain of trees and reduce the population of humanity.

Expand the economic base of the island.

Expand the network of protected bicycle lanes and improve public transit.

Expanding our local food supply.

Expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources.

Facilitate the amalgamation process within the Capital Region. 13 municipalities is too many.

Fiercely act to prevent or modify climate change. Go after this issue with the spirit with which we fought to win WW2.

Figure out like Japan did, how to build homes and workplaces to ride out a really big earthquake. Japan's newer office buildings have a shock absorber type system so they survive the big one Oregon is looking at building more tsunami resistant retreats for the public to go to when the big one causes a huge tsunami that will hit their coastal communities. The residents know to hightail it to these specific shelters before the tsunami hits. This is VERY long term planning after what happened in New Zealand.

Find measurable ways to work with adjoining municipalities to share resources and identify in writing how money was saved and property taxes were reduced. Areas that indicate a lack of faith are: Oak Bay, Saanich and Victoria where property taxes have generally risen and civic services have been reduced. Check the local statistics that people are moving away to Langford where there are lower taxes and facilities are new and Business taxes have been reduced.

Firm urban containment boundaries.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 19

First of all, there is no "more or less" sustainable. Sustainability is like a light switch, it is on or off. Second, there is no one thing that is the most important action. However, there are three things I think are critically important to reducing our ecological impact and being greener. 1) Build radically mixed-use walkable communities. The big thing here is we must get business and residences much closer together, as we densify. We need groceries and services in a walkable range from every house. And, we need walkable employment. This means the elimination of traditional zoning, to be replaced with performance zoning. As long as a business is not making dust or noise, who cares what people are doing in their basement? And corner grocery stores should be allowed to open wherever anybody wants to try their entrepreneurial luck. 2) We need much more food grown here. This means not just maintaining the ALR, but doubling the ALR. This means planting fruit and nuts as street trees instead of useless decorative trees. This means enabling gardens and small livestock anywhere in the region. This means allowing people to sell their produce in any way they see fit. 3) We need comprehensive energy retrofits. There are currently energy retrofit subsidies for homeowners. Which means once again, we take tax dollars from poor renters and give it to wealthier homeowners, and then we leave those poor people shivering with huge utility bills because the landlord doesn't care what their heating bill is. Over half of Victoria rents. Energy retrofits on rental accommodations are a requirement. In general, the method should be a measurement of watts per square meter.

Focus housing and commercial development in core areas to reduce sprawl and create active community hubs/centres that fulfill a more "livable" vision for our region. Focus especially on increasing cycling through separated infrastructure, creating a connected grid of routes suitable for all ages of rider.

Focus on a holistic view of "Sustainable". That includes financially sustainable, so that both the environmental costs of our activities and the costs of avoiding or mitigating environmental are factored in and affordable to taxpayers. This supports higher density development in fewer areas, reducing the infrastructure required for the developments and to travel between them.

Focus on an economy that generates substantial wealth and taxes. As with a family, it is the 'excess to needs' income that allows us to 'improve our house' or increase our standard of living - which can be the environment as well as 'goods'.

Focus on creating a GREEN environment and a green economy. Focusing on preserving and maintaining the water, the wildlife (e.g. the deer in Oak Bay), the green space, woodland areas, and our ecosystems. Focus on stopping urban sprawl and consumerism, all this leads to pollution.

Focus on leading green solutions to transport, sewage, and multiple family dwellings. Use innovative methods to help support the local (island) processing and distribution of food.

Focus on transportation. Try to reduce the use of Single Occupancy Vehicle.

Focus on transportation: light rail. innovative transit/park and ride and elimination of fossil fueled vehicles, especially personal automobiles as a daily mode of transportation.

Food and energy security. Island self-sufficiency and cooperation.

Food production on a community and individual scale (community gardens, facilitating apartment and plot gardening, planting fruit bearing trees on boulevards) -affordable housing (allowing for families to improve quality of life and be able to afford loc.

Food security.

Food Security.

Food security Affordable housing (land trusts?) Investment in renewable energy.

Food Security and access to local food re farm markets. Access to community gardens. No herbicides, Pesticides or G M O . Local schools , hospitals and care home should have access to local Natural/organic foods Keep the land developers out, no fragmentation of farm lands. Use locally produced compost, no chemical fertilizers. Encourage small farms using local labour sooner than hi/tech machinery.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 20

Food Security -Becoming stewards of the Earth -ending poverty and environmental destruction -Recognition of the Intelligence in Nature -Creation of local farms growing nutrient dense foods = optimal human health -Restoring a natural balance with nature (i.e. reduction of harmful EMF's) -ensuring health and longevity -The path to sustainability lies in the health of our environment -some monoculture agricultural practices are harmful to soil and animal alike -move into gentler alternatives such as: -Biomimicry -mimicking systems in nature (millions of years of evolution can't be wrong) observe and let nature be our teacher -has applications in every industry -Permaculture -mimicking systems in forests and other landscapes -Perennial food forests and edible landscape creation -combining elements (i.e. plant life) that complement one another and benefit all creatures on all levels i.e. building soil, feeding insects, working with nature and wildlife, permanent polyculture, more than organic -growing long term returns for modest investment -Bio-dynamics -little known techniques for growing food -again identifying and utilizing natural systems to help us work with nature -creating conditions utilizing elements (i.e. microbes, worms, insects, plants) and maximizing potentials to create better than usual results i.e. -reducing plant disease -prolonging harvests -increasing yields = thriving farms -compost preparations have the best potential to end the entire kitchen scrap problem and in turn create the best soil for resale -Such projects should/are being undertaken in the spirit of community/friendship creation and knowledge sharing/growing. -Programs to assist and encourage the creation of small and local farms especially those willing to benefit from the techniques above.

Foster more sustainable transportation options.

Further support and develop the local food system by: -actively supporting new farmers in the start-up phase. Make farmland available to capital-limited aspiring farmers by financing the development of community farmland trusts and more farm incubator programs; -ensuring the availability of adequate agricultural infrastructures (abattoir, produce centers, CSA drop-off area, etc.); -ensuring that no ALR land is taken out of the ALR; -incentivize organic production; -mandate local food procurement for local institutions This would increase food security, reduce our food related ghg footprint, help protect agricultural land from development, prevent further soil contamination resulting from conventional agricultural practices, protect natural habitats, create jobs, grow the security of demand for local food, all of which are closely connected to multiple elements of the sustainability strategy.

Future generations need to have good-paying jobs, decent affordable housing and a manageable cost of living. There is a scarcity of all three in the CRD. You can all the trees and ecologically great programs but people will leave if they can't feed and house their families. Many of the people moving here are retirees who have sold off their homes in other areas of Canada and moved here. They have no interest in providing for jobs or affordable housing. I have lived most of my life here, but my time in other cities has shown how very badly this area is run and I have little hope that environmental plans and projects which have been implemented already for many years in most places are still being discussed here with no end in sight. Any plans/projects that are begun seem to be lacking in any common sense and without much practical thought, like the water program, the waste programs, infrastructure. The general population shoots down anything that hints of providing jobs or will help traffic/transit concerns. I have little faith that anything useful will come from this study.

Gee, how nice. Your system just timed out on me without notice and lost all my input!! Well, this time it is going to be a lot shorter response, because I am not retyping everything I wrote the first time. We are facing some major concerns with climate change which, for the most part, our area to date has gotten away without major issues. However, that is going to slowly change over the next 20+ years, and further, we have a global responsibility not to add to the hardship of those living in more vulnerable regions of the planet. As such, we need to make every effort to promote and, if necessary subsidize alternative energy options, and conservation, water and soil conservation, local food production, better, more logical mass transit, and develop social incentives for people to make these changes.

Get a sewage treatment plant going now. Make North Saanich very aware that they need to house the people working in their district, with affordable housing. Many people are driving from Sooke and Colwood to work at Airport, Viking Air, Ferries, etc. Any new big employers (manufacturing, tech, etc.) should be encouraged to build where the affordable housing is.

Get more vehicles off the road!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 21

Given the context of climate change and the ongoing economic and population pressures that the CRD faces it is essential to conserve at least half of the Capital Region's land and water base for nature. In this manner residents may live and work in harmony with the environment. To this end I was very pleased to see that on page 12 of the draft RSS strategy that the following has been included: "Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt. At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) land and water base is protected or managed for the needs of nature and residents of the region."

Given the time and energy spent developing an OCP any deviation from that should be very difficult if not impossible. I live on Keating X Rd. within the proposed Future Growth Area in the draft RSS. While future growth area has a nice positive ring to it I prefer to refer to it as pre-zoning for future development. I see on page 108 and 109 that this large area would be considered a type 3 minor amendment. Not only should this area not be designated future growth area, read pre-zoned, but if it is it definitely should never be thought of a minor amendment area but rather a major amendment.

Given the time and energy spent developing an OCP any deviation from that should be very difficult if not impossible. I live on Keating X Rd. within the proposed Future Growth Area in the draft RSS. While future growth area has a nice positive ring to it I prefer to refer to it as pre-zoning for future development. I see on page 108 and 109 that this large area would be considered a type 3 minor amendment. Not only should this area not be designated future growth area, read pre-zoned, but if it is it definitely should never be thought of a minor amendment area but rather a major amendment.

Given the time and energy spent developing an OCP any deviation from that should be very difficult if not impossible. I live on Keating X Rd. within the proposed Future Growth Area in the draft RSS. While future growth area has a nice positive ring to it I prefer to refer to it as pre-zoning for future development. I see on page 108 and 109 that this large area would be considered a type 3 minor amendment. Not only should this area not be designated future growth area, read pre-zoned, but if it is it definitely should never

Global warming.

Good, reliable, accessible, safe, and affordable transit; rapid transit and less congestion between urban centres; walkability within urban areas and a focus on community hubs, vibrant public spaces; more of a closed loop with food production and waste disposal/composting/recycling; strong urban agriculture that is affordable and accessible for all with support for urban and local growers; focus on first nations input and support for the resurgence of indigenous methods of governance and ways of life.

Green energy.

Green space protection and sewage treatment.

Green sustainable mass transit. more cars or car capacity is NOT the solution.

Greenhouse gas emissions Reduction.

Grow food locally and retain green space.

Grow much more local organic food.

Grow the middle class - loose the big box store mentality - support local business - more affordable housing.

Growth containment is the single most important action because it supports all the others. In containing growth: GHG emissions are reduced because transportation opportunities are more concentrated, resilience is improved because ecosystems are less impacted by sprawl, individual and community well-being are improved because necessary services and amenities are accessible natural environments are protected and conserved, because core natural areas and their hubs and connections are not interrupted by roads, buildings and fragmented landscapes and infrastructure is more cost effective because it can be concentrated and available to more users.

Growth containment, locating growth in areas with non-automobile transportation options.

Habitat of animals and native forest preservation.

Have a coherent sewage treatment facilities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 22

Have a online space for information that potential users and owners could use to communicate. Before removing present C.R.D. restrictions i.e. the land within the old urban containment boundary ensure the municipalities that control that land have a long term strategy for that land aligns with the goals of the larger C.R.D. community so one pro development council doesn't reverse years of planning at the regional level.

Have a vibrant private sector economy with lower taxes and smaller government, much smaller than today's bloated CRD.

Have clear enforceable policies for containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries with strong protection for rural municipalities to resist all types of urbanization and sprawl.

Having a recycling composting facility for yard waste including kitchen scraps...yrs back the was a recycle area at the back side of Hartland where you could take your yard pruning’s, grass clipping etc...it was a wonderful place but alas the public couldn't purchase any finished product....only available to the commercial sector......what better thing to do than make dirt and sell it back to the public....and then it disappeared???.

Having local food, employment and recreation activities built for the long term: not a vision of 'growth' but of living within our means: the carry capacity of our environment: which means the total ecosystem.

Having more people take transit, cycle or walk is a solid objective. But in a region as spread out as the CRD, where families work, live and play in different areas, this is not easily achievable, and certainly not by impeding the flow of goods and people within the region.

Help residents get off the grid.

Help the existing housing / building stock be more energy efficient Stop dumping our sewage in the ocean, but consider smaller distributed sewage plants built to BLEND with the community - for example, the Currie Rd sewage pumping stn in Oak Bay. Slow down the speed limits for cars to help make other modes of transport safer, easier, more attractive. Update infrastructure for all utilities, including ensuring support for the modern infrastructure of fibre optics/internet service utility. Encourage more food production / community gardens / ALR protection for lands that are not golf courses Expanded and continued support for anyone involved in raising children. Keep and encourage the uniqueness of the neighbourhoods and districts and townships.

I agree with the concept of urban containment and the need for walkable cities with clean transportation options such as bike-friendly streets and a safe, efficient transit system. I live in Cadboro Bay and we walk to the store, to the beach and my husband rides to work. I would love to see this area (and others like it) further densified so that the elderly who have lived here in single family dwellings can stay in the neighbourhood, living in apartments with lifts etc. It's a very livable community. Agriculture is not happening here though. If there is development on Blenkinsop, put in high density near the existing Root Cellar/Galey Farms and avoid having things like single family dwellings on grassed over 5 acre lots cut out of farms. We cycled in Holland. Not much land but they concentrate residences and use land for food.

I am adding this to an earlier submission answering only partial questionnaire as yesterday my whole submission was lost.

I am adding this to earlier submissions, as I have mentioned that I do not feel safe in staying on this site for the full submission.

I am concerned about the input of raw sewage into the ocean in Victoria and strongly think we need a treatment facility in place to manage ever increasing demand. I also would like to see a consistent composting and recycling program - island wide.

I believe that restricting and controlling urban sprawl is the most important action we can take for the future of our region. The south island is celebrated and visited by people all over the world because of our stunning parks and access to nature with all of its beauty. New developments are being approved way too quickly and easily without considering our fragile ecosystems. I feel that developers and politicians alike lose sight that these ecosystems are what make Vancouver Island such a sought after destination and such a unique, thriving community to live in.

I find the whole notion of sustainability a slippery slope. I am not sure what it means.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 23

I have filled out this entire form and it has just looped back to the beginning and has lost all my input - I am so very frustrated!!!!

I just don't know. I see Victoria is growing in population. It seems so easy to get approval for high-rise condominiums (in fact, to rebuild the Tudor House a stipulation is to make it higher so that people can live above it for instance), but what is taken into account? My top concerns are for water and non-human animals and the earth. Obviously the great appeal and reason why Victoria is so popular is the air quality and the abundance of nature (despite those who lack vision and ask for culls against any "over-population" of deer for instance). I love our drinking water and I know this means someone's job is to destroy goose eggs. Big picture for me has nothing to do with money but what is needed to sustain life itself and that is all connected, not just with this island but with the world. As a region, it's water. I'm talking basic needs (not human rights). One of those needs is shelter and we cannot all live in houses, not even tiny houses. Has the region ever considered having a limit? If you rent a space there will be a limit to the number of people allowed in during this rental duration. So I wonder, could there be a limit to the number of people allowed to reside in Victoria? Okay, I guess not. So more buildings are built but how sustainable is that long-term given that a lot of these people will have children and their children will have children and so forth.

I just wrote a whole thing on what should be done, and it disappeared, while I tried to open the tagline page. The main points were: Keep green spaces and animal corridors as they are. Develop lite rail transportation to western communities and peninsula. Use brown space in city for development and keep development around villages within walking distance of each village. Implement small sewage treatment plants that can grow and produce fuel and fertilizer. Give tax incentives for solar and wind energy to home owners (wind turbines on top of high rises, etc.).

I strongly support a policy of urban containment. By Protecting forests and farmland from urban sprawl makes sense for a number of reasons. It conserves wilderness areas for the ecological value of maintaining plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, sequestering carbon and providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Urban containment also conserves farmland for present and future generations, with the capital region having a finite supply of arable land (due to mountainous terrain, constraints of the coastline, and existing development patterns). Local food systems are essential in the context of increasing global transportation costs, a changing climate and instability in the global capitalist economy.

I support the comments submitted by the Consortium!!

I think clean water is the issue that will divide sustainable from non-sustainable communities. Therefore our watersheds must be protected, far above any economic or industrial priorities.

I think that out building codes need to be adjusted so that the edifices we build are better integrated with the land we use. This is 2015 the house that has a big foot print should be a thing of the past, we have brilliant architects and engineers in this world that have the knowledge on how to make spaces that are complimentary to nature. Requiring a more integrated approach in building code will shift the economics and more of these houses will appear. There also needs to be co-operation between the several regions so that land without buildings (farm, nature preserves, recreational areas) are just as, if not more, valued as plopping a building down for housing. Of-course cooperation between the regions to continue the development of bike trails and manage traffic flow will be essential. Bite the bullet and pay for a train up island. People are sprawling more and more that way. Support a train service that will increase the quality of life for commuters (less stressful than driving), decrease the carbon released (far fewer cars on the Number 17), and probably decreased traffic accidents on the Malahat. This would also benefit the economy of the North Island making it more accessible to those in Victoria and the tourism industry would benefit. There are so many wonderful places to explorer along the railway line. Those are the three most important actions I think you can take. They will have a long lasting impact on the region not only increasing our sustainability but supporting our economy.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 24

I think that the integration of socially and ecologically sound energy and multimodal transportation within complete communities and throughout the CRD will help address climate change, reduce the ecological footprint, prevent urban sprawl and not deter the CRD from advancing proposals that are usually deemed to be beyond the CRD jurisdiction. I also think that if other levels of government impede the fulfilling of the vision of the RSS, the CRD should be prepared to challenge them and not say “this is not our jurisdiction”. One of the constraints that has to be overcome is that both senior levels of government have not taken a path towards a socially equitable and ecologically sound future. And have been discounting the rights of future generations. A current example comes to mind where the first nations supported by an organization of fishers has called for the commercial herring fisheries not to open and then the Federal government has officially opened the season. Given the lack of federal and provincial leadership on climate change, many are looking to municipalities to pick up the slack. Municipalities can play an important role both by taking action locally and by lobbying other levels of government. I have been at several international climate change conferences: in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun, in 2010 and at the Peoples climate Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2010. And I will be attending COP21 in Paris. And I also went to Rio+20 where it was clear that the federal governments, especially Canada, the US and Australia were unwilling to address the urgency of climate change, and a group of mayors were meeting every day demanding actions being taken to discharge international obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. I also think that ensuring the following commitments is important Protection of watersheds with respect to depletion and degradation of their forest cover and from harmful upstream activities; CHAPTER 18, 59a v Agenda 21, UNCED) And promotion of research into the contribution of forests to sustainable water resources development; CHAPTER 18, 59a vi Agenda 21, UNCED to1990 levels so that it could influence federal position at COP21 in Paris. 1990 level is the base line that has been used in the UNFCCC and is used by almost all states except Canada, us and Australia Primacy should be given to mitigation rather than to adaption-to prevent the climate change rather than to attempt to address to rectify what may have become irreversible Another vision; People’s Agreement on climate change http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9921:peoples-agreement-on-climate-change-from-cochabamba-must-no-longer-be-ignored&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210.

I think the CRD has to lead by example by committing to have local food catered into all public offices in the CRD. Hopefully this will lead the way to other offices, institutions and businesses to follow suit. I think this will speak volumes about the CRD's commitment to following through with its Regional Sustainability Strategy. Easy, delicious and politically powerful.

I think the CRD ought to become a UN Biosphere Reserve. A few of us are exploring that possibility, and hope that the CRD can play a significant role. The 3 main categories are CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT and LOGISTICS, so it could harmonize well with the RSS. Most of us are conservationists and can offer varying degrees of experience in natural, cultural and built heritage conservation. However, it would be important to work in harmony with CRD staff in the areas of Development and Logistics. It would require one or two outstanding community leaders to champion the effort which takes years to be approved by UNESCO in Paris. (Clayoquot sound and Mount Arrowsmith are two UN Biosphere Reserves on Vancouver Island.) A PhD student at UVic is seeking funding to undertake a thesis that would focus on identifying and drawing together sites, features and practices worthy of conservation over the generations. As the human population expands throughout the world, we could be a model for habitat restoration and attempts to adapt to urbanized wildlife.

I think the most important thing we need to do is significantly decrease our use of fossil fuels. Transportation is a big part of that - we should be improving our transit system and making our area even more bike-friendly than it already is. Related to this, we should be focusing on local food production to decrease our dependence on foods that are shipped from far away.

I think we can be a lot more experimental in pursuing sustainable models.

I would like to see 90% of growth and development to be restricted within well-defined urban growth boundaries. They are already serviced and do not reduce green space. Specifically, do not change East Sooke from a rural area to a rural settlement area.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 25

I'd say food security strategy, but I think what trumps that is a Vancouver Island Vision. In other words, the CRD should initiate a Vancouver Island -wide sustainability strategy. No area can stand alone. The best plan in the CRD will be tilted off balance by increased housing in the Duncan area, just for example. And the Cowichan Valley is one of the places where a lot of food can be grown. If we are talking about energy sustainability, this is an island-wide issue. So the most important action is to develop a collaboration with the other RDs on Vancouver Island, and produce a shared vision.

Identify and leave undeveloped areas, of significant ecological importance.

If we are to be more sustainable, we have to take seriously people's needs and desires and meet housing demands within in our core cities while reducing the environmental impact of transportation and energy production.

Ignore so called "expert opinions" and "best practices" from elsewhere, and focus instead on a regional solutions. Anticipate and act NOW to address future challenges from climate change, unfettered urbanization population growth and greed.

I'm sorry I can't just write one. So I'll do them in order at least of priority. 1. Increase local food supply 2. Get a real ecofriendly septic field for our waste water, stop pumping it into the ocean. 3. Ban non-compostable take out containers of all kinds, especially styrofoam. 3. Improve and increase public transportation. I'd like to see a bus line that goes all the way to Goldstream Park please.

Implement every possible measure to encourage the use of ZEV, especially EVs. Nothing else in this document has any objective likelihood of ACTUALLY reaching the overarching GHG emissions reductions goals of the RSS and the Federal Government. Many initiatives in the RSS - bike infrastructure, buildings and compact communities, for instance - are worthy of diligent effort. We can and should deflect each of these areas towards a sustainable future. After all, unsustainability is not really an option. Realistically, though, bikes and walking will never replace cars entirely, and only with a HUGE effort and remarkable participation will those goals ever meet even the rather ambitious bike and walking goals of the RSS. Likewise, even the most vigorous, focused effort to make EVERY building from now on to be LEED or equal, there will not be enough of them in the cityscape mix to diminish GHG enough to match the goals in the time available. Objectively, then, the only means remaining to meet the GHG goal is to push relentlessly toward the electrification of vehicles. Cars are replaced often enough and BC electricity is clean enough for such a change to actually make a measurable change in GHG emissions. CRD and its municipalities must literally make every effort to get people into EVs, and vigorously encourage other political players to get on board to do the same. Someday, our children will thank us for getting things moving.

Implement every possible measure to encourage the use of ZEV, especially EVs. Nothing else in this document has any objective likelihood of ACTUALLY reaching the overarching GHG emissions reductions goals of the RSS and the Federal Government. Many initiatives in the RSS - bike infrastructure, buildings and compact communities, for instance - are worthy of diligent effort. We can and should deflect each of these areas towards a sustainable future. After all, unsustainability is not really an option. Realistically, though, bikes and walking will never replace cars entirely, and only with a HUGE effort and remarkable participation will those goals ever meet even the rather ambitious bike and walking goals of the RSS. Likewise, even the most vigorous, focused effort to make EVERY building from now on to be LEED or equal, there will not be enough of them in the cityscape mix to diminish GHG enough to match the goals in the time available. Objectively, then, the only means remaining to meet the GHG goal is to push relentlessly toward the electrification of vehicles. Cars are replaced often enough and BC electricity is clean enough for such a change to actually make a measurable change in GHG emissions. CRD and its municipalities must literally make every effort to get people into EVs, and vigorously encourage other political players to get on board to do the same. Someday, our children will thank us for getting things moving.

Implement fare-free public transit buses.

Improve affordable access to locally grown organic foods.

Improve energy efficiency in existing buildings Preserve rental housing.

Improve public transit, encourage and support cycling and walking, and reduce car dependence.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 26

Improve public transport (especially regional) and bike traffic.

Improve safe biking infrastructure.

Improve stream, river, lake health.

Improve the cycling network to include cycletracks/protected bike routes.

Improve transportation flow.

Improve transportation in rural area so I don't have to drive.

Improve transportation infrastructure to prevent unnecessary idling of cars, buses, trucks. Improve efficiency by committing to some kind of rapid transit/light rail system to carry commuters to the western communities and to the Saanich peninsula.

Improve transportation networks and options to greatly reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Improved mass transit services, and promotion thereof ... car and van-pooling initiatives & education programs.

Improved public transit and bike lanes.

Improved transit.

Improvement of road infrastructure to accompany mass transit.

Improving transit options so we can reduce the reliance on automobiles and fossil fuels. Focusing on some form of mass transit out from the west shore would be wise. Improving and protecting parkland, wildlife corridors and habitat for native wildlife is critical as well.

In general, we need better planning. For example, we need more parks, green space corridors, recreation areas, etc.

Incent and encourage alternate fuel/ electricity sources, i.e. solar.

Increase affordable accessible housing in compact, smart growth neighborhoods with excellent walking, cycling and transit facilities and access to jobs while still protecting wilderness and agricultural areas.

Increase agricultural land reserve and facilitate access to such lands by farmers.

Increase density in housing.

Increase density, amalgamate municipalities.

Increase density. Increase availability of housing near the core. Allow developers to build low rises with family sized dwellings in a manner similar to western Europe. Street cars and protected bicycle routes would be a dream come true.

Increase public transportation and provide free bus passes for seniors as they do in Europe. Also develop LRT to bring folks in from the West Shore.

Increase rapid transit & it's use.

Increase sustainable and active transportation modes and preserve farmland.

Increase the density of existing urban centres to avoid additional sprawl and increase feasibility of enhanced system of public transportation (inc. light rail, trains).

Increase the local production of food that is locally consumed. Local food suppliers should not have to meet tests created for international trade.

Increase the supply of affordable housing in compact, walkable neighborhoods.

Increase urban density and confine growth to areas easily serviced by transit. Increase focus on compact and walkable hubs. Provide for local greenspace/park opportunities and recreational facilities. Provide and enhance regional and local transportation corridors that focus on non-motorized transportation. Complete the sea to sea greenbelt.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 27

Increase walking, biking and transit options throughout the region. Support use of zero emission vehicles. Increase access to farmland to increase opportunities to grow our own food. Expand solar Colwood idea throughout the region - educating consumers as to the merits and access to the program. Endeavour to make every community a zero waste community - and provide education and support for consumers to become zero waste (business take responsibility for packaging return if they sell it, limit plastic use, encourage consumers bringing own packaging). Increase local food production opportunities - growing, manufacturing, processing.

Increased agricultural output, protection of wildlife habitat and improved air and water quality. Any proposed developments should be looked at closely to ensure an overall benefit to the community and environment. The Future Growth Area proposed by Central Saanich for west Keating X Rd. and Kersey Rd is not such a development.

Increasing density in already developed areas with supporting public transportation and active travel infrastructure. This will go toward addressing affordability, climate change, GHG emissions, community resilience, preserved green/ productive spaces, and creating a vibrant strong economy.

Increasing local food security lowering GHG emissions reducing poverty.

Informed discussion about the potentially devastating consequences of the exponential growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Reading Dr. David Hawkins regarding this quickly approaching problem is sobering ... potentially, much more devastating than climate change to human beings.

Insist that Education authorities expand environmental education K-12 and also for bachelor’s degrees and especially in education faculties where teachers are trained.

Instead of looking at one or two large sewage treatment plants for the region, we should be looking at smaller plants which can be distributed around the capital region. These could be built from a standard design to minimize engineering costs and be built where they're needed as capacity warrants. Construction costs for new sites could be partially subsidized from new construction. This would alleviate the need to build a facility with X amount of capacity today as more could be added (at a significantly lower cost) down the road. Also, continue to work with BC Transit to establish transit right of ways along key corridors. Identify secondary corridors so that when rezoning occurs, a long term transit plan is in place.

Institute an aggressive carbon tax. Institute minimum energy efficiency levels for commercial and residential buildings.

Integrate local governments (municipal) to reflect to world we live in today. (What I am saying here is that the 13 municipal governments we have are not effective).

Integrated regional transit.

Integrated thinking & decision-making (environmental, social and economic implications of decisions) with a future orientation vs short term, piecemeal, non-strategic. Understand that sustainability requires a different mindset and set of tools vs everyday political & administrative processes. I want my daughter to be able to live in a much more sustainable context than we have today.

Inter-government management of the sustainability of our groundwater, surface waters, soils ALR , and foreshores - all with a 100 year vision.

Introduce energy ratings on all homes new and old.

Invest in alternative energy.

Invest in bike trails, protected bike lanes and public transit (affordable & quick) between regions.

Invest in more infrastructure for walking, cycling and transit.

Invest in regional public transit and resurrect the ALR (i.e., I support the policy of urban containment).

Invest in sustainable local food systems. Vancouver Island residents need to be able to feed all Vancouver Island residents. Oil prices will hit a point where shipping food from the mainland or overseas will be prohibitively expensive.

Investigate Wind Power, tidal Power, Geothermal Power.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 28

Investing in Farmland Trust, farm training programs, healthy food in schools and encouraging policy that promotes food sovereignty.

Investing in more effective infrastructure.

Investment into public transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure should be the number one priority for the CRD Sustainability Strategy. By making strategic partnerships between municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government, the CRD can secure cooperation and funds for progressive transportation projects. By integrating light rail, bus, and cycling routes into a mass transit system, the region can support the core sustainability strategies of urban containment, mobility, reduction in GHG emissions, as well as increase potential economic activity and improve wellbeing of residents in the CRD.

Island self-reliance in food and energy - seek to radically reduce reliance on off-island energy and food supplies.

It is impossible for the southern part of Vancouver Island to ever be "sustainable" insofar as food supply is concerned unless the area reduces its population.

It might not seem like an important thing, but finding housing with a family is very difficult. We spent more than a year looking for a condominium close to downtown for our family of four. Almost all condos had a strata rule prohibiting children. We eventually bought a house in Brentwood Bay, since finding a house to rent or a condo to buy where we wanted to live was virtually impossible. We then had to buy a second car (because I was spending 9-14 hours a week on the bus) and now live far from where we want to live and have added a second car to the road. We both work downtown and our kids go to two different destinations (because finding daycare is also VERY expensive and hard to even find a spot). So, my recommendation: have family-only or family friendly buildings. Heck, how about family friendly neighbourhoods!

It’s tough to choose just one issue when housing and transportation are so interlinked, so its Low Income Housing with transport included.

I've lived in this region for nearly 2 decades. We have significant problems with poverty, homelessness, lack of even remotely affordable housing, lack of readily available and accessible mental health services, and a deer management plan that is a disgrace in Oak Bay. I can't offer any solutions, but the one item I have lots of experience with is deer so I will speak to that. The cull in Oak Bay is unworkable and nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. The folks in charge have not done their due diligence and appear to have no idea how deer function. Killing 25 deer does nothing except leave the equivalent of a power vacuum. 25 removed from the population invites 25 new deer into the area to set up housekeeping. A doe, with or without fawns will hold her territory just about as well as a buck and will drive other deer out of the territory, thus new ones not setting up housekeeping. The smart, humane and long term solution is birth control. Do a proper deer count, start tagging and start injecting. In an urban environment, it is safer for both humans and deer to have long term deer tenants than a revolving door of deer. Deer, and humans are adaptable. Having a steady herd that has had time to learn and adapt is far far better than constantly arriving new deer in the area that have not yet learned and adapted. We live in one of the most beautiful areas of Canada and one of the beautiful things about it is how close we live to the natural world. We have an abundance of flora and fauna to enjoy every day. To kill part of our fauna in an ill-conceived attempt to lessen people's inconvenience is the opposite of what we should be doing. We are one of the most adaptable species on Earth, let's get our heads together and do what we do very well, adapt and learn to live with the deer in a manageable fashion.

Just stop compromising with businesses/products/procedures we KNOW have massive long-term detrimental effects. Don't wait until we are in an emergency situation -- because we ALREADY ARE.

Keep all new growth within containment areas.

Keep an open mind and take a holistic, integrated approach. I suggest that many or all of your objectives (particularly regarding food, agriculture and the natural environment) will rely on encouraging/incentivizing private landowners to make a change in their behaviour or approaches to resource stewardship.

Keep away from farmland. Establish farm markets in neighborhoods, weekend school markets. Create community gardens in dense populated neighborhoods.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 29

Keep Growth containment area to existing Regional Growth Strategy boundaries - DO NOT EXTEND URBAN SPRAWL in any way - including extending water or sewage provision. Prioritize pedestrian transportation and walkability over ALL other modes of transportation.

Keep growth within clear-cut urban growth boundaries.

Keep growth within clearly defined urban growth boundaries.

Keep it simple. Participation by everyone who sets foot in the CRD. Communication. Stick to your vision. Look to other communities in the area to ensure you are not doubling work. What you want to do may have already been done and successfully, or not, look into that.

Keep land in ALR. Protect land that is in ALR from misuse. Either subsidize deer fencing or get rid of all those urbanized deer. Support decent pricing of vegetables. We cannot compete with American prices. They pay their workers much less than we do. I try to pay my workers a decent wage. Unfortunately I am not making money so am forced to downsize farming. Between the deer damage and costs, farming is not very viable.

Keep our agricultural land.

Keep our independent Municipalities, so that taxpayer input can be heard on the local level of each area. In this way, directly elected representatives in each municipality can make decisions on sustainable matters, with little interference from the bureaucracy.

Keep rural areas rural. no urban sprawl. discourage use of fossil fuels. Protect farmland. Have excellent public transit.

Keep rural and suburbia as self-sufficient as possible AND stop urban sprawl ...like urbanizing East Sooke and Otter Point - some of the most rural areas around Victoria.

Keep tax increases to a minimum.

Keep taxes down so our children can afford to live in the crd.

Land use planning facilitating sustainable buildings, transportation and preservation/enhancement of the natural environment.

Land Use. No more land is being created; need to utilize what we have in a manner that it will continue to provide housing, employment, food, health, recreation, green space, clean air, clean water and other necessities that will arise over time.

Large areas of natural mountains, woodlands, and coastlines. Develop existing communities into stronger self-sufficient denser communities with better transit options than cars or trucks. Scandinavian, European models.

Lay out a strategy to carbon test every product, function, policy, compound and procedure. The guiding philosophy may be found in Story of Stuff and Story of Broke, http://StoryofStuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/ and http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-broke/.

Leave it as it is. It is very nice living in a rule area. If I want high density housing I will move to Bear Mt.

Less development. There is not enough infrastructure to support the population we currently have.

Light rail.

Light rail train from West Shore areas to downtown. Encourage more animal, fruit & veg farming. Combine Districts into 3: Saanich Peninsula, West Shore, Center of Town.

Light rail transit to the ferry and airport, and make downtown an emissions free zone, allowing bikes and EVs only. A region wide solar subsidy campaign to put PV on all useable rooftops.

Light Rapid Transit.

Limit development to growth areas. Create liveable high density spaces while protecting as green and open spaces. Protect our forests, wild beaches and habitat. Support recreation.

Limit energy demand, promote renewables. strictly limit residential sprawl, promote non-auto travel. encourage agriculture: farm, community garden, homeyards. preserve natural areas with good but controlled access.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 30

Limit expansion of motor vehicle facilities and expand/improve pedestrian, bicycling and transit facilities.

Limit future growth to centres (with services), encourage sources of renewable energy in new building and retrofits, encourage consumption of local food.

Limit growth - cease development to attract, and focus on taking care of who is already here. Upgrade, don't replace. Maximize use, like encouraging green roofs, gardens, zero waste.

Limit growth in the region.

Limit growth to reduce transportation related GHG's.

Limit human expansion. We are comfortable with limiting other species, but not our own. We're subject to the same natural laws as other species, but are unwilling to change our thinking. Shift our collective values from focusing on material wealth as the only means of success to all the other ways that humans can direct their energies and enjoy life.

Limit population growth so that the sustainability objectives have a realistic chance of being met.

Limit population growth.

Limit population growth. The gates will have to close eventually, why not begin the process now?

Limit population. The earth is finite. So is this region. It can only support a finite number of people.

Limit the urban sprawl and improvement of public transportation; creating sustainable community in each region.

Limit urban sprawl.

Limit urban sprawl and improve existing transportation networks.

Limit urban sprawl. Make the E&N rails as far as Duncan available for LRT using road capable buses with drop-down rail wheels (such as are currently used on railroad service vehicles), which would allow the coaches to leave the tracks at each end of their commuter trip to distribute passenger to their home communities. Each of such coaches should be much less expensive than rail-only units of similar capacity.

Limit vehicle travel and improve public transit.

Listen to what residents say. I was tremendously disappointed that the previous North Saanich Council was allowed to contravene CRD goals even though 200 people wrote letters.

Listen to what the people in each region are telling you rather than calling meetings and then doing what you want to do anyway.

Local and renewable energy sources.

Local Food production. What is not factored into the report are emissions caused be the transportation and production of consumer goods (including food) brought into the CRD from outside. We need to encourage everyone to be more aware of those costs and have them look to ways to raise food locally.

Local power generation from sustainable sources, wind, sun, tidal and geothermal....

Low Carbon Lifestyles.

Low cost rapid transit.

Lower operating cost, can't move forward when average citizen is broke, your plans have cost high cost people can't afford please take the time to look at Greece Example your household garbage pick-up reduced seniors on fixed income by 84 dollars a year which equals one month without heat or lights.

Lower taxes and stop government sprawl. It is becoming unaffordable for young families and people on fixed incomes to live in our region because every municipality is competing with its neighbours. There are duplication of many services but no politician has the courage to upset the status-quo. This is not sustainable.

Lower the cost of water and encourage people to grow vegetable gardens.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 31

Lower the greenhouse emissions of our city by 80% as an example to the rest of BC and Canada and make a long term infrastructure plan to address alternative energy projects and prevention of onshore facilities through an infrastructure trust fund.

LRT.

LRT. Our traffic will only get worse. Idling is terrible. Connecting the different regions will benefit all regions and an inexpensive LRT system would we excellent. All the extra roadway can be used for cycling paths. Even though Victoria is the cycling capital on Canada, it has terrible cycling infrastructure.

Maintain and enhance agriculture.

Maintain and expand green space, farm land, and force urban development into defined areas, so the growth is vertical not horizontal. We cannot allow the continued expansion of the urban area. 'Housing' must be rigorously confined to definite areas.

Maintain farmland.

Maintain or increase the amount of arable land for farming.

Maintain our infrastructure in good condition, including all roads, trails, recreation facilities, etc.

Maintain our parks. Sell water cheaply, ditch the contrived "water shortage" and limits on watering. We live on the edge of a rainforest. We have just acquired the Leech watershed to be used in conjunction with the Sooke Lake watershed, but even it isn't needed till 2057. Abundant fresh water is a hallmark of our area. Don't buy into conservation notions that don't apply to our area. There is a need to conserve in say, California. That need does not exist here. To manufacture a "need" is to deny the residents of our area the benefit of our renewable natural resource - all for no net benefit.

Maintain our wild spaces, concentrating growth in our urban centres. Opposing non-renewable energy transport that could have catastrophic impacts on our coastal environment and the wildlife that depends on it, marine transportation infrastructure, and tourism.

Maintain roads to a higher standard, don't worry about protecting a few government employees with up grading earthquake standards, put sewage in the straight to feed the marine life.

Maintain the urban containment boundaries.

Maintaining active agricultural areas and maintaining green space.

Maintaining current urban containment, and optimizing the use of existing urban and suburban developed areas along with better transportation optimization and planning.

Maintaining current urban containment, and optimizing the use of existing urban and suburban developed areas along with better transportation optimization and planning.

Maintaining the green belt, continue to improve public transport infrastructure.

Maintaining wild areas and parkland. eliminate urban sprawl as in Langford.

Make a commitment to decrease the amount of new infrastructure and put funds into securing an earthquake proof downtown. No more box stores!!! Bring forward more farm to table restaurants and local markets.

Make it easy to ensure proper water catchment, by roof-systems, ponds, permaculture-style earth-work. Hire

Make public transportation and infrastructure a priority. The city of Victoria and its greater area would strongly benefit from having a streamlined transportation network including light rail (LRT). Allotting designated corridors such as Douglas Street to support this network can be a part of this plan. Supporting alternative forms of transportation will not only lower our dependence on single passenger motor vehicles and fossil fuels, but also create connected and prosperous communities. Public transportation, including bicycle lanes and trails are vital to the continued sustainability of our city.

Make sure that a much larger percentage of new dwellings are in high density areas within the Growth containment area, and many fewer than in the past in areas outside the Regional Growth Boundary. This means better development control, and more rational transport planning.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 32

Make sure that natural areas are not developed. Instead trees are planted wherever possible. Also, to ensure that the Rural Resource Lands are fully protected as a forest. All of these measures will be the best we can do to mitigate climate change. Also to create compact communities that are contained by the urban growth boundary.

Make sure there is still farmland and wilderness available for future generations.

Make sure we have a clean sustainable water supply, and plenty of green space.

Make the region friendly and accommodating for road users other than cars. This means no longer relying on tired platitudes about how we are the “biking capital” and instead creating physically separate bike lanes in large numbers, which is the one t

Make the region self-sufficient on food, fuel etc.

Making affordable incentives for the public to grow or purchase our Island grown healthy, hormone free, vegetables,eggs,milk,butter,cheese & meats, etc. to control disease laden fruits,vegetables, meats etc. coming in from other countries. Teaching the public how to eat healthy, to fight off many forms of cancer and other diseases.

Mass transit - harnessing the high rates of transit ridership in the CRD and making sure transit is among one of the top priorities residents and other commuters alike.

Mass transit from the western communities to Victoria, University, airport, and ferry.

Maximize tourism potential, we live in a world class setting that can be promoted and enjoyed for generations of locals and visitors - thus creating local employment, small business etc. the potential is phenomenal!

Mitigate sprawl and increase density. Density makes public transportation more efficient and cost effective. Density makes our downtown's more vibrant and sustainable. Density reduces the distances we need to travel to run errands, to get to work, etc. Density promotes healthier living when we can walk and bike for more of our daily life.

More access to affordable solar/wind energy for homes, condos & businesses as well as encouraging/supporting residents to adopt a "less is more" lifestyle with smaller homes, condos etc. We have many shops, restaurants & fitness activities all within walking distance--let's walk to these more often & encourage residents to shop local whenever possible! Love the Goldstream Outdoor Market at Vet Memorial Park!!

More bike lanes, increase cycling and walking routes.

More people walking and cycling.

More public transit. Light rail from downtown to Sidney/YYJ.

More public transport and solar energy infrastructure to reduce GHG emissions.

More public transportation with denser cities.

More self-sustaining island industry. Better food security, Reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles.

More sustainable transportation options.

More wild/undeveloped space and less development.

Most important? Have a serious global prospect, and not merely put energy into reacting to the fall-out. Recycling to us is: us dealing with choices made globally of over-packaging, over-chemical use, over-production etc. We should put as much effort into dealing with solutions of needing to do less recycling...Where are our products coming from? Why are we accepting/tolerating the excessive packaging that these produces are in? Why aren't we standing up for less packaging/garbage from these companies we choose to do business with? Given that most of our products are coming from China...time to put pressure on China and others...time for us to choose products with less packaging, time to choose biodegradable packaging...Please look at the bigger picture of why we are in this position, be creative with solution options, and look at our problems from a global perspective.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 33

Move away from unsustainable energy initiatives and towards solar, wind, and other sustainable energy projects. Encourage the switch with tax breaks, etc., while also creating jobs for the local economy.

Municipal amalgamation.

Need more parks and trails, beach access, because we have more people that need more outdoor recreation. This include access to water recreation for swimmers and small boats, which means it is important to keep our waters clean.

NO GROWTH!

No more deforesting.

No one action as they are intertwined. Sustainable re water, sewage, garbage, using the latest technology. Some new housing projects recycle sewage for water and heat which is great! More public transit. Local farming and foods given priority More public and affordable housing.

Norway has greenhouses that provide organic, hydroponically-grown tomatoes-on-the-vine, English cucumbers and leaf lettuce year round - in their cold winters - for the entire country. Why are we continuing to import produce we could grow ourselves?

Number 1 - Amalgamate Number 2 - Set more realistic goals.

Oh Dear! What a question this is. I feel that what is most needed is along the lines of a 'conversion' at the heart level. This requires that some measure of power be returned to and value placed upon the voiceless - the water-courses, native flora and fauna, rocks and earth and beaches. For that to happen, power must be given up, and the voices of the powerful devalued in significant ways. The outcome? Just imagine. For example, land value would be measured not by the human-wrought changes in km squared housing, but by the presence of creatures: garter snakes, frogs, raccoons, deer, butterflies, earth worms, crayfish, life-forms /cm. squared... You get the picture.

Online public forums on all decision making. Try this thing called Democracy mixed with the invent of the internet.

Open pipelines for transport...safer than rail and truck.

Pedestrian Walkways/Street Closures and Bike Paths, Increased low income housing/homeless accommodation.

Plan for sea level rise including coastal infrastructure.

Plan transit Corridors. Business and residential density near main corridors. Ensure safe cycling walking from and along corridors.

Preservation of our local farmland in the Capital Regional District to protect our local food security on southern Vancouver Island.

Preserve agricultural land and contain urban expansion. Higher density housing is great.

Preserve agricultural land and forest spaces!

Preserve Agricultural lands and Natural habitats.

Preserve all remaining natural habitats against development, degradation, and invasive species. No more damage through expansion into these areas. We are at capacity.

Preserve and enhance our ability to grow our own food, drink clean water, breathe clean air. This will mean greater density, affordable housing in all communities, more and easier access to public transportation systems, and urbanization done with human beings in mind, not cars.

Preserve and expand green space. Connect green spaces to encourage healthy urban wildlife populations. Develop a transportation plan that makes it convenient to travel without reliance on the private auto.

Preserve and protect the environment.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 34

Preserve and protect the rural areas -- especially in the unincorporated area of East Sooke. Keep the rural designation currently in place in East Sooke: do not change designation to rural settlement area. 90 to 100% of new development can be contained in existing urban areas of the CRD. Keep rural areas rural Green space, rural areas, ALR lands and Parks create an important balance/counterpoint to urban density.

Preserve existing agriculture land and stop expansion/urban development from encroaching onto farmland and wilderness areas. We all have to eat and need a source of clean water.

Preserve farmland and what's left of natural areas by curtailing urban sprawl.

Preserve Garry Oak meadows.

Preserve green space and quality of life, without forgetting the Triple Bottom Line of sustainability (social, environmental, AND financial.

Preserve greenspace and farm land.

Preserve natural spaces, reconnect residents with their environments.

Preserve our rural areas.

Preserve regional uniqueness - particularly green / wild land. Do not simply respond to market forces.

Preserve the natural areas, the reclaimed forested areas, the rivers, creeks, and beaches. Oppose the Cite C Dam because we will need the agricultural land. The dam is supposed to have a shelf-life of a century--what then? First Nations have lived in the Peace Valley for thousands of years. Save the area for its wild life, too. Stop giving building permits to big box stores, such as the late Target which no one needed in the first place. (Walmart is more than enough of that kind, with its poor treatment of its employees.) Take a new look at restricted parking on residential streets. For one example, give special permits, such as those given to disabled people, to care-givers and people who work night shifts. Why should shift-workers have to walk past empty residential streets after many hours of work? Not everyone can walk far or bike with a load of groceries.

Preserve what is left RIGHT NOW of our natural areas and farmlands. No more subdivisions, busy roads and big box stores. If anything, we should be reducing our human footprint. A tall order but we have to do what we can.

Preserve what little natural habitat remains and work to sustain and cherish it.

Preserving and restoring our green spaces. Protecting all of our agricultural lands. Keep development to a minimum and encourage density growth. We need rapid transport, more bike lanes and sidewalks and a sewage system.

Preserving farmland in the Capital Regional District in order to protect local food security in the region.

Preserve and enhance farmland. Encourage thru taxation farming of ALR lands, not fallow lands. Encourage our carbon sink.

Preserve what farmland we still have. Discourage urban sprawl onto good farming land.

Primarily, Abandon the use of cars as a mode of transport within the CRD. - I moved to Victoria in October 2014 and sold my last car so I now rely only on public transport and a bicycle. I sold my car because I do not wish to support a fossil fueled industry and may buy another car for regional travel when electric vehicles are mastered and a reliable network set up.. While the bus system is very good it could be improved for people travelling around the city in the late evening with better bus shelters in out of the way areas. There is a great need for improved safe cycle lanes in the inner cities. I intend to encourage my grandchildren in this plan. Secondary considerations Stop all the fossil fuel maintenance of our parks and create more natural open spaces that do not need mechanical leaf blowing equipment.

Promote and facilitate an energy efficient method of living. Create more protected green spaces and watersheds. Push back on the provincial government agenda of resource extraction and development. Divest from fossil fuels and unethical funds-push against the provincial government to do this. Increase good, affordable, public transportation that is convenient for people to use. recognize the right to a healthy life. Listen to and support first nations. Recognize the inter-relatedness of the complex details that form the big picture.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 35

Promote and support infrastructure for biking and walking.

Promote economic development.

Promote electrification of our road going fleet and several of the shorter public transit routes, bolster local agriculture for regional food security and enable the popularization/proliferation of working residential rooftops with water catchment, solar PV and solar thermal initiative to power the two transitions (moving us away from fossil fuels imported food dependency.

Promote farming.

Promote Long Term Sustainability by a fresh look at governance to increase transparency and accountability, avoid duplication, and adopt best practices, and include First Nations in the governance model. Within this, and related to governance: Get the Sewage problem solved in the best long-term environmental way (by being open to new technologies and systems and integrating solid and liquid treatments); and get a regional transportation plan that uses all modes, including rail and the E&N and integrated with BC Transit.

Promote sustainable local industries, agriculture and urban planning.

Promote the use of alternative energy sources, improved public transit, local food production, policies that restrict sale of toxic products akin to pesticide sales that pollute environment with plastics and micro plastics. Tax luxury use of fossil fuels, support moratorium on oil tankers, encourage bike traffic.

Promote use of clean energy with subsidies.

Promote, protect agricultural production on the Peninsula encourage urban centres to be intra dependent i.e. live, work, shop in our communities encourage and promote public transportation promote and encourage walkable communities.

Promoting a plant-based diet first to promote health among citizens and the eco-system. This strategy is optimal to combat continued resource depletion, along with environmental, societal and ethical issues which effects everyone.

Proper burning by-laws with real smoke control. Remove back-yard burning completely BUT provide a chipping composting service or contract a private business to do the same. Before you enact limitations on past practices ensure that alternatives are available so people aren't left saying... now what. 40 % of Salt Spring's fire hydrants do not work or supply enough water to fight a fire. With 14 water districts on one island nothing is coordinated or up to standard, we need somebody with coordination administration who collects taxes... hmmm who could that be?

Proper composting program and extension of the storm drain system.

Proper sewage treatment and local composting.

Proper sewage treatment, plain and simple. Sustainability of our ocean is as much a part of this as anything else is. The fact that our sewage is ushered into the ocean is despicable, and needs to be dealt with, preferably first, before anything else. It has been long overdue for far too long now.

Protect agricultural land from development and keep natural areas for future generations.

Protect agricultural land, minimize development.

Protect all existing farmland from housing or industrial development, and rights' of way for roads one proviso: if the notion of a composting facility should ever be resurrected, locating on agricultural land can be an option.

Protect ALR lands and do not allow these areas to be eaten up by municipalities for residential use. The same for forest lands.

Protect ALR lands, contain sprawl.

Protect and enhance agricultural land so that we can expand our local food supply.

Protect arable land and water sources. Limit roadways and building sites.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 36

Protect existing farmland via the ALR, and add more farmland where appropriate. Encourage young people to go into farming through matching young farmers with older farmers about to retire through a subsidized farm leasing program. Above with financial assistance to buy farms and subsidize start up for young farmers. Money from these programs could possibly come from removing subsidies to large operations in the form of gas and other "factory farm" subsidies. Any initiatives and support possible to encourage people in urban areas to grow food--community gardens, boulevard gardening. More bike routes in and out of urban areas. More subsidies for public transportation so fares can be kept affordable. Lots of publicly funded workshops and information sharing in person re putting down food, energy saving options, enviro/energy audit and retrofit grants and all things related to sustainable alternatives---education and action plans. CRD becoming more proactive in opposing big (and small) environmentally destructive projects in the CRD or affecting the area, like Shawnigan Lake dumping fiasco, tankers loaded with dilbit or LNG plying surrounding waters, reducing large vessel traffic in surrounding waters in general, like the huge container ships and current petroleum and coal carrying vessels.

Protect existing parks and green spaces and create new parks. At the minimum, maintain the current ratio of population to park/green space area. If we expect a tripling ( or heaven forbid 10 fold increase ) then increase the protected areas accordingly. There seems to be endless pressure to develop (i.e. build upon) undeveloped areas. One has to ask , at what point does that become unsustainable. Do we want to lose the very quality that makes the CRD desirable and liveable? Unless we have undeveloped natural areas enough for the population, we become just another concrete desert. Our family hikes and bikes in Sooke, Maple Bay, Saanich Peninsula, Thetis lake, Metchosin, Tsouhalem,Cobble Hill, Cowichan and the Trans Canada Trail, the Rail Trail and the Galloping Goose. These places are our medicine and our spiritual renewal.

Protect farm land, air, water, food sources. Educate people about reducing waste, living with less, driving less. Support walkers and bikers more than car drivers. Encourage and help subsidizing sustainable activities, solar panels for private and public buildings and houses, reduced traffic, etc. Look at the long term, not quick economic gains. Educate, educate, educate. Learn, learn, learn as much as possible about what's best for people's life for the future, for our kids and grandkids. It's better to have clean food, water, air, community.

Protect farming to stop the increasing dependence on imported food Improve public transportation systems to reduce carbon impact This question should not be limited to one thing - and you should have provided some choices or suggestions- specifics.

Protect farmland and encourage local - including home-based - growing options. Homeowners should be encouraged to grow more of their own food, with support and education for gardeners and personal poultry. Municipalities should have policies that allow removal of trees on southern exposures (if gardening can be proved) and allow the construction of small greenhouses on residential zoned properties.

Protect farmland and give incentives for sustainable practices that protect the region in terms of clean waterways and good setbacks from urban encroachment. Encourage small local business within the urban areas, and keep development to the urban containment boundaries.

Protect farmland and rural land in order to allow for healthy watersheds and to preserve areas for growing food to increase food security.

Protect farmland. Do not allow Energy Minister Bill Bennett to remove any more ALR land because of his personal agendas. Act in a democratic fashion. Invite town hall feed-back. Understand there will always be forces attempting to tempt government will economic gain if only they remove such and such a property from ALR protection. Make your word something tax payers can rely on. Integrity.

Protect farmland. In order to determine needs, the various components of the community need to be taken into consideration. Haphazard urban sprawl is not an appropriate housing plan.

Protect fresh water supply- watershed enhancement MUST be ensured for 50 - 75 years. allow more sensible and yes-height!! projects to get more people in downtown Victoria somehow ---- get the 13 municipalities to cooperate and ditch their turf mentality. The crd is no good if it can't see some values in some form of amalgamation. We are too small to pay for a sustainable future by each going it alone. ( NO MAN IS AN ISLAND TO HIMSELF ) if you think about it!!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 37

Protect green space and agricultural land, but remember the triple bottom line (environmental, social, AND FINANCIAL). One criticism that I have of politicians in general, and the CRD in particular, is that they spend the taxpayer money a bit too freely - it's far too easy to spend other people's money! Without affordability measures, this is a ridiculous exercise.

Protect green space and improve transportation infrastructure for all modes OTHER than cars: more walking, biking, and transit use will make us healthier and will make the region more liveable. Improve transit TO parks and other green spaces: as the urban areas densify, people (and animals) need easy access to a diversity of natural spaces.

Protect local arable land.

Protect natural lands Transportation that encourages transit - that really works Emergency preparedness protection for MARINE DISASTER (SPILL RESPONSE) in addition to Earthquake - our blue/greenways are sitting ducks for a spill.

PROTECT our agricultural land and protect our water! We can't eat $$!

Protect our regional water ways from fuel oil spillage Find a green solution to our sewerage challenge Increase public transportation Replace the Island rail to Comox support local organic food producers with markets, access to capital, local egg and meat processing plants.

Protect our rural and natural environmental spaces such as Maltby Lake in Saanich, maintain roads and lower speed limits...

Protect our watershed, protect our air by enforcing the no idling bylaw, encourage alternate forms of transportation, support low income housing.

Protect parks, preserve agricultural land, and contain urban sprawl.

Protect the ALR.

Protect the ARL and if possible increase it!

Protect water and farmland.

Protecting agricultural land.

Protecting farmland and containing urban growth is extremely important. We need to extend the use of public transport (rail and or bus) and cycle pathways. Parks need to be developed on former tree farm licenses instead of turning them over to developers.

Protecting forests and farmland from urban sprawl.

Protecting forests and farmland from urban sprawl. Wilderness areas for the ecological value of maintaining plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, sequestering carbon and providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Urban containment is very important as it conserves farmland for present and future generations, with the capital region having a finite supply of arable land.

Protecting green space, expanding green travel options.

Protection of agricultural land, in and out of the ALR and protection of the tree canopy.

Protection of all arable land. Ensure that lands that will be affected by sea level rise are protected from densification. Reduce our use of fossil fuels.

protection of farmland, actively encourage people to grown food (IE grow gardens not lawns), rapid transit from Langford to downtown, supported housing for those who need it, fixed injection site(s).

Protection of green belts and arable agricultural land; ensuring that our parks are protected without encroachment of housing developments or land uses located within park boundaries other than recreation; rapid transit corridors planned and well-maintained to connect outplaying and neighbouring communities; support for an Island hiking trail that would serve to draw outdoor enthusiasts to the Island.

Protection of green space.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 38

Protection of rural and natural areas, farmland, forests, marshes, etc., so that urban sprawl is not permitted to destroy even more habitat for wildlife. We have enough big box stores and must not think that more shopping malls with surrounding roads and residences are a good idea. Let's try to contain urban living so that there is a place for all other animals to live.

Protection of water and agricultural lands.

Provide for a variety of transportation choices, with a priority as follows: Transit (roadway and rail), walking and cycling, private car (pooling), private car.

Provide free permaculture design education to the public to introduce them to whole systems thinking and planning. Merge the investment into climate change mitigation and adaption with investment in 'climate-smart agriculture'. Promote "Keyline Farm Planning" to slow sink and spread runoff and even out moisture across the land. "Keyline farm planning is a comprehensive whole farm water management plan that uses natural landscape contours and cultivation techniques to harvest rainwater and build soil fertility. The central idea behind keyline design from a water perspective is to capture water at the highest possible elevation and comb it outward toward the drier ridges using gravitational forces, reversing the natural concentration of water in valleys. Maximizing the flow of water to the drier ridges using precise plow lines (or mounds) falling slightly off-contour slows the movement of water and spreads it more uniformly, infiltrating it across the broadest possible area. It is both a flood and drought mitigation strategy."

Provide sustainable jobs that also sustain the environment. Provide more commercial space to develop more businesses that will not only provide jobs to a growing community, but also make for a larger tax base. Bring building on par with what the community actually needs, and not what developers want to see. Most importantly, council needs to seriously stick to doing, and enforcing, what they say. Having money should not mean a person can do whatever they want in a community: nor does living in a place for any length of time grant people certain privileges.

Provide the infrastructure for improved public transit to decrease residents reliance on personal motor vehicles and promote local food production (and consumption). Be committed to growth containment areas, preserving our agricultural land as well as our wild spaces in the CRD. Continue to educate residents and children about sustainable lifestyle options and get people outside as much as possible - it's only through the appreciation of our natural surroundings that people will want to protect it!

Provide walking, hiking trails for the public.

Providing alternatives to the use of private cars. Reducing reliance on individual cars ties into so many sustainability issues and aspirations.

Providing for growth in urban areas as opposed to servicing development with water or sewer or both in fringe or rural areas. Avoid sprawl. Provide real direction and support for food security and encouraging large lots in rural areas to promote agriculture. This will mean protecting rural water sources, whether surface or groundwater and limiting service extensions onto rural lands. Stop sprawl into rural areas by having more density in urban areas. Be prepared to respond to service, infrastructure and social, needs in the future though.

Providing green transportation and increasing local food production.

Public transit and bicycle safe lanes; light rail system of some form, waste management to recover the waste resource for use (water, energy) like Malmo Sweden. CRD should share costs for bridges, transit, etc. into / out of Victoria CRD share costs for all public infrastructure available to all CRD public, not just Victoria, such as theatre, arena, etc.

Public transit, specifically, and less reliance on fossil fuels in the transportation sector, generally.

Public Transportation, district localized energy, and increased access to farmland.

Pursue a local model for FISCAL and FINANCIAL sustainability, stressing elimination and avoidance of deficits and debt. Our financial mission should be to "Lead By Example."

Put a price on carbon so the price truly reflects the externalities of the product, then use the revenue to mitigate against the worst impacts of climate change locally and provide grants/ loans to clean tech business to provide local green jobs and organizations undertaking climate mitigation.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 39

Put extra effort into sustainable agriculture. Support Young People to be able to farm, make it possible for suitable accommodation to be built on a farm to encourage them rather than a trailer-park boys mentality.

Quit spending money on stupid projects like this , and reduce taxation.

Rail transit, especially from the west shore.

Raise public awareness, get people involved, be real without causing fear, ask people for their ideas through a listening forum, encourage hope and possibility without sugar coating the reality of the situation. reach young people through education. Motivate the people to stand in unison in support of changes at the federal and provincial level. Raise awareness of the unique aspects of BC as compared to the other provinces.

Raising awareness of how our individual actions and choices have implications for the natural environment, our own costs, social capital, and how effectively we future-proof ourselves.

Rapid light rail transit.

Read this and tell others. Increase the water holding capacity of our landscape using biological cultivation practices and planning. Share meals and living spaces with people from diverse demographics. Use our bodies for activities that they have evolved with like walking (less driving), chewing (less processed food), thinking (more public input in problem solving) and creating from plant and animal fibres. Open source computer program for use in processing and analyzing financial data and filing Canadian taxes. Simple spreadsheets with government spending clearly broken down into a clear double entry accounting format freely available for download online.

Reasonable cost of food - local supply.

Recognize First nation sovereignty, implement permaculture landscape designs, grow locally owned and operated food production and support locally owned internet service providers.

Recognize First nation sovereignty, implement permaculture landscape designs, grow locally owned and operated food production and support locally owned internet service providers.

Recognize the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right.

Recycling.

Recycling of all materials, soft plastics and styrofoam included.

Reduce air pollution from woodstoves and fireplaces in high density areas. introduce law to eliminate burning garbage in same.

Reduce carbon emissions.

Reduce carbon fuel use.

Reduce consumption of energy, water and other basic needs to achieve the greatest possible balance between the population and what is needed to support it. We must therefore determine the limits to growth. Currently there is much talk about "growth", which inevitably means more consumption, but no discussion on when growth will have to end. Endless growth is eventually not sustainable.

Reduce densification.

Reduce dependence on energy sources that release greenhouse gases.

Reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Reduce auto use.

Reduce dependence on internal combustion engines.

Reduce emissions and prepare for climate change. For the world to survive, we have to reduce global emissions to zero by 2040. http://www.bcsea.org/2040-imperative If we do not achieve this, the carbon budget will be exceeded and catastrophe will follow. Food security and local organic food production is one part of the RSS plan that is low on details. We must limit pesticide use and encourage more and organic food production to create resilient communities. Address inequality and poverty in the region. Encourage the population to prepare mentally and physically for changes to come.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 40

Reduce ferry costs, grow our own food.

Reduce government costs and taxes, make living here more affordable.

Reduce government red tape and bureaucracy, encourage residents to become more self-sufficient and less wasteful, restrict densification to urban areas and maintain rural areas as green space and agriculture and animal husbandry (100-mile diet!).

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) through planning and actions. In other words, make reduced GHGs the organizing principle around which we operate as a community.

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Improve the use of transit to reduce vehicle emissions. This will require all municipalities to agree to increased density at transit nodes. Reduce building emissions - through better construction and more efficient structures.

Reduce human environmental footprint.

Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This means a overhauling our transportation system, retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, providing agricultural land for farmers, investing in green energy, developing a local economy. I can't prioritize one thing because climate change is such an enormous and imminent threat.

Reduce our GHG emissions through the measures outlined in this plan.

Reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2038. 61% is not enough.

Reduce our use of fossil fuels, grow more of our own food locally, and clean up after ourselves.

Reduce packaging and compost locally.

Reduce reliance on unsustainable energy (fossil fuels) by reducing their use through driving less, procuring from local sources that have traveled less, avoiding investments in and withdraw support from unnecessary non-renewable energy projects, and whenever possible investing in renewable energy, particularly solar energy.

Reduce sprawl, by building contained residential/commercial areas.

Reduce Taxes.

Reduce taxes by stopping wasteful activities like the present.

Reduce the desire and acceleration of consumer consumptive behaviors and encourage sustainable behaviors.

Reduce the minimum lot size for the ALR to 5 to 7 acres so that land would be affordable to small time farmers and market gardeners.

Reduce the number of daily trips with automobiles using internal combustion gasoline or diesel engines.

Reduce the poverty rate by 75%.

Reduce the size of Municipal Governments and CRD pay scales. The pay is unequal to the private sector. Most of the studies and surveys will be shelved as they will be unaffordable by the time they are completed ... yet regional government salaries and benefits will have increased. This is unsustainable as there are no caps on salaries ... As politicians, you can increase taxes to pay for the raises. When you reduce positions, the work won't get done. Perhaps some CRD departments can be eliminated when the municipalities work as a regional unit and share costs like: Police, Fire, Sanitation, Parks and Recreation, Irrigation from Sewage Facilities, Transit. Government offices must be divided throughout the entire region to reduce traffic congestion into the core areas.

Reduce traffic congestion / improve transit options for outlying areas.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 41

Reduce traffic congestion and offer more green alternatives like more bike systems or using the rail line for commuting from the West Shore to downtown.

Reduce, reuse, recycle and use our waste/garbage as an energy source not simply a treatment or garbage dump.

Reduce/eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

Reducing urban sprawl and encouraging low impact transportation choices such as bicycling and high efficiency public transit. Also promoting local food production both within city limits and in adjacent rural areas. Reducing urban sprawl should be a top priority both to preserve local farmland and to protect wilderness areas.

Reduction of fossil fuel-powered vehicle traffic more bike lanes & bike-friendly structure more support for public transportation more support for local food supply.

Reduction of gas emissions.

Reduction of GHGs and addressing climate change.

Reduction of non-renewable energy consumption.

Reliable, sustainable mass transit system between City of Victoria and western communities.

Renewable energy initiatives, like switching to local solar/wind power (offshore or otherwise). Reducing emissions from vehicles - encouraging people to switch to electric cars/bikes/public transport. Making public transport actually renewable instead of using the farce that is biodiesel, which encourages monocultures.

Replace private transportation with public rail services.

Require everyone to grow some of their own food. Support Sooke's economy so that it can truly be a part of CRD.

Respect our green space. Produce as much as possible locally.

Restrict urban development to precise areas or we will become just a mass of housing. Protect farmland and green spaces with vigour, and expand these. Make housing go vertical.

Restricting the use of private cars solely for commuting and greatly increasing the availability and scope of public transit. This in turn means containing urban sprawl by preserving current farmland and wild areas.

Retain and increase agricultural land.

Retain as much agricultural land as possible.

Retrofit urban and suburban areas for walkability: I believe acting on transportation-oriented design (TOD) principles and permitting higher building densities around priority bus lanes, streetcars and LRT will make the region viable and sustainable; simultaneously adding multimodal transportation infrastructure links to TOD â€“ bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure improvements for healthy walkable communities.

Rising sea level and shoreline infrastructure.

Save agricultural land and protect water.

Save all farmland from development, and recognize that our "economy" is beholden to our ecology - conserve habitat, ensure clean water, and focus on developing employment that does not wreck our ecosystems.

Save farm land, encourage local farming.

SAVE FARMLAND AND DO NOT ALLOW URBAN SPRAWL.

Save land that is suitable for food growth, medium scale as well as home use (i.e. yards and boulevards and parks) more safe cycling routes subsidized solar installations including the willing homeless is projects such as Richard LaBlanc's farm in Saanich.

Save remaining old growth and ancient forests. When gone their secrets and link in the ecosystem are gone forever. They are incredible carbon sinks, and we have not nearly begun to acknowledge their truth worth. They are not expendable.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 42

Save the natural environment from greedy short sighted developers and politicians of all stripes.

Saving more land and open spaces for nature, wild animals and farm areas for growing food. A community farm for every 50 homes built that people would support and buy product and fresh local foods. Each area needs to have a butcher, baker and market place as well. Huge open spaces, weather it includes live streams of water, water falls trails and spaces for summer concerts and market sales. All building structures to be built in a self-sustainable way throughout the community. Street areas and fronts planted with fruit trees, or other edible foods . Cut down on all the lighting on the streets. Stop the over development and keep what we can in a natural state and provide tourism for other countries to visit.

Secure water safety and land use affecting watersheds and source water.

Select a sewage disposal strategy that recycles water and solid waste, the latter to provide fuel for heating and/or generating electricity. Do not fill the Hartland site with solid sewage waste.

Self-regulation; the ability to make decisions that directly affect our area regarding water, land use, coastline industrial activity, food security, sustainable industry etc. These decisions cannot come directly and only from Ottawa.

Self-sufficient free energy from sea, wind and geothermal. Electric trains.

Separated bike lanes, secure bike parking downtown.

Shift away from fossil fuel use in the long term, and in the short term to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline and the resultant increased oil tanker traffic through the Strait.

Shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles.

Significantly improve public transit, e.g. LRT.

Slow down our population.

Slow to a stop horizontal expansion. Keep farm lands intact and productive. Develop community centers for people to meet and interact. Increase density but not car traffic, and parking.

Smart growth. Employment opportunities need to be located where the people live. Existing employers should be encouraged to relocate to where their employees live to reduce commuting or at least shorten the commute to where walking or cycling or a real option. Same goes for cultural and recreational facilities. We need to stop putting everything in the downtown core. We should be supporting the efforts like those in Langford. They are recognizing the need to provide these facilities to their residents, and those in the western communities. These two things will help us be a more sustainable region.

Solar Power, and installing Ev charging stations that are solar powered at the town centre, Seaparc recreation centre, crd office and municipal hall Have community district of Sooke and Crd workers driving electric vehicles around the area.

Start now to explore rapid transit to Victoria- This to include options for the rail line- too bad this was not built into the Blue Bridge debacle. whatever the route it will be the catalyst for increased density as has been experienced in the City of Vancouver.

Start up rail transit from Westshore and trams on Douglas corridor. We have to get people out of their cars and reduce the number of vehicles on our roads.

Start using the developed land first for housing and businesses . We need to think about building in height instead of spreading out , using farm or agricultural land . We really can't afford everyone to own acreage for a single family dwelling . Let subdivide in the existing housing areas or build up a few stories.

State-of-the-art tertiary sewage treatment system with resource recovery incorporated.

Stay out of the business of the local municipalities, let them determine where they what growth and food support areas.

Stop allowing corporations to run government. Protect parks and water systems. Move towards solar power.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 43

Stop basing your analysis on the past, and instead envision the future. In the past, Victoria was the transport hub due to the port. Today the hub of local transport it Saanich. In the future it is Saanich that will be the vibrant commercial and transport center of the CRD not Victoria. Victoria will be a place of shopping precincts, tourist destinations, retirement condos, and the legislature, whereas Saanich will be the city core. Even now Saanich has more people than Victoria, a larger area, and has more borders with other municipalities. In the future, Victoria will be a satellite community of Saanich. You may as well not fight it, but instead, begin planning for it. Even the name Saanich is more appropriate for the City of CRD, rather than naming it after some forgotten empress of some empire that no longer exists.

Stop deforesting.

Stop designing our city for cars and start designing it for health, happiness, sustainability, and community. And not incrementally--adding bike lanes here and there isn't enough--I mean making it easier for virtually everyone to walk, bicycle, or use transit rather than drive.

Stop development in the further flung portions of the region, especially the high growth areas such as Bear Mountain, Westhills, Royal Bay and parts of North Saanich.

Stop downsizing the ALR.

Stop flushing raw human waste into the PACIFIC OCEAN!!!!!

STOP POPULATION GROWTH.

Stop pouring sewage into the ocean. Get rid of the overpopulation of deer caused by zero predators. If you want balance, keep the cougars in town.

Stop spending money on unnecessary, money losing projects like sewage treatment and LRT.

Stop sprawl and intensify density / infill in already developed areas.

Stop tanker traffic going past Victoria!

Stop tankers. Deal with human waste by utilizing the methane for energy and create more food growing opportunities. Protect water sources.

STOP THE RAW LOG EXPORT ! We are not creating good mill jobs by shipping our logs off shore ! If we have no or low milled lumber order now , save the trees for future generations . They will only increase in value.

STOP THE RAW LOG EXPORTS !If milled lumber orders are low save the trees for future use by our children and grandchildren , the trees will only increase in value.

Stop the spread of runaway development we do not have the resources to support it.

Stop trying to grow ourselves at a massive rate...Say what you will...the more people we have...the poorer is our collective quality of life... It seems the entire Municipal mandate is to grow...more of everything...mostly dense housing...I say be careful what you wish for...

Stop urban sprawl - increase soil fertility of land.

Stop urban sprawl and land subdivisions completely by restricting growth to only within the Growth Containment Area, increasing density only within existing urban areas, not allowing any new growth or subdividing in the Rural Settlement Lands, stopping the allowing or possibility of allowing of removals from the ALR lands, not allowing the eventual widening the of the Sooke Road or the expansion or re-routing through resource lands of the Trans-Canada Highway. Officially renaming the Resource Lands to be called the "Juan de Fuca Wilderness".

Stop Urban Sprawl and tighten regulations on emissions (diesel fumes etc.).

Stop using non-renewable sources, and try to combat and improve upon environmental issues as a nation.

Stop water restrictions already, you complain about losing money and increase the rates. This is ridiculous and unnecessary, let us water when we want already.

Strengthen the urban containment border to protect the rural/agricultural land from sprawl and make the city more attractive through parks and green areas.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 44

Stress the imperative of adopting sustainability principles.

Strictly contain growth and development within the Urban Containment Boundary. This will inherently support the other very important objectives of maintaining a healthy ecosystem, food production capacity, and viable low-GHG transportation system. Developers must not be allowed to influence / usurp municipal decision making and threaten this overall regional imperative.

Strongly increase the supply of high density, centralized housing, with a focus on glamorous high-income units, but including a full income mix. High density housing must become culturally and socially desirable to prevent sprawl. The cultural bias towards white-picket lots must be re-oriented.

Support affordable housing via densification in the urban core as well as increasing density in suburban areas via appropriate zoning allowances for townhomes/duplex/triplex and legal suites and legal small houses on existing residential lots.

Support farmers, make local food production our top priority.

Support local agriculture.

Support local farmers and increase the supply of locally grown food, while ensuring that the growing practices are ethical and pesticide free.

Support local farms and businesses Start supporting green projects of all types and, for goodness sakes, build a sewage treatment plant!

Support local produce in a much broader way - farming, vending, buying...

Support local production which in turn supports a LOCAL supply chains. Stop spending tax dollars building and maintaining roads and parking lots for cars and trucks. FUND Education initiatives in K-12 and post-secondary institutions to promote students projects in gardening, bike repair, cooking in season, low cost recreation programs and programs to promote students involvement with community groups. Promote the development of low cost housing.

Support urban agriculture, local farms and other avenues for development of locally owned individual and family operated agriculture and horticulture.

Supporting alternative energies, watershed protection.

Sustainability includes social, economic and ecological sustainability. Each of this attributes should be analyzed for sustainability as a part of the whole, and on its own. When treated sewage and wastewater are disposed into the ocean, what is the impact on the ocean? Should be look at anaerobic digesters. Economic - support local businesses and education. Social - deal with homeless situation, the income gap, especially in the Gulf Island which is listed as "other" in this survey. Food sustainability - protect the ALR for future generations, even if land is not currently farmed it could be in the future. Support local farming.

Sustainability involves resilience to unpredicted change. The proposals will actually make our region more brittle and less resilient, increase the cost of housing and make life more difficult for people who are less able to cope with some of the pressures on us, including financial, physical health, environmental and social.

Sustainable transportation network that makes is easy and safe to walk, cycle and take transit.

Switch away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Take into consideration transportation implications of future developments.

Teaching our youngsters the value of looking after the soil. They should be taught that we must feed the soil as it feed us. Teach them that composting is an excellent practice. Composting on site is the best way to feed your own patch of ground with your food scraps.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 45

That there should be a more progressive consensus at the CRD tables; if old conversations and attitudes towards certain municipalities continues as in the past couple of years, then a sustainable future is harder to attain and to move forward - there should be no targeting or regional blame placed anymore but to understand why decisions are made on behalf of particular municipalities - in terms of amalgamation, the above regional targeting would be ongoing (have witnessed this) - however, shared services in terms of first responders - that is across the whole region - would establish a viable and progressive future - this also includes infrastructure - transportation, waste water treatment as well as cross region cooperation with respect for all citizens who contribute to their neighbourhoods... In terms of choosing those who sit at the committees - indeed Mayors should chair - but committee members should citizens rather than council members and those citizens from across the region should be non-partisan and one region or municipality should out number in terms of voting - there should be favoritism nor coercion of any kind by chairs towards those committee members - education, social involvement should be part of the selection of those committee members...there should be no weighted votes...

That we work together, that we work as communities, that we direct business, industry and individuals to be accountable to sustainability I will be entering only data for one section at a time as yesterday, this program looped back to the beginning and tossed all my input.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter appreciates this opportunity to provide its views on the CRD’s Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS). We also wish to acknowledge the “Consortium on Regional Sustainability” for its Sample Regional Sustainability Feedback Form Answer, which provided us with much useful information and analysis as we developed our responses to the Draft RSS. 1. What do you think is the most important action we should take as a region to become more sustainable for future generations? The CRD should prioritize efforts to create compact, “complete” (i.e. incorporating within them as many as possible of the required services of a community), cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries. It is critical to integrate transportation planning with community planning as a means to realize such communities. This connection is indicated on p.83 of the draft RSS. That is, transportation resources need to be shifted from infrastructure that supports single occupancy vehicle travel to planning, facilities and services that support sustainable transportation, reduce sprawl, encourage "complete streets" and compact, walkable, bikeable communities. Reference: http://www.8-80cities.org, Gil Penulosa We note the goals of the Climate Action Charter, of which the CRD is a signatory, which state under section 5(a): Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: â€¦ (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act: [a regional growth strategy should work towards (a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; (b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). We encourage the CRD explicitly to link land use patterns with reduced GHGs in its Draft RSS. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 46

The big picture is the root of the problems this strategy is working to address, which is presented here mainly as Climate Change. While impacts of a changing climate are real and potentially profound, what it the purpose of this work it if fails to adequately address the social and economic conditions that have created the problem of climate change. Climate change is the result of economic and social models that have allowed for our society to participate in the systematic destruction of the planet's regulatory systems through processes of resource over-exploitation and imperialism, both of which are alive and well in the CRD; both of which continue to pose threats and create negative impacts for people and the environment here today. By this I am saying that we must work to address the harms of inequality and greed that are encouraged in this capitalist system, and work to meaningfully develop economies that rely on collaboration and cooperation with nature and are inclusive to all people. We must work to support indigenous people in their resurgence and work from the guidance of elders and community leaders in those groups. We must give every person who lives without a home or stability opportunities to live well. We must re-distribute the wealth earned by those who have succeeded the most in the game of capitalism and exploitation. We must give nature more than half, and be willing to give up certain lifeways in recognition that the way we have been doing things here has effectively eroded the livability of the planet. This plan (the RSS) is wonderful, progressive and I am proud of the work that has been done here. But it is not enough. It is not the radical document that will wake us from our harmful, greedy stupor and inform our culture to live better, with respect for nature, with values of justice, equity and love at the core of the system which defines each of our everyday lives. The most important action we can take as region for a more sustainable future is to culturally shift the ways we operate as a society. We need not focus on how we move between where we work, shop, live and play, or the efficiency of the buildings we do those things in. We need to develop cultural norms that prevent greed and ensure equity and justice. The CRD should entrench more deeply the notion that the way we operate as a society is harmful and needs to change, not be because the climate is changing, but because it is harmful.

The CRD ('We') should promote the basic tenants of the Regional Growth Strategy in way that individuals, communities, and governments can adopt themselves to. Most people I know don't know anything about it!!!! Don't do it for us but support processes of uptake and adaptation in community and peer to peer settings. Support empowered healthy communities and social learning processes that provide the knowledge and motivation for change, adaptation and resilience while disempowering those forces that undermine sustainability and democratic community governance. A system approach is necessary but might I believe in an urban core with supportive but autonomous peripheries, a dynamic and innovative economy with reduced footprint, and a healthy society of happy and creative people living and working in a supportive environment.

The CRD cannot take action to solve the one problem that is threatening this and other regions in the future, That is the unfettered growth of poverty and homelessness through a sadly lacking legal system and mental health initiatives. These are provincial and federal matters and only they can deal with them. Sadly the courts encourage irresponsible behaviour and our "social safety net" spends too much time and resources picking up the pieces. Our humanity as Canadians is the most destructive force in our country today.

The CRD is facing a number of issues, but the most important in my view is transportation and sewage. The CRD needs to invest in the E&N line and make that a viable option for commuters from Langford (through CFB Esquimalt) and into downtown. Lisa Helps has indicated her support for this even though the long term may require another bridge to be built. To not fully exploit this already existing corridor and the funds from the province and the federal government would be a huge waste. Moreover, transit between Uvic/Camosun and the downtown core still needs improvement. As a UVic student, I (along with many others) very often are passed up by full buses or become absolutely squished getting on a bus - again, these institutions are here to stay and if you look at the ridership and vehicle volume on Hillside Rd and McKenzie Ave - rail would be the most efficient alternative. But it is expensive, I understand. However, I am yet to see any proposal or investigation into their feasibility. The next issue that personally affects me is sewage. I currently live on a house that is still on septic but will be forced by the city to soon attach to the sewer system. This will obviously be expensive and we are worried about the associated costs. Indeed, further than that sewage treatment and getting a plan that is sustainable for the whole region is really important. Again, the fed and provincial money is there and the CRD has got to make it work.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 47

The CRD is not affordable particularly for youth and seniors-fixed income. It is disappointing that there are no direct strategies or specific targets thus related. This issue dictates how resources are available for all the targeted strategies and actions. This sensitivity is not reflected in this study. Taxpayers believe we do not have a sustainable tax regime. Many of the plans that targets are being set for are "nice" to have, not must haves.

The CRD needs to do a better job of forecasting what jobs will be in demand 25 years from now. That will help us grow (or attract) the right kinds of employers. In 1990, few would predict that we'd need so many smartphone app developers and social media managers. It's particularly clear we'll need way more workers in several fields, such as elder care and renewable energy. How will the CRD make that happen?

The CRD should do what it can to make better use of our farmland. Our region stores enough food in stores and warehouses that, in emergency situations, would sustain our population for little more than a week or two. Only 5 percent of B.C. farms are in the CRD, though we are 8 percent of the province's population. B.C. farmland generally is not well used, with too much focus on beef and dairy production. We should be growing substantially more fruits and vegetables in big greenhouses, yet farmers haven't been getting enough support or subsidies for such expansion. The Agricultural Land Reserve must not only be protected by strengthened.

The CRD should practice truthful transparency. This farcical survey / consultation is intended to be capable of reparsing and manipulation to convey apparent populist legitimacy for any priorities chosen by the CRD on the covered and or on any other issues not covered in the terms of reference. I participated in the Regional Growth Strategy and it is apparent that this Regional Sustainability Strategy is intended to deliver more flexibility to the CRD for the allocation of development oriented business opportunities rather than meet the established public expectations in constraining the consequential impact of human occupation by limiting the scale of residential development of the region. The CRD is framing itself to sell the sizzle but not the substance of environmental sustainability. In short, the CRD has lost the confidence of the public on the growth management and sustainability briefs and recovering will require a serious commitment to principled transparency rather than public awareness manipulation and spin control.

The CRD should prioritize efforts to create compact, “complete” (i.e. incorporating within them as many as possible of the required services of a community), cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries. It is critical to integrate transportation planning with community planning as a means to realize such communities. This connection is indicated on p.83 of the draft RSS. That is, transportation resources need to be shifted from infrastructure that supports single occupancy vehicle travel to planning, facilities and services that support sustainable transportation, reduce sprawl, encourage "complete streets" and compact, walkable, bikeable communities. Reference: http://www.8-80cities.org, Gil Penulosa We note the goals of the Climate Action Charter, of which the CRD is a signatory, which state under section 5(a): Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act: [a regional growth strategy should work towards (a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; (b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). We encourage the CRD explicitly to link land use patterns with reduced GHGs in its Draft RSS. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

The CRD should promote its plan better. Nobody I know knows about it.

The most important action is to balance growth to match food and water, and energy supply. In the event of either a natural hazard/disaster, or due to the impacts of climate change (whether it impacts economies, or agriculture), we have to at least be at a point where we can resiliently meet the basic needs of those whom live here. If we are unable to meet those needs quickly when requested, then social upheaval will lend to collapse of systems and order. Growth limits for the region must be agreed upon, and then energy, food and water infrastructure must be matched to that.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 48

The most important action is to reduce GHG emissions by greatly increasing public transit (including light rapid rail and a refurbished and efficient E&N Railway), substantially expanding bike and pedestrian roads and lanes (separated from car traffic), encouraging academic institution and corporate bus pass programs, switching all community-owned vehicle fleets (including BC Transit vehicles - buses) to zero-emission vehicles and by greatly expanding the region's tree-planting programs, including fruit and nut trees.

The most important action we should take as a region to become more sustainable for future generations is to achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles and to invest in supportive transportation infrastructure and facilities for ZEVs. This type of progressive, long-term thinking is needed to support a reduction in greenhouse gasses in our area.

The most important as a region is the establishment of criteria for measuring the effects of our decisions on global warming. In other words will our decisions increase global warming?

The objective (substitute "Victoria" for "LA"): http://www.thestrategycenter.org/sites/www.thestrategycenter.org/files/imagecache/promo_image/promo/lcscwebsite1.jpg The means (substitute "100" for "1000"): www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/1000-more-buses-1000-less-police

The protection and preservation of the natural environment. It's priceless and part of our heritage. Once it's gone it can never be replaced.

The RSS must be bold and legally tough to protect against industrial development interests. Reducing carbon emissions, preserving arable land and increasing the capacity for urban agriculture.

The xxx action items I think are most relevant to a more sustainable future are: 1. Support to local farmers (tax breaks, distribution networks, local markets) 2. Transportation diversification (commuter train, trail networks, bus lanes, more efficient transport corridors) 3. Solar, wind power encouragement for all residences, business, industrial. 4. Waste to Energy plant for garbage/biosolids at Hartland landfill (will reduce costs into the future while providing marketable products to be reused with industry) 5. Biodiesel Co-op support (this will help to reuse canola and other oils a second time with the added bonus of being non-toxic if spilled and reduced CO2 levels).

There are several necessary actions: 1) Require that all new building meet maximum standards for low energy input and loss; 2) Require that all renovations meet the same standards so far as possible; 3) Improve the transit system by making transit more convenient, more affordable, and more efficient, including building light rail in corridors of heavy traffic and using hybrid buses where feasible; 4) Increase the carbon tax to a level that will impact usage; 5) Increase the densification of all new building to retain as much green space as possible; 6) Support the Land Conservancy financially to enable it to hold sites needed for historical, environmental, and social purposes; 7) Allow and provide legal and practical support to urban food gardens; 8) Provide an efficient and legally safe recycling program for food wastes, which is not prevented by NIMBY actions; 9) Provide recycling for all possible items, including plastic, styrofoam, electronic ,and other wastes.

Think only in terms of developing green initiatives and strategies in every aspect of our daily lives.

This is far too simplistic of a question to be asking in the context of this exercise if you are looking for clean creative feedback.

To allow for a diversity of densities within the CRD, need to create compact, well-defined growth boundaries, enabling rural areas to exist across the CRD. I note that East Sooke is designated as a growth area outside park boundaries. Every OCP that East Sooke has completed over the past 18 years has called for containment areas for growth within defined areas, to continue a rural life style and promote preservation of the environment. So why is East Sooke designated differently from Metchosin??

To assist the population in being more conscious about its values, then having the Strategy help implement the actions needed to support those values. Contented, thriving communities don't require triple garages, larger walk in closets, or fresh strawberries in January.

To be truly and completely sustainable, I believe we need to have a comprehensive study of the carrying capacity of the CRD to know how many people we can actually support, and then make decisions based on that. We need to protect enough farmland to ensure we have enough to feed ALL CRD residents in the future.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 49

We cannot expect any other country/province/area to set aside agricultural land for the CRD residents if we are not prepared to do it for ourselves. We need to do more than protect it, we need to actively work on what we need to get it farmed: training farmers, supporting infrastructure, making sure new farmers can get access to farmland. We need to send a very strong message that farmland (and not just ALR land) will stay farmland, so that we don't have development pressure pushing the price of farmland out of reach of new and young farmers. I can't stress how important I think that message is. If that can come across loud and clear, the price of farmland will go down, and become more attainable to new farmers. This will also require drawing very clear lines around urban areas. Many European countries have done this: we see towns clearly delineated, and farmland surrounding them. The towns do not encroach on the surrounding farmland. We assume there must be strong development pressure, but the government has recognized how critical the food security component is to overall sustainable governance, and those lines become inviolate. I have read the full RSS draft, and believe that this step meets all the objectives outlined.

To develop an integrated solid and liquid waste control and treatment system that minimizes toxins released into the environment and maximizes water and energy recovery.

To enhance the cultural life of the region. Culture and the arts creates a healthy environment which sustains a healthy lifestyle and is the economic future of the region.

To ensure the region is resilient in the face of changing economics, changing environment and in the face of natural disaster.

To have an ambitious and measurable action plan with annual public reporting. As priorities tackle reducing GHG's from transportation and buildings.

To improve public transportation and support environmental friendly transportations like walking and biking.

To lessen car traffic, have the E&N run from Duncan or thereabouts in the morning, to arrive downtown by, say, 8:00 a.m., and leave Victoria for Duncan at, say, 5:00 p.m.

To limit land development to present urban containment boundaries and in Central Saanich to follow the OCP.

To move more quickly towards being low-carbon, relocalised, human-scale and resilient communities.

To protect natural areas and farm land, while strictly containing growth within existing urban areas.

To reduce GHG by significantly increasing use of public transit (including the E&N), bicycles, walking.

To significantly reduce total Greenhouse House Gas emissions in our collective region (all municipalities).

To vitalize downtown and keep the neighbourhoods family orientated with smaller apartment buildings.

Traffic congestion, rapid transit and infrastructure. Especially important is a deer cull this year! Treatment of sewer.

Transportation.

Transportation ,get on with the E & N.

Transportation comprises the greatest slice of the GHG emissions pie. Incentivizing transit ridership and cycling through more accessible, safe, and attractive infrastructure is fundamental. For inter-municipal transportation, integrating transit and cycling, as well as having excelling travel corridors will be necessary.

Transportation.... including cars & trucks not just biked & public transit.

Understand that our economic system is not sustainable and start preparing for its collapse. As well understand that climate change reduction actions must by undertake now and even with that many things in our society will be changing with the change in our climate and in our local weather.

Unsure.

Urban containment.

Urban containment.

Urban containment.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 50

Urban containment.

Urban Containment and preservation of remaining green spaces.

Urban Containment and protection of arable land and wilderness.

Urban containment boundaries adhered to.

Urban containment is necessary for a sustainable future - protecting precious watersheds from contamination, and arable land for local food supply is a must in unpredictable and unstable economic and environmental times (less rainfall in summer these past two years, for example). Increase in population does put a demand on the environment we live in, but makes protection even more important, as we do not have an unlimited supply of water or arable land, if we should need it (food transport and costs have risen exponentially in the last decade).

Urban containment with sea to sea greenbelt and continuous habitat corridors. Walking and cycling infrastructure. Alternative energy and truly, deeply green sewage plan.

Urban containment, agricultural land not released for any development.

Urban containment, end sprawl.

Urban containment, protection of farm and wild green spaces.

Urban containment. I believe that preserving natural areas is not only fundamental to environmental protection in the CRD, but also to its character and the well-being of residents.

Urban containment. Seriously, putting a hard barrier to any further growth of suburbs (with appropriate exceptions) is a top priority. We can fix other things anytime but we can't degrow cities.

Urban planning focused on increasing density and reducing sprawl: - increased housing density where appropriate - increased public transit between density hubs - increased public transit from outlying areas to density hubs (i.e., Langford; Victoria; uptown) - increased recreation density where appropriate (facilities to handle more rec/sport users in existing parks) to handle a larger number of residents (build and plan facilities before the need for them becomes critical) - increased focus on high density dwellings that can support young families (i.e., condos with 2-3 bedrooms and soundproofing to handle kid noise).

Urban Sprawl Containment. I, as a young person of 20, am concerned about the wildlife and our environment. I want to see our greater region work hard to make sure we don't extend bigger roads and bigger suburbs into areas that should be protected and kept safe. I don't want to see an increase in the use of fossil fuels and would rather that people work to make the area we already inhabit to be more sustainable and innovative.

Urban sprawl/planning to protect forests and farmland Reducing pollution/emissions by putting an overpass at hwy1/Mackenzie Sewage treatment plant.

Urban, or suburban agriculture. This improves social sustainability due to people being out in the yards more and connecting with community members over something everyone loves. Food. This improves economic sustainability because people will, ultimately, be spending less at the grocery store on food and will be able to sell excess to the local community or stores. This will improve environmental sustainability because it will turn the vast amount of acreage that Victoria currently has locked up in grass lawns into productive pieces of the city, not to mention cutting down on transportation costs of fruit and vegetables from elsewhere in the province and the globe.

Use ALR wisely - use it effectively. Contain housing to more high density rather than sprawling everywhere. Some municipalities are not committing for affordable homes - we have to look to the future.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 51

Use balanced transportation (modes and choices) as the basis for regional urban Planning AND try to reduce the necessity of competition between municipalities for density growth (i.e. tax base growth). Transportation, Urban Planning, and lifestyle choices of residents are key (but not the only) factors that define the limits to sustainable regional growth. As it stands, we presently have 13 municipalities that portend to work together, but in reality, must compete with each other for limited Provincial and Federal funding for infrastructure, as well as for developers to invest in the visions of each of their 13 individual official community plans. This is particularly an issue for the office and retail components of medium and large-scale mixed use developments. There are only a limited numbers of potential tenants for this space, hence the regional market can only absorb so much space in a given year. We effectively see competition between municipalities who are working against each other to secure developments, as well as major transit routes so they can grow their tax bases and promote sustainable living options (i.e. live near where you work). A well-coupled transportation & density model (i.e. developing higher capacity transit systems such as LRT) depends strongly on having not only sufficient ridership to justify the cost of the transit investment, but also having residents who value the personal, societal, and environmental benefits of public transit and active transportation over private vehicles. That said, the CRD must recognize that a significant portion of the population of the CRD require private transportation, whether it be for convenience (families with small children going to daycare), elderly (mobility issues), tradespeople (require daytime mobility), disabled, or professionals. Thus, balanced transportation investment coupled with increased density along major transit routes should ensure a gradual transition towards a residential populace who value sustainable and healthy lifestyles, while maintaining minimal disruption to those who cannot shift their transportation / workplace or living situation. The current level of road congestion during the rush hour periods is unacceptable from an environmental standpoint (greenhouse gas emissions from idling cars), as well as local air quality along major roads (noxious fumes from idling vehicles in residential areas). Stop the inter-municipal competition and fighting, and truly start working together to plan and grow this region sustainably and effectively.

Vastly expand/improve alternative transportation networks, facilities, and timing. This includes: ~public transit that has priority over single vehicle traffic, while using "green" fuels or electricity; ~protected and separated bicycle paths wherever possible; ~lowered speed limits along major bike corridors where separated paths are not possible; ~increased incentives for commercial/business/apartment developers to incorporate smart transportation alternatives (including end-of-trip bike facilities and showers); ~subsidized transit fares and "free zones" and "free corridors"; ~bike share; ~larger park and ride areas, or decked multi-level, or more of them; ~more bike lockers at transit hubs; ~water taxi transit between west shore areas/esquimalt/downtown; ~more native trees and shrubs in parking lots and streetscapes.

Vigorous shift to active & mass transportation, plus controls on urban sprawl.

Walkability, sidewalks to connect complete , mixed use neighbourhoods.

Waste collection, sewage, transportation.

Water.

Water and energy efficiency, housing density, contain urban sprawl, adequate public transit to greatly diminish private car use.

Water leak detection, energy efficiency programs, public transit , tax incentives for efficiency.

Water treatment and urban containment.

We are facing some major concerns with climate change which, for the most part, our area to date has gotten away without major issues. However, that is going to slowly change over the next 20+ years, and further, we have a global responsibility not to add to the hardship of those living in more vulnerable regions of the planet. As such, we need to make every effort to promote and, if necessary, subsidize alternative energy options, and conservation, water and soil conservation, local food production, better, more logical mass transit, and develop social incentives for people to make these changes. Basically, habitats such as ours must go further toward “making up” for the damages which will occur as less developed countries embrace the “progress” we have taken for granted for decades. As a wealthier area of the world, all of Canada needs to participate in greater remediation than other less wealthy areas.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 52

We live in a digital economy. Within that context, many cities are planning to make systems at all levels more efficient and effective by making them "smart" (i.e. by connecting people and things into networks and by allowing open access to the "big data" those networks produce to increase citizen participation in decision making). Doing this requires ownership of the local broadband network as a public utility and as an absolutely critical element of infrastructure. This strategy contains absolutely no reference to the need to network the systems that it does address. How can this be a 25 year plan if it ignores the nature of a digital economy and the adaptive systems it make possible?

We must seriously and vigorously tackle climate change and we must succeed in overcoming the problem we've created.

We need compact urban communities. We must protect farmland and green space. We must make our communities as walk-able and bike-able as possible. We need communities where people of all ages have shops and other amenities in easy reach in a short time. We should encourage boulevard gardening and other greening of our neighbourhoods. We should encourage neighbourhoods going to solar energy.

We need food accessible to all residents of the Victoria region. We need a revitalization of our shorelines as food sources for our Indigenous people, we need berry bushes and fruit trees in all parks and on school properties and on boulevards. WE need to shift towards a food systems that is in our face daily and that food is growing and accessed daily by children, elderly and families. We need food programs that take this food and build communities through food.

We need LRT, the sooner the better; there are dozens and dozens of smaller communities than Greater Victoria all over the world that have LRT - if you build it people will come and use it daily!

We need spaces created for the sole purpose of bringing people from all demographics together to share food and news.

We need to achieve an increased level of workforce housing on the Saanich Peninsula, which should include certain areas of North Saanich and where possible Sidney.

We need to contain our footprint on the landscape, protect wild spaces, restore degraded ecosystems, make our transportation and energy infrastructure more efficient, and convert our economy to thrive without dirty fossil fuels.

We need to integrate land use with sustainability. That we've moved from an RGS to an RSS is great; that we have changed Juan de Fuca's Settlement Containment areas into Settlement areas that encompass everything except parks and ALR is a disgrace, and seriously undermines the entire effort. Part of the problem is our willingness to accept the lure of short-term employment opportunities that have enormous long term community and environmental costs. Developments in places with no infrastructure, physical or social, come immediately to mind.

We need to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

WE NEED TO MAKE VERY SURE THAT WE PRESERVE ALL THE WONDERFUL NATURAL BEAUTY THAT BC IS SO FAMOUS FOR. WE CERTAINLY NEED TO PRESERVE OUR FARM LAND FROM URBAN SPRAWL BECAUSE OUR LIVES AND THE LIVES OF FUTURE GENERATIONS DEPEND ON OUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE FOOD. WE NEED CLEAN AIR AND UNPOLLUTED WATER AND SPACE TO BREATHE. GOD MADE THIS LAND SO BEAUTIFUL...WE NEED TO PROTECT IT...LOVE IT...AND RESPECT IT.

We need to preserve the land and ecosystem that makes the island and CRD district so unique and attractive to not only ourselves, but tourists and visitors from all over the world. That is the way to sustainability and indeed, prosperity for one and all in a more equitable way than those who level the timber lands, pollute the waterways and kill off the animals and entire ecosystems for visions of LNG and Kinder Morgan pipelines. We need to preserve and stop the urban sprawl that is annihilating the environment and all the creatures in it.

We need to protect our pristine environments and natural forests to preserve native flora and fauna, and curb development that encroaches on agricultural land reserve.

We ought to keep our ecological footprint as small and localized as possible, live with our beautiful nature and protecting of our built and cultural heritage.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 53

We should aim to grow locally more of the food that we consume and to do that we should protect more of the arable land in our community.

We should develop a broader view of what constitutes a healthy community that in particular includes the influence of arts and culture on wellbeing and social health. The current draft is good, but has been developed from a rather narrow perspective.

What is this? A blank page again, after I just answered everything in great detail.

Whenever property is rezoned at a property owner's request, which makes it more valuable, tax the property retroactively as if it had always been at the zoning level requested. This would help pay for services to help those below the poverty line become positively integrated into our CRD communities and perhaps curtail the enthusiasm of developers to often destroy local neighbourhoods. It would also help to pay for necessary enhanced infrastructure (schools, fire, police, sewage, water, roads, etc. o deal with altered uses of the property in question.

Wilderness conservation, pollution output, local food, looking after local residents not foreign/local corporations.

Work to create compact, complete, cost efficient communities by containing growth within well-defined urban growth boundaries.

Work to ensure provincial regulations for resource use--agricultural land, timber, water, minerals, gravel and fish--align with regional desire for sustainable economic use of these resources.

Work to reduce ferry fares. Tourism is the largest, sustainable, most profitable, low impact industry we enjoy. High ferry fares hinder tourism which has a fallout effect on everything from farming to real estate.

Work towards rapid transit within the region. Too bad this was not a focus for the blue bridge debacle. The rail line to be considered as the connection to Victoria and undertaken now in preparation for future growth.

Work with the Prov. Gov't to re-establish incentive programs for renewable energy while, as a Region, lead by example in establishing urban gardens for raising food, expanding public transit systems, preserving existing agricultural land, work with the city of Victoria to stop raw sewage from being discharged into the ocean and expand use of zero emission vehicles and practices.

Work with the provincial government The JdF EA is by far the largest geographical area in the CRD and as such has a huge influence on climate, greenhouse gas, wildlife & recreation to touch on only a few topics and there is little local or CRD control over it as it falls under forestry crown land and private ownership. It is hard to see how its current use is sustainable. specifically the logging taking place right now with no apparent oversight.

Wow, how do I choose the most important one... There are so many. Walkable neighbourhoods, bike lanes, high speed transit between rural/suburban areas and urban areas, improving relationships with First Nations, dealing with climate change (adapting to the inevitable and mitigating what we can), developing more green belts and blue belts.

You do not have to build a house for every jerk gets off the bus. Do not build houses close to farmland. I lived right next door to numerous farms and it did not bother me because I was born here. If you do not like farms do not buy a house next door. Turn off your stupid phone and have a look around.

You need to stop cutting down trees. We are always complaining that the deer and other wildlife are in our backyards but in actuality, it is us who have taken their land! I feel like everywhere I look there is concrete going up and I moved to BC to get away from the 'concrete jungle'.

Your survey has now timed out twice on my, apparently losing all the data I provided. If you really want thoughtful responses, you had better either allow more time on pages with 2-3 or more verbatim areas, or at least warn the person of the time out approaching so they may do something to restart the clock. I am not going through the process a third time. I may, if it is properly designed, try your printed version, assuming I can cut and paste my responses into it (I have saved all my verbatim replies after the first time it times out). If this is an indication of the methodology of the CRD, I'm afraid we are in for a long painful process to 2038.

Youth of today are not interested in living in the urban areas, there are not interested nor can they afford vehicles and rely on bus, bike or foot transportation. To continue to build high density housing in urban areas will, over time, become empty communities as the upcoming generation is not interested in living in suburbia.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 54

The baby boomers will be leaving the bigger homes, for smaller accommodation i.e. condo, townhouses, leaving their family homes for younger families. I do support putting any more time and/or effort into building cookie cutter dense housing. Look at improving transportation and developing existing communities to meet the needs of the young and upcoming. Have more government offices out in the urban areas so that those living in those areas will not clog the roadways with vehicles, etc. to make their way downtown to work.

2) a) Do you support the draft vision of the RSS as written below (Tagline and Full Vision Statement):

Tagline

SHIFT 2038: A Capital Region that is…

Sustainable | Healthy | Innovative | Fair | Thriving

Full Vision Statement

By 2038: We contribute to a healthier planet and create a thriving, sustainable economy that optimizes

individual and community wellbeing. Direct, innovative action by the CRD and cooperation with others

achieves transformational change by boldly: shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles;

expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources; and achieving greater social equity.


No 46 5.5%

Parts of it 236 28.3%

Yes 551 66.1%

TOTAL 833 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 55

b) If all or part of the tagline or vision could be improved, please explain what themes to keep and how other parts could be made more relevant or inspiring:

No

1. Remove the tagline “fair” - the word is subjective and could be considered condescending to those with special needs. 2. Add the tagline “focused” - focus the region on doing a few services very well and being known for those services 3. The vision statement isn’t inspiring and may be too long to remember. If you can’t remember it or recite it, then it frankly isn’t effective. How about something like this: We believe that we are on this planet to provide service people rave about. We are constantly focused on our core services and have the courage to say no to hundreds of projects so that we can deliver excellence in the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We choose these core services carefully based on how they will contribute to a thriving economy, a more enjoyable environment and an inspired workforce. Our focus on core services first will make this the place people want to work and live.

No

Achieving greater social equity is not a function of regional government. Nor do I want an organization like the CRD embarking on bold programs to promote transformational change. Even a vision statement should be realistic. Making the CRD a better place to live by improving transportation, recreational opportunities and working to improve regional food security.

No Change: Individual and community wellbeing to individual freedom.

No

Ditch the notion that government can contribute to an economy. At best, government can only take money from those who earn it, to spend elsewhere. A regional government has no business in social engineering. Schools, roads, parks, services, regional planning, hospitals, street lights, water . . . these are what I pay taxes for. Airy-fairy notions of "low-carbon" lifestyles, and "achieving social equity" are pure BS. We need to foster equality of opportunity to prosper, not take from one to give to another. Create a climate of abundant opportunity, then you will be closer to achieving social equity. But first examine "social equity." Whose idea was that? If I work three times as hard as another, but we both enjoy an equivalent lifestyle because the socialists amongst us, (disguised as social equity campaigners,) take from me to give to them, that is inequitable.

No Do not blindly implement UN Agenda 21. Carbon is part of the cycle of life. Taxing it and reducing is insanity. The IPCC has 0.3% consensus.

No Get government out of fine tuning our lives and providing an holy than thou policy.

No

Get rid of the corporate blah-blah. Use active tense, active verbs, drop the adjectives and make it concrete. Here's a quick rewrite: By 2038: We contribute to a healthier planet. We create an economy that respects local ecology. Our people feel a sense of wellbeing in their community. The CRD adapts to change and cooperates with the community to transform the way we live, so we enjoy affordable, low carbon lifestyles and an expanded local food supply. We also protect our renewable resources and prosper together.

No Give a single tangible goal. Why not just put a smiley face emoticon if you are planning to be so vague.

No

Greater social equity - that's just two wolves and a lamb deciding what they are going to have for lunch. Low carbon - densification seems to be the flavour of the month yet it only increases the number of vehicles in CRD. Expand local food supply - scarcity of land apparently is a key factor in the supposed "unaffordable" housing market. Where is this farmland coming from without reducing the amount of land available for residential development.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 56

No

How about: By 2038: We are a region that supports high quality, family supporting jobs, and a wide variety of affordable and diverse housing forms are in place to support our diverse population. Efficient public transit and infrastructure, along with energy efficiency and waste reduction initiatives are Inspiring to a bunch of hippie students and fernwood residents maybe. Unrealistic, un-enforceable non-sense is how it reads right now. Who is running the Planning department at CRD?? This is outrageous.... I thought the sewers were mismanaged!!!

No I think the CRD is moving past its mandate.

No

It is the responsibility of local governments to carry out the wishes of the community. The people have spoken and asked for strict containment areas in East Sooke. The policies to achieve those targets are critical together with rigorous efforts to monitor and implement the policies set forth in local OCP's.

No It's outside your mandate your organization works for provincial government and local municipalities voters don't have control over your organization please leave the social engineering to governments.

No

Living wage jobs are union jobs and are mostly in the public sector which is located in the downtown core of Victoria - namely the government jobs. The other jobs are teachers, nurses, etc. For every increase they get the ripple effect on seniors, low income and non-union jobs is exacerbated. It's lovely to think you can get rid of roads because everyone is walking, biking or busing but these forms or transportation work if you are going to and from work not if you are doing multiple chores or appointments.

No Low pollution policies. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Equality of opportunity. NOT equality of outcomes, which is impossible.

No Need to spend time on an action plan not a tagline.

No NOT ANOTHER STUDY.

No Not by the CRD but by regional citizens, businesses, organizations etc. Only people can do the work. CRD should provide the information, people should figure out how it’s going to happen, how they are going to integrate it into their lives.

No

Take the socialism out of it. This is boilerplate for 'we'll tell you how best to live your life". It's not up to you to "optimize individual wellbeing" - it's up to me, the individual. 'Direct, innovative action' is code for ever greater regulation. Stop it. Co-operation is another 'friendly' word for collusion with likeminded institutions and 'transformational' is simply bafflegab for taking control to do a make-over as you see fit. Let's face it - the 'low carbon' business is just that, a means for people to make money. The last near twenty years has demonstrated there is no co-relation between carbon increase and temperature. That ship has sailed. Now it's just another pernicious means of taxing everyone. 'Social equity'. Cuba anyone?

No That will never be achieved with the current governing structure in the region.

No The CRD cannot act in isolation. We must encourage senior governments to develop appropriate policies which all communities can work together. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE CRD TO ADDRESS IS ISOLATION.

No

The CRD has no jurisdiction to affect "the economy". It can contribute the land use and servicing conditions that support a sustainable community, which includes economy, but it cannot create a sustainable economy. The vision needs to lead with who we are going to be: a thriving, vibrant, healthy community (building off the tagline or one-line vision). Likewise, the transformational change will be around land use and servicing, not lifestyles. There is a serious need to get back to basics in the RSS - to be innovative within the jurisdiction of the CRD and identify where partnerships are needed to promote measurable actions.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 57

No The goals are self-defeating. "Affordable" and "achieving greater social equity" are incongruent to the other goals.

No

The original RGS was much clearer. Keep urban settlements compact Protect greenspace And I would add protect rural communities, and stop rural sprawl as evidenced in the proposed new zone in the Juan de Fuca regional area, called rural settlement area. (That is all about sprawl and the other goals cannot be achieved with that) No extension of water into rural areas. The plan inadequately links land use and transportation. Drop minor amendments This whole paper is too long and expunge policies over which the CRD has no jurisdiction. Focus on foundational policies from which other results will be achieved (i.e. urban containment) and shorten considerably. This paper is not made for the general concerned public to respond to.

No

This is an individual preference. The vision will be general in nature. It is the RSS policies and targets that are important as they will direct future OCP development and regional bylaws and works. It important to remind local governments that (a) the policies to achieve those targets are critical, together with (b) the rigorous efforts to monitor and implement the policies.

No

This is nonsense. Progressives in municipal government have got it wrong for 5 decades. It was Progressives who ripped up the street car tracks across North America (except for Toronto, which was run by the Orange Lodge at the time) in order to build elevated freeways which was the way of the future. It was Progressives who ended beat policing and centralized police services in large station-houses. Now beat policing is back, rebadged as community policing and touted by Progressives as a new concept. Progressives: get out of people's way. Stop wasting their money.

No This seems draconian and overbearing, based on communist principles.

No

To date, there is no part of this statement I find truthful. We are talking about a group of people who cannot even agree to decide on where to put a sewage treatment plant so that their constituents will not be saddled with a hefty fine from the federal government when they fail to have it done in the timeframe given by the feds. And this same group had gone and passed a law that forbids us to put kitchen scraps in our garbage, but made no provisions to help us deal with what to do with them now, more or less leaving us high and dry as to what to do. How about a tagline that declares honesty, integrity, hope and perseverance!

No Too far in the future.

No Too vague and not action words.

No

Too vague. Sustainable can mean anything to anybody. I prefer Canadian Oxford dictionary "1 Ecology (esp. of development) that conserves an ecological balance by avoiding a depletion of natural resources" The ecological basis of our lives here is not primary in your draft. It comes in at #5, the Agricultural Land Reserve does not even exist on your maps and the huge forest between Sooke and Port Renfrew is reduced to Rural Resource Land. #2 must be keep settlements compact, that will achieve many of your other goals; manage growth, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and resilience to climate change. As usual First Nations do not receive their due. Every land use decision made by the municipalities and CRD is on their traditional territory. Even something as seemingly benign as park designation excludes their rights. That must change. We cannot lock ourselves into a bylaw perpetuating present discrimination until 2038.

No Truth is the CRD is a fractured mess where not all municipalities as a collective ... self-interest rules the day no regional vision.

No Use fewer buzzwords, and just state what you mean as simply as possible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 58

No

We need greenspace within residential areas, not just surrounding areas. If population grows sprawl will happen regardless. We need parks and large gardens where people actually live, so urban wildlife can find habitat, and kids can access it under their own steam (i.e. in neighbourhoods) We need more cars if wild spaces are further away. Do not sacrifice trees for bike lanes (pavement). Density destroys gardens and creates overcrowding (stress and crime).

No Where do you talk about reducing government? Reducing government costs? lowering taxes so that people can better take care of themselves rather than becoming dependent on government? I have yet to see the CRD do anything boldly.

No You are contributing nothing but difficulty, get out of the forest and look at the trees.

Parts of it

"Shifting to a low carbon lifestyle" suggests that by doing so, the world and the region will be healthier. I disagree. The current state of science, as it applies to the hypothesis of manmade CO2 induced global warming is far from settled, with studies now coming out virtually on a daily basis that question the validity of the hypothesis. To create policies which embrace a "low carbon lifestyle" at a time when there are more questions than answers being raised, are short-sighted (based on a couple of decades of not unusually significant rises in temperature). Likewise, while the idea of "energy efficient lifestyles" sounds appealing, it is usually those at the bottom of the economic ladder who will suffer the most by any increases in costs of energy...which to this date have followed hand in hand with "energy-efficiency." e.g. BC Hydro rates.... Achieving "greater social equity" suggests some kind of social engineering....

Parts of it "Stewarding renewable resources" is not enough: preservation of natural lands.

Parts of it

"Transit" is a word that is too vague; its use is something like saying, "Johnny, please go to the store and buy some fruit." By this, it is strongly suggested that "transit" be defined; "Bus Transit" and "Rail Transit" are suggested terms. Even if we have no rail transit currently, a true vision for the Region should include it. Inclusion of the term, "rail transit" will help to get people accustomed to thinking about it.

Parts of it 1.1.8 In stall the EV charging stations , possible have a car share program or electric taxi service, etc. Incentives as well for EV owners.

Parts of it 2038 is too far away, we are contributing now should continue with some way of measuring/monitoring the improvements. Let’s go after commercial enterprises that over package, do away with plastics, fossil fuels go after big industry...

Parts of it 2038 is too far out; what about non-renewable resources?

Parts of it A thriving economy implies economic growth. We live on a finite planet growth will destroy us ultimately. Instead of thriving the word "healthy" would be much better.

Parts of it A thriving sustainable economy must include finding a way to provide homes for the homeless and food for the hungry. These would reduce health costs.

Parts of it

A vision statement is about the difference a new approach will make. If it is to be more than wishful thinking, the CRD sustainability vision statement must affirm the need for good decision based on sound information, can be successfully implemented and will have a postage impact. If the obstacles that prevent achievement of this standard for good governance, are not incrementally removed, then our grandchildren will be no further ahead than we are.

Parts of it Accelerate reducing carbon energy dependency.

Parts of it Acknowledgement of first nations land claims and history along with input and prominence of indigenous ways of life in sustainable living and future plans for the region.

Parts of it Add "realistic" or "feasible/attainable".


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 59

Parts of it Add livable region. Recreation opportunities, Protect quality of life.

Parts of it Add protection and stewardship of natural environment to vision.

Parts of it Add: renewing our aging infrastructure and disposing of our liquid and solid wastes in the most environmentally responsible manner.

Parts of it Affordability and sustainability should be key. I’m not sure it's the role of CRD to ensure local food supply.

Parts of it After action add 'and integrated governance'.

Parts of it Agree with affordable lifestyles, local food products. Disagree with carbon credit scams, and land stewardship that involves municipal fiefdoms of land purchases, tree surveys, and other useless spending of tax payer money better spent on updating infrastructure.

Parts of it

All well & good. But, it’s easy to say, shifting to affordable, low carbon energy efficient lifestyles, without understanding how many people within CRD can' actually afford the lifestyle they have already. As a society we MUST look at lower utility & municipal costs, first & foremost. How EXACTLY is CRD going to get all the municipalities on board to ensure the vision statement will actually improve life & the environment when we have 13 municipalities not communicating with one another - and in the end costing tax payers more & more money.

Parts of it All wishy washy words.

Parts of it An "economy that optimizes individual and community wellbeing" ought also to emphasize conservation of nature. We have settled on First nations land, and their presence and vibrant culture ought to be acknowledged.

Parts of it As mentioned above, ongoing education of children as to the value of preserving land for farming of all kinds.

Parts of it

As mentioned above...the vision is somewhat partially blinkered. We need to go big or go home. This is all very politically correct, polite...but I would love to see the CRD taking a global stand in a more dynamic and assertive way. Imagine having the world know about the CRD as an innovative and proactive entity that globally pulled forces to make a difference to us all, everywhere on this planet.

Parts of it Avoid the use of sustainable, it is overworked an incomprehensible.

Parts of it Better Transportation.

Parts of it Biodiversity - animals and plants - species should be part of sustainability as well. - i.e. Use of nature without depriving the environment.

Parts of it Boldly troubles me, especially as representation on CRD is so limited.

Parts of it Broadly it sounds great, but it is vague, not mentioning what it exactly pertains to and how this is going to be done. However, I acknowledge that it is a vision statement and as such, has limits to word count.

Parts of it By boldly: protecting our air, land and water through the provision of environmental rights to the citizens of the CRD (as San Diego has recently done).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 60

Parts of it

Change "Fair and Thriving" and substitute these words with "Resilient" -- thereby, focusing on the dynamic, responsive capacities for fostering healthy development, interaction and adaptation in the face of a challenge or crisis at the individual and group (or community) levels. According to the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities November 19, 2009 News regarding the study on community resiliency and wealth conducted by Shanna Ratner and Dr. Susanne Moser, a resilient community has the ability to protect, reestablish, and grow community wealth in response to disturbances (U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, 2009, p.1). Also, I would like to see reference to "climate change" in the 2038 vision statement as it is an important dimension for all of us to consider now and into the future in terms of our community development and planning in the CRD.

Parts of it Change "low carbon" to "zero carbon".

Parts of it Change the "sustainable" thinking.... this still implies a world in which we are extracting and not giving back, which may not be possible to reach by 2038 but should be included as the ultimate goal.

Parts of it Choose a couple things, not be all things possible. Too far reaching.

Parts of it Clear commitment to protecting wilderness areas and farmland from urban sprawl.

Parts of it

Compared to the vision of the previous Regional Growth Strategy, this is weak and wishy washy. There should be a direct reference to forming complete, compact local communities and restricting growth to the core urban areas by allowing densification and infilling in neighbourhoods with human scaled (2-3 story) townhouses and mixed use residential buildings. There should also be reference to a commitment to reduce rural sprawl by restricting water and sewer services within the current urban containment boundary.

Parts of it

CONTEXT: One of the most significant risks to the region is expanding human development activities in the JDF area and in undisturbed, or lightly disturbed rural areas. It's incomprehensible how and why municipal decision makers continue to justify development activities that considerably degrade natural values; i.e. building close to riparian areas, clearing and blasting large swaths of mature forests, burying ephemeral watercourses in pipes, etc. SUGGESTED CHANGE: Rather than, or perhaps in addition to, "stewarding renewable resources", there needs to be a stronger message of "protection and enhancement of remaining natural values". This includes places with strong environmental values in the Growth Containment Area.

Parts of it Could be a greater percentage in all areas of environmental sustainability, but also understand that economics have to play a role and that is I think the stumbling block.

Parts of it CRD should work together to deal with the transportation issues within our area.

Parts of it Define sustainable.

Parts of it

Densification, better public transit and protection of wilderness, fresh water and agricultural land. Integrated solid and liquid waste management with greater recycling, tertiary sewage treatment & resource recovery. Less release of micro-plastics, heavy metals and pharmaceuticals into the environment.

Parts of it Depends what "sustainable economy" means. It shouldn't touch farm-able land, or areas that protect farmland, water supply and keep the air clean. We've lost too much already in this island in the last 50 years. It shouldn't mean building more roads for cars, and parking lots.

Parts of it Don't know enough about it to comment.

Parts of it Eliminate "low carbon." Sustainable energy return on energy investment is determined by market forces of supply and demand, not government diktat. Who knows what alternatives will be available to us a generation from now?

Parts of it Employment for people, Homes for Sr.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 61

Parts of it Expand local food supply is good. I do not believe in global warming as there is much against this idea. It is about higher taxation.

Parts of it Expand on what renewable resources means. i.e. solar, wind, wave etc.

Parts of it Explain as a whole that we are part of the ecosystem. NOT THE system!

Parts of it Explain in more detail what 'affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles' means.

Parts of it Factor in the cost.

Parts of it Fair is not defined in the Vision Statement. Transparent may be a better term. For example: Transparent policies and governance.

Parts of it Fine with: greater social equity, expanding local food supply, energy-efficient lifestyles, etc. To add: foster and facilitate social and ecological health.

Parts of it

First of all, First Nations need to be consulted and be part of the process. It is insulting not to include them. I like the idea of keeping development close to transit and housing. However, a proper rapid system is absolutely necessary between the Westshore, the Saanich areas, and the Victoria downtown core. I've heard all the arguments against rapid transit 40 years ago in Calgary, none of which came true. Instead it has been an extremely positive force in the growth in the city. And the Calgary C-Train system is powered by wind power, not oil and gas. There are no provisions for any type of up-to-date transit options in this plan. You expect a rise in the aging population and then you expect them to bike or walk everywhere? Not providing water/sewer services to the whole region? Please, do you live in the 1800s? There are currently apx 1,700 affordable housing units in the area, and over 8,000 on the waiting list. This is an area that desperately needs to be addressed as many more need to be built, preferable in areas that are not in or close to the downtown core. It's not going to be easy to encourage good-paying jobs in outlying areas which are mainly rural in nature and I'm not sure how this can be accomplished. It is extremely important to retain the ALR lands. Houses should only be built on land which is not arable. Local food production is very important. Study the town of Italy, set on the mountains above the valleys which are farmland. Also a good idea to alleviate flooding of properties. The Nature Needs Half policy is laudable, but if the world followed this rule there would be virtually no industry or growth. Vancouver Island is apx the size of England with a population equivalent to when the Romans invaded it in 55 BC. This is completely unsustainable from a growth and business perspective. Do we really need more and more parks? I know very people who actually use them or even know about them. Climate change has been happening for thousands of years, it's a cycle. The worst thing we are doing is driving everywhere and polluting the air. CO2 is necessary for life and plant growth - the lower the CO2, the lower the plant growth. We should not be changing everything because it's a warming period. Instead we should develop to allow for cycles of warmer and cooler climates. Be careful with the LEEDS and so-called high performance buildings, as they can produce unforeseen problems of their own. Black toxic mold is rife in Calgary because of these types of buildings. Emergency response coordination between municipalities is very important. There should be a regional plan rather than different plans run by each municipality. Be careful putting all your faith in alternative energies. Europe has found that these cannot sustain industry or homes in a cost-effective way and are now returning to oil and coal. The Targets and the Plan have many laudable goals, many of which will never see the light of day as they are dependent on other jurisdictions and policies. I have little faith in the CRD's ability to plan anything after the sewage debacle and the food waste program disaster (at least buy a digester so the stuff can be processed properly here instead of sending it to Richmond or up island), There is a general lack of common sense or even understanding of how to plan anything. For instance the policy of no yard waste pick-up - what are people without cars, who cycle and walk or take public transit supposed to do with it?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 62

Parts of it

For a start, I don't think we have until 2038 to figure this out! It's time to take action in the CRD now! No disrespect intended, but this Vision Statement sounds impressive but actually says very little. What good is reference to a" low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyle" when the region doesn't even have a basic plan on how to improve public transit. How can you talk about low carbon when you have traffic lined up from Mayfair Mall to Langford? How can you talk about social equality when there is no plan for improved and affordable housing? There is little point in making reference to innovative action and cooperation when there is such poor collaboration and so much duplication between municipalities. We have crumbling infrastructure and escalating social problems in this region and this Vision Statement is far too ambiguous.

Parts of it Governments should not be involved at all in social equity.

Parts of it Great vision statement. But I wonder about the steps along the way to 2038. We need to see progress annually and a strong target for 2020.

Parts of it

Greater social equity seems to be taking more resources away from the other areas of focus. I would lump the whole affordable housing strategy in with this as well. These are both areas that local government is not the lead. While I appreciate the hardships of some in our community it would appear that the focus is on this groups wellbeing which takes away for the other areas that would actually benefit the region and those who are paying for these services through their taxes.

Parts of it Healthy/ Energetic/ Robust and Diverse.

Parts of it

How about timely and effective, good goals for any organization. CRD is known for slow, pedantic, operations and is a joke for most islanders. How about you at least show an attempt to set goals that suggest you want to work. You don't need another motherhood statement, you need a statement that denotes leadership and action... cause; effect; action.

Parts of it How can you hope to expand local food supply when there is not land left for farming?

Parts of it

I do not see how the descriptor "thriving" economy is helpful. By definition a sustainable economy locally based as much as possible should be successful economy. "Thriving" conjures up the ideas of growth and big returns and that is almost always based on rapid growth. That is the antithesis of sustainable. If a community is healthy and locally based, the economy is shielded partly from the ups and downs of the bigger markets and thus will be, over time, more successful. So I think that there are many other regional factors that are more important to plan for than the economy. The more successful we are as a regional being compact and sustainable, the better our local economy will be as a side effect, not the driving force in our long range planning.

Parts of it

I don't agree with the use of the world "Planet" in this. I hold a doctorate, specializing in Climatology, and while I agree that Anthropogenic climate change is a huge issue that our entire civilization is facing and (not) coping with, I fail to see how the actions of any fraction of a region of 350,000 people are going to have an impact on this issue, let alone the course of the Planet. The Planet is going to survive us just fine. I do appreciate what you are trying to say here though, and suggest "Meaningfully Contribute to Global Environmental Stewardship" instead.

Parts of it I don't believe "creating greater social equity" is a mandate for the CRD.

Parts of it I don't know what 'fair' means in the context of a sustainability strategy.

Parts of it I don't like the concept of " transformational change by boldly..." Change for good must be slow, gradual, and yet relentless. As we are in Canada and have a relatively small population, I prefer the focus to be on community first and individual second.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 63

Parts of it I don't think a thriving, sustainable "economy" is what we should be working towards. How about a thriving, just and equitable, sustainable society?

Parts of it I find it to be somewhat bombastic in overstating the CRD's ability to bring about change of this magnitude.

Parts of it

I like the idea of social equity, however, it will take much more input from other govts., other than local municipalities and the CRD. You cannot regulate where people live in regards to their workplace and it appears that developers are jumping on the bandwagon to promote this for their benefit when in fact, the target of worker housing is not being full-filled.

Parts of it

I like the tagline and the first sentence, "we contribute..." "shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles". I'm game for seeing less pollution through changes to transportation infrastructure, but 'affordable' and 'lifestyles' stand out as restrictive, not encouraging. People want change, but this statement implies limitations and penalties, not encouragement for growth and innovation. "expanding the local food supply". Is the idea to encourage consumption of domestic products rather than foods imported from other nations? This says to me that the CRD considers farming an industry worth substantial investment. Is farming a lucrative market? I agree with encouraging growth in local foods businesses, but I think this is something that extends through BC, not just the Island. I like the renewable resources part. I don't think the CRD has any business legislating the process for achieving social equity. Attracting and encouraging local business will better ensure opportunity for diverse cultures and underprivileged.

Parts of it I like the4 SHIFT acronym. Full vision has too much jargon - needs to be simpler, something we can all buy into.

Parts of it I need more time to read the backgrounder because I only found out about this Regional Sustainability Strategy today at the Public Library, and the deadline is only in a couple of days. I need to think about the ramifications of each proposal.

Parts of it I think "completely stopping urban sprawl" needs to be incorporated into the vision. We need to stop spreading out onto rural and wilderness land and to stop replacing trees with concrete, either in the forms of houses, buildings, or new or expanded roads.

Parts of it

I think some more thought should be put into framing the type of lifestyle transformation that needs to occur. Inclusion of the needs of nature, as well as being more accountable and specific to achieving social equity. It may be very easy to achieve and increase in social equity, but why not commit to going all the way. Commit to achieving social equity. You have 20 plus years, you can do it.

Parts of it

I think the thriving economy descriptor is something that could be in opposition to a sustainable economy. Thriving can be short sighted whereas sustainable takes the long vision. I do not see the thriving descriptor as being useful. A sustainable economy will be a successful one, weathering the up and downs around it.

Parts of it

I think the word 'sustainable' is over used, and is defined differently by different people. One person's definition of a sustainable economy may be very different than another person's. I think the plan should be more specific as to how it defines a sustainable economy.

Parts of it

I think this document should be clearly identified as a work in progress and not a completed work. It should be something kept before the public, encouraging continual input from residents, businesses and experts, including scientists. As new issues are recognized, proactive approaches can be employed.

Parts of it I worry that the statement is only interested in people and not the birds, animals, plants and trees. If we only consider how humans are affected, we sometimes miss the importance of the environment around us until it is too late.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 64

Parts of it

I would add "resilient" to the tagline to convey emergency preparedness for earthquakes, floods, extreme weather conditions, etc. I would change "low carbon" to "lowest carbon." I would add "and the regional ALR" to "expanding the food supply." I would also add something that points to close cooperation with the First Nations partners of this territory, perhaps after "cooperation with others." What does this phrase mean?

Parts of it

I would like to see the words "Fair and Thriving" in the tagline replaced with "Resilient." The term "resilient" has the ability to focus on the dynamic, responsive capacities for fostering healthy development, interaction and adaptation in the face of a challenge or crisis at the individual and group (or community) levels. According to the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities November 19, 2009 News regarding the study on community resiliency and wealth conducted by Shanna Ratner and Dr. Susanne Moser, a resilient community has the ability to protect, reestablish, and grow community wealth in response to disturbances (U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, 2009, p.1). Also, in the 2038 vision statement, I would like "climate change" to be referenced as it is important to recognize how the climate impacts and influences our regional planning and development now and into the future.

Parts of it I would suggest adding wording such as: - demonstrating leadership in BC and Canada - working with other Vancouver Island RDs on a shared vision - measuring our sustainability and stating actual targets for the years ahead.

Parts of it If you are focusing on sustainability then leave the economy out of it. The economy should be indirectly improved (as a result of sustainable community growth) not the focus of the vision.

Parts of it

I'm not sure how you can boldly shift to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles. A lifestyle is a personal choice, and however much the CRD wants to change a person's, it's really up to that person to make the change. I think what you want to do is to encourage people to drive less and use other forms of transportation. Maybe you should just say that.

Parts of it

I'm surprised that basic punctuation rules are ignored in this draft. There should not be colons after "2038" and "boldly". And there should be hyphens in "well-being" and "low-carbon." Actually I'd just drop the word "boldly", as it implies a pretentious but unknowable comparison with other regions. I especially like the mention of local food supply, but also of greater social equity. Our current problems with homelessness and affordable housing underline how important social equity will be in the future.

Parts of it

I'm wary of generalized broad statements such as the one above -- they are easily interpreted in different ways by different perspectives. We saw that in NS last year: "thriving, sustainable, complete communities" to the development proponents meant building higher density housing on Class 3, improvable to Class 2, farmland! Whatever the policies are, they need to be very clearly articulated, and then rigorously monitored and implemented. Last year, though a pro-development RCS amendment in NS was strenuously opposed by the community, and the CRD Board received over 200 letters from citizens opposing it, it ended up being passed (barely), but the directors who supported it did so because it was being championed by a "duly elected council". That's not good enough. The "champions" of the amendment were thoroughly repudiated in the last election, ending up at the bottom of the list for votes -- how could the CRD have shown better leadership there? This caused significant conflict and turmoil in the community, pitting neighbour against neighbour. When the lines are clearly drawn, and rigorously supported, there is less potential for the kind of conflict that we had in NS at the time. There's no point in bringing in an RSS if the CRD's own directors don't support it, and it comes down to "they're a duly-elected council". At the time, it made me wonder why we even have a CRD, even though I believe in the importance of regional planning. I would bet that many directors didn't read the report or the letters from NS residents -- is that OK? Are the directors being overburdened, or do some of them not take their role seriously? But CRD staff also recommended the amendment go ahead -- perhaps staff needs to take more of a role in terms of what information they bring to the


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 65

Board, if they know that the directors might not even read the reports. So, whatever is decided needs to have teeth, and needs to be supported by the directors and staff.

Parts of it Improve community wellbeing. and livability of downtown areas. Langford good example.

Parts of it In the abstract, it all sounds good but seems too broad-based and ambitious. I'd like more focus. A bit too laden with popular buzz-words, imo.

Parts of it Include a link to community input as a means of making this transformation.

Parts of it Incorporate rising sea levels and weather extremes into plans including flooding and droughts.

Parts of it

Incorporate the value and influence of arts and culture as it drives and manifests at all levels of human development. It's obvious that competent and knowledgeable people have developed the current draft but was there any effort to engage social scientists or cultural leaders to expand the concept beyond greenhouse gases and housing issues?

Parts of it

Individual and corporate "Citizenship" comes with a duty to contribute to society and the welfare of the planet, country and region. The vision should incentivize good citizenship and deter, defeat, destroy, dissuade those individuals and corporate entities who are driven by ulterior motives of profit and personal gain and hide behind the mantle of lawyers, deep pockets and the protection of special interest groups.

Parts of it

Innovation is a vacuous word. No innovation is needed. All cities were walkable, until we tore holes in them for highways. We need to insulate our homes. We need to grow food close to home, as humanity has done until the past century. There is nothing new or exciting here. Innovation is what you promise people who don't want to change anything about how they live.

Parts of it

Instead of achieving greater social equality, commit to more. Commit to achieving complete social equality, here you commit to partial. Also, a commitment to exploring and boldly bringing about a sustainable economy, one which proactively works to improve wellbeing and environmental health by being a less harmful system of economic development. We are choosing to work with a system of economic development that is eroding the livability of this planet. Be bold, bring forward themes of alternative economies and support young entrepreneurs with these visions.

Parts of it It doesn't mention health, which is a major driver of quality of life.

Parts of it It important to remind local governments that (a) the policies to achieve those targets are critical, together with (b) the rigorous efforts to monitor and implement the policies.

Parts of it

It is a great start and is indeed a wonderfully bold vision! A few suggested changes: 1) Add a statement about celebrating and fostering diversity in this region - of ecosystems, plant and animal life, etc. as well as human diversity. 2) I prefer "reducing social inequities" to "achieving greater social equity", as I believe that inequities are human-caused whereas social equity is a natural state of being (if we stop creating artificial hierarchies that privilege some and marginalize/exploit others). 3) Add a statement about restoring and re-wilding areas damaged in the past, to acknowledge that as humans we have already caused significant harms and need environmental reparation in some instances. I am not sure if "stewarding renewable resources" is intended to include wilderness but as wilderness has value not only as a resource to humans would like it explicitly stated in another fashion.

Parts of it It is all talk, no action.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 66

Parts of it

It is enlightened and definitely hits some of the key points but there are no hard targets - without 'SMART' targets it is hard to determine where you are against the vision and what still needs to be done. for example: -The language could also be tighter - i.e. "shifting to affordable, low carbon energy-efficiency lifestyles" should/could read "completed the shift to..." - How do you propose to define "individual and community wellbeing?"

Parts of it

It is good in general, but we should emphasize the need for self-sufficiency and resilience in the face of a future we cannot predict. Emphasis on local food production and management of resource use / reuse are good, and recirculating money and goods within our regional economy should be a goal to this end.

Parts of it It is not only carbon that is the problem. Pesticides and other chemicals are causing a great problem in our environment. I think that a piece about biodegradable chemicals that reduce the harm on the land, water and air could be added to the Vision Statement.

Parts of it It is simply too fluffy / feel good gibberish with little that is tangible. "Social equity" and "energy-efficient lifestyles" = punish those that do not live in the downtown core.

Parts of it

It is very good as it stands. However, unless we begin to view the 'invasion' of native species (think Oak Bay's deer cull) into 'human' areas as a gift beyond measure - instead of an inconvenience to 'deal with' - we're staying dumb and blind in the face of the miracle of life.

Parts of it It sounds good, but not terribly realistic. It’s kind of all airy fairy and doesn't mean much.

Parts of it It’s a fine vision but the policies and implementation are what are important.

Parts of it It’s so high level and generic it's hard to say anything constructive. This is a typical political statement which can be interpreted in any way you want.

Parts of it Keep energy efficiency, expanding local food supply and stewarding renewable resources. Discard affordability, low carbon and social equity.

Parts of it Keep everything but the last 5 words which are vague and could mean anything - needs to be more focused and re-worded to match the rest.

Parts of it Keep expanding the local food supply. Rework shifting to affordable, low carbon....

Parts of it Keep it shorter and more layman’s terms.

Parts of it Keep what you have and add: sustaining ecological health and ecosystem services and eliminating our infrastructure deficit.

Parts of it

Keep: more energy efficient lifestyles, not by carbon taxing, but by preventing permits for McMansions and instead encouraging lot sub-divisions and higher density in downtowns. Also amalgamation is key. Both would bring better social equity with more affordable housing created and not making the CRD a retirement paradise for rich Albertans building 12000 sq. ft. home. Discard: more local food supply is not necessarily rational here. ALR should be relocated outside of town, All the people with "fake hobby farms" to get a tax break should be re-located or put to regular taxes.

Parts of it Let's not wait 23 years to make this happen! We should strive for this vision right now.

Parts of it

Living in East Sooke for thirty years is very enlightening. Allowing the end of our road to be turned into Sooke, connected by water was outrageous, thank you Janet Evans for nothing! Then allowing the new proposal of multi levels of housing on that property, passed by spineless Sooke council, makes one think where their heads are. The roads have been decimated with all the traffic of large trucks going back and forth for years. Who is going to pay to fix or upgrade this mess. We cannot walk safely on East Sooke road for fear of being mowed down by huge trucks that DO NOT go 50 K as posted. No, we are not happy with your vision at all, and I believe none of you live out here, so who gives a poop! If you call this inspiring, you are all wearing rose coloured glasses.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 67

Parts of it

Living in Sooke we have little choice but to commute to work. There are very few who live in our community who are privileged enough not to have to commute to work. Low carbon forms of transport are not available - we have bus or car/truck that's it. More office locations in Sooke or Western Communities (in particular provincial government and other large employers) would be a great start to help promote a low-carbon lifestyle for Sooke and JDF residents.

Parts of it

Local farmers should have access for free water for irrigation that could be provided by tertiary treatment facilities. There should be no income tax taken from local farm workers and seasonal housing show be provided free from Provincial government. This would make farming an attractive livelihood for people who wish to earn a living from the land. There would be less need for produce to be shipped in and would reduce greenhouse emissions. More people who work on the land would become healthier, live longer and spend their money on local produce as it would be less expensive if bought from farm markets.

Parts of it Local food supplies cannot be grown if politicians & developers take land out of the (former) ALR and allow housing to be built (e.g. Langford/Happy Valley).

Parts of it

Local food supply is fundamentally inefficient, and, given current farming practices (like those of the Fraser Valley), would significantly increase our regional GHG emissions. Agricultural runoff is already rendering inedible all our local shellfish - an otherwise-sustainable and traditional food source. Strategic stockpiling of both food and arable land against geopolitical emergencies would be more effective and less damaging to the environment.

Parts of it

Local food supply isn't something we can expand. Too much GOOD land is already lost, and what is left, both in the way of land, and people willing or interested in growing anything but a personal garden will only produce a limited, in season, supply of food products. Also, much of the remaining agricultural land is not suitable for crop growth, as it is rocky or poor soil, with no access to well water. Cost to enhance these lands is prohibitive in relation to what can be produced on them. Payback on the best ones has been estimated to be 30 to 60 years.

Parts of it

Look into allowing homeowner to grow and sell vegetables, and or offer their yards to others to grow local fresh foods, many home owners bought their homes when they were young and needed a back yard for family needs, now many of these homeowner are empty nesters and have no need for large yards with lawns.

Parts of it

Low carbon lifestyles will not be achievable by the CRD - it is a larger, multi-national problem that will be ultimately addressed by treaties and technologies. This is self-righteous nonsense, bleated by the green fringe and should be ignored. Focus on social equality and local food supply, which can be effectively managed by the CRD.

Parts of it Make affordable housing so people can live in the community.

Parts of it Maximizes well-being, not optimizes? Optimizes feels over-used Expanding the local food supply is fine, but only if it increases more than the population does "Stewarding" is a verb, I suppose, but a dreadful one. Ugh, not inspiring.

Parts of it May be couched in 'social equity' but affordability of the region is not in here.

Parts of it Mention our children's future, or the next 7 generations...

Parts of it More emphasis on conservation of nature, the very reason many people are drawn to this region. First Nations ought to be acknowledged, honoured, and co-operated with.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 68

Parts of it

More emphasis on protecting the natural environment, habitat protection and wildlife protection. I remember walking along Wallace Dr. and a tour bus of Japanese tourists was driving to Butchart Gardens. A doe deer and small fawn came out and walked down Wallace Dr. in front of the bus. The tourists were hanging out of the bus cameras filming every which way. I'm sure they'll all enjoy touring The Gardens, but their story will be that little doe and her fawn that they saw in the wild. Our wildlife are a renewable natural resource and one of our greatest.

Parts of it More emphasis on safe waste disposal and safe agriculture.

Parts of it Most of this is good; I would suggest adding something that encourages plant-based diets.

Parts of it Must implement policies and begin efforts immediately to achieve this vision and not delay - 2038 is too far in the future.

Parts of it

My main concern is that this vision statement is about a goal for over 20 years from now. Those changes will certainly take time to accomplish, and every step forward is one less stagnation or step backward, but, for me, what is missing is a commitment to that gradual change to get there. We need to make sure there are touchstones along the way so that political, economic and other forces don't provide excuses for continual delays, such that come 2037 we are wondering where all the time went and why we haven't reach the goals. I realize a vision statement is not a full plan, but if we do not commit to gradual steps toward getting there, and make annual reports of what has been done toward that process, I fear it may not happen. My other concern is that the vision statement may contain several competing goals. As has been stated ”sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. The western communities are slated for major growth, however, somehow that growth is supposed to be mitigated so it does not impact further on the habitat negatively. All human growth leads to imbalances, and the question is then which takes priority, environmental protection of the natural habitat, or growth or human populations, jobs, and services? How do decisions get made as to how to weigh each of these? Further, where in the vision is the potential reality of a major oil spill from oil tankers on our coast, and who will be responsible for and act upon them should they occur? Protecting sustainability may also require major action in the case of such catastrophes which become more and more likely with the oil demands on the federal government and the economists who run this country.

Parts of it N/A.

Parts of it Need to be more specific about saving agricultural land. A developer could argue that putting housing on agricultural land that is not currently being utilized, and home owners having gardens actually expands the local food supply.

Parts of it Need to encourage new business initiatives to create more jobs.

Parts of it

Needs to directly commit to curbing / not allowing urban sprawl. No one wants to address the carrying capacity of this island or the assumption that we can all reproduce beyond replacement and expect a finite island / planet to accommodate that. Until we have this conversation in public forums, "sustainability" is just happy talk.

Parts of it New tagline (that even rhymes): Let's not wait until 2018.

Parts of it No comment.

Parts of it Not sure if "shifting to low carbon, energy efficient lifestyles" includes land use changes that support these lifestyles; e.g. shop, work and live in closer proximity.

Parts of it Optimizes - really achievable? I do like the direct innovative action - should add TIMELY and I really like BOLDLY.

Parts of it Plants need CO2 to thrive.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 69

Parts of it Please remember biodiversity, preservation of natural habitats and protecting species-at-risk. Protecting our natural spaces and funding natural environment interventions brings long-term economic, social and environmental benefits today and for future generations.

Parts of it Plumes of methane have begun to rise in the arctic. The plumes are 1 km wide each, and there are many, many of them. This is new. We need to somehow speed up the timeline of our shift, and acknowledge that there could be unexpected, difficult circumstances ahead.

Parts of it Preserving and improving our natural environment and quality of life. There's nothing about fiscal responsibility, either, but that doesn't seem to be a concern of most of our politicians when they are spending MY tax dollars.

Parts of it Projected targets for protecting rural areas need not to be compromised as pressure from developers increases. Enforceable targets are a must.

Parts of it

Rather than replacing the CRD fleet with zero emission vehicles it would be more energy efficient to support the development of geothermal energy. Some of BC's power comes from coal fired plants in Alberta and building more dams involves concrete which is very energy intensive.

Parts of it

Renewable Resources needs to be more specific. Obama used that "Renewable Resources" language and what he really meant was "Clean Coal". Coal is not Clean, nor is a Nuclear Plant nor New Fusion Energy. Why not use specifics like, solar, wind, wave energy.

Parts of it Responsible water management should be included.

Parts of it Safeguarding existing parks and green spaces.

Parts of it See my previous answer to the identical question.

Parts of it SHIFT 2038 is a good tagline â€“ relates well to the aspirations and targets of the draft RSS.

Parts of it

Should also optimize ecological well-being. A focus on a "thriving economy" is derived from the never-ending economic growth paradigm. Not only does a "thriving economy" directly contradicts the rest of the vision statement, it undermines it. Bold and transformational change is more likely to come from embracing the degrowth paradigm...frankly the "thriving" economy concept is dated, I think the CRD can and should present a more sophisticated, visionary and impactful statement.

Parts of it Simplify the language. A cooperative approach to sustainability should be emphasized (simply) and a commitment to local solutions. NO ONE wants non-elected and private business interests (SEATERRA!!!) directing anything.

Parts of it

Since transportation is over half of the average CRD resident GHG emissions, it is worth giving this sector explicit mention here. For instance, CRD and its partners could commit its efforts and resources towards giving all residents the transportation tools and incentives for them to easily and affordably do their part in GHG reductions.

Parts of it

Since transportation is over half of the average CRD resident GHG emissions, it is worth giving this sector explicit mention here. For instance, CRD and its partners could commit its efforts and resources towards giving all residents the transportation tools and incentives for them to easily and affordably do their part in GHG reductions.

Parts of it Social equity is a mythical aim. Those in charge will always manipulate things to their benefit. We survive best in a vibrant, diversified society. Basically this is what we have now.

Parts of it Some aspects of the RSS targets will actually work against the achievement of the vision statement.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 70

Parts of it

Some of the actions undertaken by CRD do achieve beneficial change and it does provide some useful, beneficial basic services but as a whole the CRD is not a direct action, innovative, transformational organization. It has become a bloated, poorly managed, floundering bureaucracy trying to look relevant in a context that is changing faster than it can ever hope to in its current incarnation. Its mismanagement of the sewage treatment issue is a prime example of its irrelevance to the larger community.

Parts of it Something about; "Creating beneficial, cooperative relationships between all communities to foster resilience through interdependence, cooperation and a common vision while maintaining local autonomy and uniqueness. (or character)".

Parts of it

Sooke can't shift to low carbon or energy efficient if we need to drive Hwy 14 every day to work and for retail shopping and services. Either improve the road, or improve the public transit, or improve the Sooke economic base so people can work/shop locally. SOOKE MATTERS because we take care of your water, we don't pollute the ocean (we have responsible waste treatment through EPCOR), and we have the recreational forest/ocean areas that the rest of CRD likes to come play in.

Parts of it Strong relationships with First Nations; the T'Souke Nations are leaders in sustainability.

Parts of it

Sustainable is used too much, and has become valueless term. If we use any non-renewable raw resource to continue our existence (e.g.. minerals, oil) we are living, by definition, in a no sustainable way. Addressing energy use is a good start, but it's like sayings patient has 3 tumours and declaring them cancer free after one is removed. it would be refreshing to see the vernacular shift away from sustainability and, instead, reflect responsibility.

Parts of it Tag lines are not important.

Parts of it

Tagline: Add Affordable as the first word. Vision: nothing specific for seniors. It is likely when asked it could be said this consideration is buried in these words. Boomers will create a huge impact on economies, and their lack of growing incomes on available dollars to spend on achieving these targets. My sense is many items in this plan will need correction. The lack of collaboration amongst CRD members casts a shadow on all plans, estimates etc.

Parts of it Target should be much sooner.

Parts of it That depends upon for whom is it to be a "sustainable economy" and at what cost to our fellow species.

Parts of it That is a real tongue twister should be simplified as most people will lose interest half way through the sentence.

Parts of it

The | in the tagline are dated. I also wouldn't capitalize each word in it - bad grammar. Stop trying to be fancy. Commas or short dashes could have worked. Vision statement is really long and gives no actionables or measureables. Seems like it was created by a committee...which I'm sure it was. It's okay, but seems cheesy and it's too long. It's going to be hard to get buy-in with it. It's not practical or to the point.

Parts of it

The CRD is not the way to do any of this. It is just another level of government that is costing the tax payers unneeded money. A building and stipends for members are not improving anything. Municipalities should be able to meet together in the existing buildings that are owned by the municipalities. I just see the CRD as being a redundant body.

Parts of it The CRD should serve, not pretend to lead.

Parts of it The date should be set to "now" because this stamens is a lifetime journey, not a destination. I believe the triple bottom line should read "social, economic and environmental equity."


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 71

Parts of it

The economy is the problem, and without addressing a system that rewards greed and pollution, there is no point on talking about such a concept as sustainability. So when you want to "optimize individual wellbeing" you are saying the same as always, that people have the right to do what they want. A very important place to begin is to address the concept we have developed of property ownership. The law should recognize that owning a piece of property does not give a person dominion over all the other organisms that need that land to survive, and they are legally obligated to keep that land as ecologically functionable as possible.

Parts of it

The economy, as it is today, seems to require growth - the more, the better. I believe that is a false economy that cannot be sustained. Somehow we need to modify our demands on the environment and learn to live a little more in keeping with the idea that we are only a small part of life on earth. Living a little more modestly and allowing the natural world (animals, plants, the forests, the waterways) to recover from some of the damage humans have done, should be a goal we could achieve if we try.

Parts of it

The goal of making the CRD and specifically Central Saanich more affordable is not realistic over the longer term as long as people choose to move here in large numbers for retirement or to enjoy the mild climate. In the end the real estate market must determine this region's affordability. Government action to reduce real estate and living costs will not be sustainable.

Parts of it The importance of all municipalities conforming to this vision is critical.

Parts of it The important role of transportation in sustainable development is omitted. Needs to be included after boldly shifting to "affordable low carbon transportation & energy efficient ..."

Parts of it The last 5 words are too broad and vague to me meaningful, relative to the rest, so that I am unable to determine if I am for them or against. The rest is OK.

Parts of it

The primary focus of the CRD's RGS should be on the region; then work outwards to identify what the relationship needs to be with others and vice versa to achieve the strategy. Starting your vision statement with the planet and working inwards to the community is going in the wrong direction. The vision statement contains many important concepts: affordability, renewable resources, energy efficiency, safe food and social equity but as with many vision statements the reader gets lost between the beginning and the end.

Parts of it

The purpose of the vision of the RSS in my view is to talk about a sustainable future - sustainable resources, sustainable land use planning, food security, water security, etc. It is not simply about a sustainable economy, and in fact prioritizing monetary economics over these other aspects of sustainability does a severe disservice to future generations. In my view we need to rethink why we are undertaking this process, and we need to consider what values we want to be the underpinning of our vision of sustainability. If monetary considerations are our primary mode of thinking, I think we have limited our vision, and undermined our ability to become truly sustainable.

Parts of it The timeline needs to be sooner, and there needs to be something about working with our neighbours. This is a small island so incorporating other districts on Vancouver Island and Gulf Island would be good. Otherwise I like the statement.

Parts of it

The vision statement is hard to read. I'd like to wording reconsidered to give the idea that by 2038 we will have achieved (or be well on our way) the vision. As it currently reads, I get the feeling that by 2038 we will start doing the "bold shifting", etc. - that's far too late to start!

Parts of it The year-reduction goals are not aggressive enough.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 72

Parts of it

Themes to keep: thriving economy community and individual wellbeing energy-efficient lifestyles expanding the local food supply stewarding renewable resources Local government has limits on issues such as social equity, income levels, low carbon lifestyles. So local government should focus on areas in which it has direct control and thus can actually impact.

Parts of it There could be more discussion about what "expanding local food supply" is about. Creating more land to grow food for animals, or to grow food for humans? Will it be organic agriculture? Veganic? Permaculture?

Parts of it There is no mention or protecting natural wilderness areas.

Parts of it There needs to be a very careful, considered, and cooperative definition of each unique "community" within the CRD as it exists. Each has their unique vision for the future and that "personality” can be respected and honored to the benefit of the whole region.

Parts of it

There should be no more building along the shorelines or floodplain areas. Due to earthquake predictions, sea level rise, flash flooding, erosion and tsunamis could potentially destroy many of your 2038 plans. Lowland areas should become parks and natural wetlands. High ground should be used housing and sewage facilities. Core redevelopment must include wetland areas that slow and recapture road and rooftop runoff water. Areas outside the Urban Containment Boundary should be studied to see what is their "highest and best use". Some small sections could become protected wildlife areas avoiding deer culls. Some affordable housing for young families, seniors and those living with disabilities could be established outside the urban containment boundary within walking distance to Hospitals and Health clinics. Small, affordable cluster units along a Transit/Bike route could avoid spoiling the visual impact yet allow citizens to live, work and remain within the Capital Region. Consider placing tertiary treatment facilities within these areas so that they can recover resources from waste. The Youth Detention Centre is such a location ... needed, close and can use the heat and electricity produced.

Parts of it This is a language thing, I have to bring it up. More active language (remove the -ings and -lys) will make this read better. I.e. Shifting to affordable vs. a shift to affordable. Bold change not change by boldly...Reads as more committed and actionable.

Parts of it This is trying to be all things to all people - an impossible task. I fail to see how achieving sustainability will assist in furthering social equity.

Parts of it

This looks great in writing but the CRD conducts its business with an abundance of red tape, difficult and complicated procedures that add to the costs. Stop hiring expensive Directors, bylaw officers, coordinators etc. and examine how Langford gets the tasks completed at a reduced cost effective, efficient manner. Put a 3 year freeze on wage and benefits during this civic term. Use energy efficient Tertiary treatment and recover resources by using local labour.

Parts of it This statement is too long and not all community members will be able to understand it and/or foresee that goals could not be accomplished.

Parts of it

This vision statement is much weaker than the statement in the current RGS. It needs to state that this vision will be accomplished by restricting growth within the CURRENT urban containment boundary by developing complete compact communities in the urban core and protecting rural green space.

Parts of it

Thriving economies come from individual and social wellbeing. The Horticulture Economy (Landscaping, agriculture, natural restoration, etc.) is often volunteer work. This sucks! It should be paid. If the economy cannot pay for it then the economy and environment is not integrated.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 73

Parts of it To me, the tagline "SHIFT 2038" fails to encompass the specificity that is worded in the full vision statement. I suggest the word FOCUS as it implies that the CRD is already on the right track, but is merely bringing into focus what is ultimately most important.

Parts of it

Too much focus on environment and social equity - that ignores the idea that, whatever local governments do, it should be affordable for their taxpayers, or it cannot be sustained. Continued growth in the tax base is necessary, to ensure we can take action on environmental issues. That growth should be cost-effective - minimizing the additional infrastructure required from local government.

Parts of it Too wordy! Simplify.

Parts of it

Very vague as to what defines "individual and community wellbeing", or exactly what a "thriving, sustainable economy" might entail. My idea of community wellbeing is low density and non-expansion of sewer and water, but another's view might be that high density housing and industrialization might contribute to a "thriving and sustainable economy." It appears we are too often willing to sacrifice the quality of life for future generations as we worship the great god "economy" monotheistically.

Parts of it

Vision stmt reads v well. Problem with the tag lines: 1. no sense of place...capital regional district, sure. But WHERE? 2. Ditto #1 + too long. The word "innovative" is so overused today, it rings tritely and jingoistic, especially when juxtaposed alongside words like "thriving" and "fair", which are more along the lines of clear values one could get behind. I don't have any trouble visioning what healthy means. Ditto sustainable, thriving, and fair.

Parts of it

We have areas in the western communities that have little or no water in the summer on their property .We should be helping these people to hook up to community water systems ,not putting road blocks in their way. Years ago we were all aloud to hook up electricity at a reasonable rate , Water lines should be reasonable as well.

Parts of it We live in one of the top 3 most endangered ecosystems in Canada. We have lost and continue to lose biodiversity. We need to improve the odds of survival for the other species we share the region with, not just people.

Parts of it We need increased emphasis on reducing our carbon footprint and protecting our water and land from contaminants and shoreline flooding.

Parts of it We need to steward nature for its intrinsic value, not just for its value to us as a resource to be extracted. There is not enough about protecting habitats.

Parts of it Well, you can write whatever you like but if it is not true than it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Parts of it What is a sustainable economy?

Parts of it What is missing is protection of natural environment and supporting innovation what does direct, innovative action by the CRD mean? corporation with others? Who are they?

Parts of it Why disturb established residential areas.

Parts of it

Why not a "thriving, sustainable region" as opposed to just a "thriving, sustainable economy"? I would also want to know more about how the expansion of the local food supply would happen--does this mean less density? Cities need density more than they need artisanal tomatoes. Finally, I'm pretty skeptical about how "bold" things will turn out to be. And work on the grammar--at least we can get that right, right?

Parts of it Yes - Stop flushing raw human waste into the PACIFIC OCEAN!!!!!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 74

Parts of it

You don't give any details regarding the "direct innovative action" that achieve transformational change." How do you propose to achieve the shift to "affordable , low carbon, energy efficient lifestyle." ? It's difficult to agree with it until we know more of what would be involved ( expenses, removing farmland from ALR etc.) I think that improving the quantity of food grown locally on all those empty farms is very important.

Parts of it

Your inspiration will come from having 100% support in providing honest debate on what is affordable. The vision is idealistic rather than realistic. Most of the vision will be supported by those who have finances to do so . Those who already financially struggle will find it to be a huge burden.

Yes "A thriving, sustainable economy and a just society" ... "that optimizes individual, community, and planetary wellbeing."

Yes "Cooperation with others" needs to be explained-who are the others?

Yes "Direct innovative action by the CRD..." has a bit of a "big brother" ring to it. I would prefer the CRD work with individuals, organizations, community groups and business, as an equal partner in the process.

Yes "Direct innovative action by the CRD..." has a worrisome "big brother" ring to it. I would prefer a statement that declared the intent of working equally and together with all individuals, organizations, and communities toward these laudable ends.

Yes

"Direct, innovative action by the CRD in cooperation with permaculture experts and other innovative engineers to achieve transformational change by boldly shifting to affordable, low impact, water-smart, energy-efficient lifestyles, expanding the local food supply, stewarding renewable resources, achieving greater social equity and encouraging local economy.

Yes "Low-carbon is vague and more of a political tag line rather than tangible, efficient living. I would instead have the focus to "self-sufficient energy efficient infrastructure".

Yes 2038 is far too late to be moving in this direction - action is needed NOW.

Yes 2038 is too far out. could we not tighten up the timeline. 10 years is perhaps enough for a good start. The language is very trendy and florid. Could it be in more basic English?

Yes 2038 is too far away I would like to see 5 year increments.

Yes A Capital Region that is Sustainable and Healthy.

Yes A Capital Region that is Sustainable and Liveable Add "LOCAL" to "thriving local, sustainable economy".

Yes

A little too wordy. Too many objectives which may partly contradict each other (bold transformation vs. individual wellbeing and cooperation). Perhaps it's time to realize that inconvenient and sometimes unpopular decisions will have to be made to counteract serious long-term threats to societies such as climate change and ever growing car traffic.

Yes A lot more work required for this.

Yes A sustainable low carbon economy as the end goal of the governmental policies.

Yes

A vision without a plan is but a dream; this statement, while promising, is vague and does not let me know what the CRD plans to do to attain this vision. We may have different ideas on what it means to steward natural resources. I would suggest making this statement stronger by including more specific goals/methods.

Yes Achieve our goals in part by the judicious application of incentives and Pigovian Taxes to reflect the full cost of development.

Yes Add "water conserving".

Yes Add amalgamation into at least 4 municipalities hopefully before then.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 75

Yes Add maintaining and increasing farms, parks, green spaces including in the denser city.

Yes Add to the tag line: self-sustaining in terms of food. This cannot be over-emphasized and fits within the Vision Statement.

Yes Add: protecting from development existing wild lands and agricultural areas. Protecting the land itself may or may not fall under "expanding the local food supply." A clearer, more direct statement is necessary that cannot be argued away by future CRD board members.

Yes Affordable housing.

Yes 'Affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles' Essentially simplifying our lives with imagination. People are reluctant to change habits so there is the Art of public engagement and participation.

Yes Aggressive move to greener energy use - solar panels on all new builds & a retrofit program for existing homes & business.

Yes

All of this would be inspiring if it actually had a chance of coming to fruition. The problem is that is seems as though we spend a lot of time on these great visions (because who would say that they DON'T want these things?), but when the time comes to alter lifestyles and developer profit it all comes to a halt.

Yes Already mentioned in specifics in section B: 1.

Yes Also wilderness protection - areas left undeveloped and protected for non-human habitation and use by natural wildlife.

Yes

Aspects of it are bored - I'd need to see the specific goals and objectives to give you a better answer. However I will say this - your indicators and evaluation are crucial. How successful have these documents been in the past? Have you reported on the successes and failures? or are these documents more of a "we wrote the strategy... good on us!"

Yes

At its most basic, the sustainability initiative will be effective if it is understandable and affordable to everyone. We need to mobilize everyone with positive messages - sometimes even the most well-meaning missives sound onerous simply because of the language - I don't have an alternative way to describe any of the vision in mind, but my first response is to Keep it Simple. Once there is a groundswell of support, momentum takes the initiative to new levels. I'm thinking of once-foreign visions we have adopted such as wearing seat belts, and anti-drinking and driving campaigns.

Yes

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter support the tagline and draft vision statement. Further, we commend the CRD for the Vision, Objectives and Introduction in Part 1 of the Draft RSS. We believe it contains a fair statement of the sustainability issues and challenges facing the CRD and the world today, particularly regarding the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to minimize the harm of climate change. We suggest that the CRD could be more explicit about the need for the CRD to “do its share” as a basis for determining the goals for GHG reductions. This could be added to the “Full Vision Statement.”

Yes Be less repetitive. Make all your questions more clear.

Yes Bettering of environmentally-low impact travel between communities in Victoria and other municipalities e.g., walking, riding mobility devices, cycling, skateboarding, etc. by making certain streets during daytime hours as car/truck-restricted to accomplish this objective.

Yes But there's no mention of directly and strongly preventing further sprawl. Look to Europe. They have set very strong barriers to land usage growth. Make our cities denser please by having strong wording on our stance towards sprawl.

Yes By achieving greater social equity? What the heck does that mean. I already work like a dog and pay taxes on everything multiple times over.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 76

Yes By community wellbeing; if this does not already include tourists and commercial property involvement, then it should as residents who in CRD are only part of the equation.

Yes By connecting people and things into networks and by allowing open access to the "big data" those networks produce to increase citizen participation in decision making.

Yes Change "greater social equity" to "greater opportunities for all".

Yes Change the date to 2030 from 2038.

Yes

Change the goal from 2038 to 2040 - it's easier to identify with, and it's 25 years away. By 2038: We ARE contributING to a FAR MORE SUSTAINABLE planet. WE ARE creatING a thriving, ECOLOGICALLY sustainable economy that IS optimizING individual and community wellbeing. Direct, innovative action by the CRD and cooperation with others IS achievING transformational change by boldly: shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles; expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources; and achieving greater social equity WITH THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF HOMELESSNESS, GREATLY REDUCED POVERTY, AND A GREATLY INCREASED SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Yes Change the sentence to "thriving, sustainable LOCAL economy".

Yes Consider adding after 'boldly', '... and thoughtfully: ...'. Not sure about 'social equity'; consider, 'social capital' instead.

Yes Consider including mention of all the non-material things in life that make it rich and exciting; enjoyable times with friends, family, pursuing hobbies, passions, exploring philosophies, spiritual experiences, etc.

Yes Contain urban sprawl..........

Yes 'Cooperation with others to achieve' drop the ':' ...not needed change 'achieving' to 'fostering' Sorry...I'm an English Major...the message is, of course, good...but the proof will be in the collective actions of the CRD...

Yes

Could not get into tagline, but did see something which went away when I went back to this questionnaire. I feel it is best to proceed with answering questionnaire, since I know what is needed in broad terms. The proposals are very detailed and I haven't time at the moment to go over them with a fine-tooth comb.

Yes CRD Board will stop acting in a divisive manner and work towards amalgamation of the municipalities.

Yes

Create targets in terms of renewable energy; the creation of parks; local composting facilities; garbage collection and disposal; disposing of garden waste; public transport, bike ways & bike parking. Confine industrial parks and commercial areas as much as possible to urban areas.

Yes Do not allow development to spread into existing green spaces. Plan zoning laws that limit developers to working within a green belt established by a consultative process.

Yes Emphasize need to include carrying capacity for land and waters to support development.

Yes

Encourage and support the Agriculture community with meaningful programs so that the farms can become profitable. Should assist with agriculture production awareness and local marketing. Ensure that Local products in fact are local by defining local and enshrining this in marketing support by stating that the products can be local if they are grown within the local community, Not define local as being BC grown or Fraser Valley grown.

Yes Encourage investment in alternate energy production such as wind, tides, solar, waste.

Yes Encourage more thinking small is beautiful , how much is enough less short life consumables long term quality.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 77

Yes Encourage walking and cycling.

Yes Encouraging and subsidizing renewable energy.

Yes Ensuring that restrictive bylaws are eliminated so that the best housing plans are possible.

Yes

Equal opportunities to all levels of education is a pre-requisite to most of the vision items, but is not mentioned. It is fundamental to social equity and a just society. Likewise health. Ensure that people can take the greatest possible care of their health (being educated is a big part of it), but when intervention is needed and particularly as we get older, we (i.e. government, society etc.,) need to do a lot better than we do now. The public health service is full of holes and the deficiencies have a disproportionate effect on the very young, the less well-off and the old.

Yes

Even though social equity is a lofty goal, it does not closely relate to the other themes in the vision and is something that the CRD has essentially no control over. I would leave this out. Concentrate on cooperation between the different regional governments to achieve the goals of a healthier planet by encouraging and actively supporting land use planning, waste reduction, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions etc. i.e. make the vision statement somewhat more concrete and directly related to the plan.

Yes EVERY PERSON MUST BE ABLE TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT WITH CLEAN WATER AND AIR. ORGANIC FOOD.

Yes Expand and innovate new, local food creation; initiate and support stewardship of the urban forest; create viable wildlife corridors in the agricultural, rural and urban landscape.

Yes Expand social ownership of residential housing; i.e. co-op housing to help achieve social equity.

Yes Expanding the local food supply to include the lands, waterways and forests of this territory.

Yes Far more emphasis on sustaining BOTH people and environment. Sustaining Indigenous flora and faunas is MORE important than generating economic wealth and expansion.

Yes

Feeding and housing people should be Priority number one. Expand the local food supply and make it affordable for people to eat! Period. Achieving greater social equity? Sounds very in the clouds. How are you going to make it more equitable? EACH and EVERY person deserves a roof over their head - it's that simple. Make More Affordable housing NOW.

Yes Focused growth in existing urban areas.

Yes

Food security: attention to the fact that many productive farms are not on ALR land; attention to protection/preservation of watersheds for fish bearing streams and rivers economic development: I have a theme myself. The RSS does not properly recognize that 132000 ha of the total plan area is basically wild land and that economic use of this land includes preservation of its ecological services and value for tourism and recreation as well as sustainable harvest of timber transportation: good theme overall that density of human uses needs to cluster around available public transportation and that such clusters will make the transportation more affordable by having users nearby, however. However, District of Sooke and the JdF EA do not belong in the West Shore grouping because the transportation available and to be developed will not match what is available in the West Shore. The Sooke economy seems to be based on construction of new housing and housing commuters. This is not a good "vision" for the future and grouping Sooke with Langford and Colwood obscures its particular history and future.

Yes Full vision statement far too full of jargon. I like the SHIFT.

Yes Fully explore geo-thermal energy options; explore energy from waste. Work on redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 78

Yes

Further, we commend the CRD for the Vision, Objectives and Introduction in Part 1 of the Draft RSS. We believe it contains a fair statement of the sustainability issues and challenges facing the CRD and the world today, particularly regarding the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to minimize the harm of climate change. We suggest that the CRD could be more explicit about the need for the CRD to “do its share” as a basis for determining the goals for GHG reductions. This could be added to the “Full Vision Statement.”

Yes Generally, it's good. However, I'd suggest the following three changes: 1) "...cooperation with the community achieves..."; 2) "stewarding resources sustainably"; 3) add 'enhancing ecological integrity' before the social equity point.

Yes Get more aggressive with targets and actions.

Yes Good for a single statement, but more could be said on lifestyles, very broad term. Again, speaking specifically to active or healthy transportation needed.

Yes Good goals but it's going to be hard to keep future councils focused on these principals without a very strong commitment to their OCP's and the RSS.

Yes Have serious intent with timelines for accomplishing goals and get started NOW. People need to see that change is happening, not merely "planned" to happen.

Yes How could one not want all of the above? The statements are too general - mostly motherhood statements. Perhaps when I click 'next' I will see some particulars?

Yes

I am a bit concerned with the use of the word "thriving" which I think many will interpret as "growing". I don't think economic growth is necessary. A fairer distribution of wealth and income and continuing to provide good public amenities will result in a good quality of life for all.

Yes

I have made some minor edits to the original Vision Statement ... By 2038: We will contribute to a healthier planet and create a thriving, sustainable economy that promotes individual and community well-being. Direct, innovative action by the CRD and cooperation with others achieves this desired change by shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles; expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources; and achieving greater social equity. I find the original Vision Statement hard to grasp due to its stilted language and long-winded phraseology. These statements should be capable of being read comfortably by most people without forcing them to try to understand it by multiple re-reads.

Yes I hope this is the long version... Something short, pithy and inspiring should be used for marketing and communication.

Yes I like it as is.

Yes I love this yes, focus on the local food supply. And much better transit. Bus only lanes. Express busses from the suburbs. More bike lanes.

Yes I mostly support it, some of the phrasing is jargon (such as transformational change by boldly...) but it is a strong statement about the necessity to shift to a low carbon economy and energy efficient behaviour.

Yes I sincerely hope that when the CRD speaks of a thriving economy that they are not referring to an economy that promoted infinite growth and the pursuit of ever more profit within regional ecosystems that have finite limits.

Yes I support the comments by the Consortium.

Yes I think a greater emphasis on collaboration and community building is needed. These strategies are great, but if they don't lead to a more engaged and inspired populace then they are done in vain.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 79

Yes I think it works pretty well as is.

Yes I think it's great as is.

Yes

I think the CRD has done a good job looking after our water supply up until this point but think that 'water' should be mentioned in the vision statement. As it is essential to all life we need to hold it up as essential to be stewards of and share with not just the human population but also plants and animals where we live. Just as it was taken for granted that water and air would always be available when the UN declaration was written many years ago - we don't want to make the same mistake - water needs to be mentioned in everything the CRD states so that we all realize how important it is, and not forget it.

Yes I think the point about not ruining our grandchildren’s lives by our own greed or carelessness needs to be emphasized. It is they, not us, who will pay most of the price for our shortcomings.

Yes I think we can do it sooner and begin doing it now! All smaller actions lead to larger results. Let's say: This year we will contribute to a healthier planet...

Yes I think we need to add something about protecting natural habitats and ecosystems. We also need to preserve our historical buildings and landscapes.

Yes

I think you have done a great job. You also have to take into account the mega projects that are happening around us and make every effort to stop them. That is not mentioned in the plan but it IS crucial to the success of any local initiative. You also need to be cognizant of other global issues like corporations control of food supply and the democratic process and take steps to prevent this. You have to mention that we must do the following: Deny support for, and actively prevent, Site C dam from going forward. Deny support and work actively against any LNG or fracking in the province and in particular, our region. Word actively against any fossil fuel extraction of any kind, or any projects that support the extraction and use of fossil fuels. That includes mining, pipelines, refineries, dams etc. Prevent the use of pesticides and poisons from coming into the area and beings used. This includes seeds and GMO products from companies like Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta. Protect the fauna and flora in the entire area from degradation by the use of pesticides and other harmful practices, not just those areas designated for protection.

Yes

I think you need to be far more specific in the examples - i.e. how do you propose to steward renewable resources? how to we move towards low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles (here it could be solar energy, and the need to subsidize households in installing solar panels.

Yes I would add the word greatly to expanding the local food supply.

Yes I would add, 1) supporting local economics to flourish 2) creating zero waste communities.

Yes

I would change the order and start with achieving greater social equality and many other issues would fall more logically into place. We live in a blessed region where there is a great deal of wealth and power because of this. There are also many people in the region that are not in that situation and should be involved in the process. I hope that we do much more than contribute to a healthier planet, but that our area can show leadership.

Yes I would like to see the addition of using sustainable building materials and building practices, placing a focus on material changes that are measurable and easier to initiate and control than the lifestyle of the citizens who live in the city.

Yes

I wouldn't like to see our skyline with huge sky rises but better that than using up our small amount of farmland for subdivision and malls. Also if the towering buildings had roof gardens & solar panels & the smaller newer wind turbines, that would make them more appealing to live in and look at. Also build the sewer treatment plant - I'm a bit embarrassed when people talk about our City and it's sewer.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 80

Yes I'd be mentioning our local advantages (climate, ocean access) making this a desirable destination for tourists as well as residents.

Yes

If we are moving this way, we need to move also with Social justice in mind. This island is an Indigenous island, land that was appropriated and stolen and left the Indigenous people oppressed and dispossessed from the most meaningful hub of culture, spirituality and governance.

Yes I'm ALL FOR your vision. especially I’m glad you include social equity (which I’d overlooked to mention on item 1). the only item I might add would be protecting natural areas -- especially streams -- with good but non-destructive public access.

Yes I'm good with it as stated.

Yes I'm not too worried about the tag line... I want to see visions- not read about them.

Yes Improving public transit.

Yes Inherent incompatibilities between objectives need to be addressed.

Yes It could emphasize protecting wild spaces and concentrating growth in urban centres and avoiding sprawl.

Yes It covers everything but it might be more effective if it was more focused.

Yes It looks great!

Yes It would be great to see something taking note of conserving natural habitat and native biodiversity.

Yes It’s fine.

Yes It's fine, let's get on with it.

Yes

It’s great, and maybe I don't get the Full Vision Statement purpose, but I've found during recent years that everyone is, and understandably so, trying to "stimulate the economy" which to me necessarily means promoting consumerism... the answer to the issue of trying to keep the economy strong while not over-consuming the earth's resources I don't have it's just a tension I see.

Yes It's pretty good but I'd like to see more about *switching* to renewable energy, as "stewarding renewable resources" is kinda weak, and could be interpreted to mean we're just looking after trees.

Yes

Just a clarification - "local food supply" ought not become 500 "local" slaughterhouses to replace the exorbitant quantity of off-island animal product now imported. Local food supply focused on increasing amounts of plant food will best reduce the food carbon footprint.

Yes Just make it a little more direct and less word-y!

Yes Keep all.

Yes Keep it local and as natural as possible.

Yes Keep taxation as low as possible in order to promote economic growth.

Yes

Lighten up on the jargon, increase the humility, and check your spelling and grammar. For example: "We hope to contribute to a healthier planet by creating a thriving, sustainable economy that optimizes individual and community well-being. Innovation and direct action by the CRD in cooperation with others can effect positive change through shifting to affordable, low-carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles, expanding the local food supply, stewarding renewable resources, and achieving greater social equity."

Yes Limit housing, and population growth.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 81

Yes Make the language actionable. this is vague. Focus on renewable energy and end the reign of oil. Create incentives for people to make the switch. Finally, there is NO mention of schools and youth.

Yes Maybe add eradicate homelessness.

Yes Mention biodiversity, nature, leadership for other communities, walkable neighbourhoods.

Yes More emphasis on community.

Yes More local support to all communities, for all issues from road maintenance to seniors and all in between.

Yes More park and rides to accommodate carbon reduction. Revisit transit maps and routes. Amalgamation would be a key factor, i.e. Saanich Peninsula for one.

Yes More reference to leadership by example would be good.

Yes

Most citizens living and paying taxes in the CRD are now deeply afraid of what "direct, innovative action by the CRD" would likely cost us, based on recent examples of such direct, innovative action. Where in the Vision Statement is the commitment to appropriate consultation with the citizenry prior to the direct, innovative action? The statement should probably read, “in cooperation with others”.

Yes

My main concern is that this vision statement is about a goal for over 20 years from now. Those changes will certainly take time to accomplish, and every step forward is one less stagnation or step backward, but, for me, what is missing is a commitment to that gradual change to get there. We need to make sure there are touchstones along the way so that political, economic and other forces don't provide excuses for continual delays, such that come 2037 we are wondering where all the time went and why we haven't reach the goals. I realize a vision statement is not a full plan, but if we do not commit to gradual steps toward getting there, and make annual reports of what has been done toward that process, I fear it may not happen.

Yes Need to add thriving sustainable economy, environment, and wildlife rights and wellbeing, fresh air and water rights and wellbeing and keeping to the natural beauty of the island. Trees, low building structures, and leaving access to the ocean frontage for all.

Yes

Need to include First Nations in growth management planning, please! I feel most strongly about these targets: Achieve a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, cycling, and transit. Achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles. Reduce the poverty rate by 75%. Retain existing amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands. At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) land and water base is protected or managed for the needs of nature and residents of the region. Identify, by 2020, long-term capital plans for CRD utilities and major infrastructure improvements necessary to address the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.

Yes Needs more mention of ensuring efficient development patterns and transport as essential components of the above rather general objectives.

Yes Needs more of a sense of urgency.

Yes No suggestions.

Yes Not sure why 2038? Why not "from now on" or "we will now and always consider." can we strive to improve our environment? beyond sustainable, how is your relationship with your loved ones? sustainable?

Yes On first reading the tag line is not clear that it actually includes all the items on the second line.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 82

Yes People should be able to live in the areas where they work, not have to commute 1 hour plus each day.

Yes

Please explain to me why the local grocery stores cannot sell local organic produce? No one understands or is able to explain this. Why is a new bridge ordering from China? This is a shortcut to save money. It lacks vision for long-term and already is proving to be a disaster waiting to happen. Let's get local. Let's start emulation Europeans who are at least 10 years ahead of us in terms of health safety, solar and wind power.

Yes Please include preservation of Garry Oak meadows, and densification of developed areas.

Yes Prevent any of the 13 local municipalities from expanding into ALR areas, or expanding beyond urban containment areas in LCP's.

Yes Promoting outdoor recreation with beach access, hiking trail & bike trails.

Yes Put in a statement encouraging the densification of core area municipalities with well planned, extraordinarily well designed and properly situated medium to high density residential developments.

Yes

Recognize that our current levels of consumption are not sustainable or necessary for a high standard of living. That we can achieve all our goals by simply changing how we live our lives. That it is necessary to create a more equitable society to allow everyone to reach these goals.

Yes Recognizing the every-increasing tax burden on our local citizenry, pursuing options for funding this vision from the Federal and Provincial governments and other sources.

Yes Reducing GHG's by getting more cars off the road.

Yes Replace the word 'sustainable' with 'regenerative'.

Yes Resilient? Do not know where it fits in the tag line.

Yes Respect the OCP and regional bylaws of individual municipalities without violating them, also monitor what is happening. RSS has to become a binding law.

Yes See above comments.

Yes

See my comments above and determine whether they are covered by the vision statement. I find vision statements are so broad and undefined that they do not hold much meaning for me. I am not quite sure why the words "sustainable economy" is included in this vision statement or perhaps it is just one of these vague statements where the interpretation might mean something completely different from what I think it might. The devil will be in the specification, moralizations and details.

Yes Sewage transportation local food utilize unused rail assets.

Yes Share costs......not just cooperation..........with others.

Yes Social equity needs the involvement of provincial and federal effort and money. Local support could be increases by education of the community. Efforts in this Re. Being done but more is needed.

Yes Some component of emergency management should be included or implied.

Yes Some notes on the human resource, inclusion, mental health, connectiveness; there has to be an a willingness to participate, motivation, sense of community.

Yes Something about supporting non-human life, wildlife, insects and plants is needed.

Yes Sounds good but humans are greedy.

Yes Sounds pretty good to me.

Yes Spell out we must save parks, other green space and farm land.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 83

Yes Stewarding our natural environment - not just "renewable resources".

Yes 'Stewarding renewable resources' should perhaps read 'stewarding our precious habitats'. We need to stop thinking in terms of resources, renewable or otherwise, which sounds like something we need to exploit, when it is actually something we just need to conserve.

Yes Stop talking about sustainability and do something about it !

Yes Sustainable and healthy.

Yes Tag lines are branding - get on with the real work and stop wasting time marking inaction.

Yes Tag lines are easy to make sound good, wordsmith away... What I care about are how these statements are implemented and ensuring access to local food and natural spaces for all, including low income citizens.

Yes Tagline is terrific!

Yes Take out the "individual wellbeing " piece...because it often can be at odds with community wellbeing.

Yes Take out the word "Fair". It doesn't fit with the other words. The meaning isn't clear in the context of the others. Fair can be interpreted as "so-so" and drags down the optimism of the other words.

Yes

Take out 'transformational' --redundant and pretentious take out 'boldly'--it's an extraneous, emotive word. Boldly or timidly, as long as it's done. After "that optimizes individual and community wellbeing" add 'based on a 'trickle-up' economic strategy'. "stewarding renewable resources" change to 'taking care of our resources, renewable and otherwise' After "achieving greater social equity." add 'by viewing the poor as a resource and not as a burden'.

Yes

The "SHIFT 2038" makes no sense to me. Not intuitively understandable. Upper case is visually assaulting. Punctuation in this opening phrase is wonky, especially the ellipse. The selection of descriptors is a mixture of "apples and oranges", “sustainable" is an over-arching word; the other words describe different aspects of sustainability that we are highlighting. Too many aspects are being highlighted; three would be more effective. Would prefer something like: Sustainable Future for the Capital Region Resilient “Livable” Fair Need to involve some wordsmiths; I can't do this in 10 minutes!

Yes The addition of the statement: "the policies to achieve those targets are critical, as is rigorous efforts to monitor and implement the policies.

Yes The CRD has not proved it is effective enough to take care of itself. This body should be replaced at the very least. There are better ways to spend taxpayers money, and probably better people to do the job.

Yes

'The economy' has become a thoughtless buzz phrase to access our knee-jerk hot buttons. Let's not fall into the trap of using it, because there is nothing of an economic nature that we humans do that is not in some way harmful to the biosphere. Let's be aware of this and always be sure we want what we say we want.

Yes The Full Vision Statement is concise and well-written.

Yes

The full vision statement outlines several important areas, all of which should be kept if the statement is improved upon. An improvement would be the inclusion of 'boldly' protecting and improving natural areas and their connectivity in an effort to protect ecosystem function and services (this is a key guiding principle that allows for improved resilience in the face of climate change).

Yes The idea that a healthier planet is based primarily on a thriving economy has gotten us into a mess. Optimizing individual and community wellbeing will lead to a thriving, sustainable economy, not vice versa.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 84

Yes The main thing is to not let this drop by the wayside.

Yes The problem arises when the proposed details don't correspond to the "tagline".

Yes The problem arises when the proposed details don't correspond to the "tagline".

Yes The problem is not everyone will agree on what this means or how to implement it.

Yes The tagline and the vision statement seem to me to direct our society in much more community oriented relationships, this is very important this is very important for a satisfied, happy community.

Yes The themes that need to be emphasized are densification in core municipalities.

Yes

The way to improve this tagline would be to move it from lip service to an actual action plan that puts the priorities in the order they are worded in the vision statement. The exception to this would be that achieving greater social equality should move closer to the head of the line. We live in an area that holds many very wealthy people who hold a lot of power, but we also have pockets of great need.

Yes The word "sustainable" is somewhat overused and means different things to different people. For me it implies "for many generations to come", but maybe that's too long to include.

Yes

The word optimizes sounds too 'engineering' to be inspiring need to aim higher: would like to see CRD adopt a net contributor approach; stewarding resources seems a bit weak, as does 'expanding local food supply', and 'greater social equity' - make stronger, bolder statements than this - a vision is supposed to be compelling and make people want to live here and be proud of the region.

Yes

Themes to improve upon "community wellbeing" more than "individual wellbeing" We are quickly losing our ability to share, rather our worlds are shrinking to our individual homes that are seen as self-sufficient with shelter, food, entertainment, transportation. If we are to work towards a healthier planet, this is a together project, will require substantial, sustained, committed public community participation - so words such as communities, neighbourhoods, public, groups, together need to be emphasized.

Yes

There appear to be two different versions of the vision The RSS sets out a vision and targets for 2038 that are bold and aspirational â€“ that provide a strong and clear direction for action. Realizing the vision and achieving targets will require an on-going commitment to pragmatic actions that over a 20+ year period will result in desired outcomes. To be successful, we will need to prioritize those actions that will most effectively deliver results and then promptly take action. While the vision claims to be bold and aspirational it undermines this boldness by stating elsewhere in the draft, it is noted that adoption of the RSS does not commit or authorize the CRD or local municipalities to implement specific actions identified in the RSS. If there is widespread agreement on the RSS, there should be an obligation, on the part of the CRD and municipalities to comply with the RSS To be successful, we will need to prioritize those actions that will most effectively deliver results and then promptly take action. We may need to proceed with actions concurrently. The following statement seems to reinforce the need to examine the complexity and interdependence of actions concurrently;] It addresses a broad scope of issues and considers the long-term. Sustainability is also a way of holistically understanding issues and potential solutions. With sustainability there is a shift from considering regional issues and opportunities as separate, discrete matters, to gaining a better understanding of interconnections and relationships and leveraging synergies. An example of this approach is the influence that active transportation and transit have on simultaneously reducing GHG emissions; minimizing energy use for travel; reducing travel costs; supporting healthy lifestyles; supporting fair access to jobs, goods, services and amenities; and supporting the creation of accessible, safe, people-friendly public spaces. The following sections outline


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 85

the urgency with which we need to shift to more sustainable ways of living, the challenges and opportunities, key leverage points, and the targets by which progress will be measured. The RSS refers to sustainability17 and sustainability 130 times but unsustainable only once. Often sustainability can only exist if unsustainable practices are proscribed. I prefer the expression: socially equitable and ecologically sound because it more clearly combines equity and ecology.

Yes

There is nothing in there about creating a resilient and thriving ecosystem (e.g.: by stopping the sale of ivy and daphne). Nothing about cleaning up our oceans/shorelines/ waterways and supporting our whales and fish. You have stewarding renewable resources which I hope means creating systems that keep materials in closed loops. Reducing plastic could be another.

Yes There needs to be some acknowledgement of working with the people whose lands we are on (Coast Salish).

Yes

There should be fair governance across the region - there should be a commitment towards agriculture resources so to depend less on outside sources i.e.: Mexico and US - green houses, seasonal growing should be part of the stewardship in what is known as the 100 mile rule.... the right tertiary sewage treatment system would make available water and heat recovery to sustain this agriculture initiative.

Yes These are all fine aims. Education would greatly facilitate them.

Yes Think about what we do with our part of the world in a lager, international context. Celebrate/ emphasize / protect the specialness of what still exists on the island. (It has already been much diminished by cheap and simple development.)

Yes Think small.

Yes This sounds fine, but the important matters lie in policy, targets, implementation and enforcement.

Yes To highlight the importance of community wellbeing and that individuals to are responsible for the greater good.

Yes

Too many buzzwords - plain language. All change in transformational - drop it. By 2038, we have a sustainable, thriving economy focused on community well-being. We will do this through direct action and co-operation with others, being more energy-efficient, with an expanded local food supply, protecting renewable resources and being better towards each other.

Yes Traffic is a growing problem with limited parking space.

Yes Try to acquire Crown land which is either within the CRD or on the periphery and convert it to protected park land in perpetuity. This would provide a green belt area for future generations.

Yes Unsure.

Yes Unsure about my full feelings.

Yes

Utilizing cutting edge sustainable technologies such as permaculture principles and practices, utilization of proven effective alternative energy sources, utilizing proven bio remediation methods for toxic waste management, education to encourage, promote and effectively influence energy efficiency practices and energy conservation. Composting of organic waste materials. Recycling and reutilization of building materials.

Yes Vastly expand the local food production capabilities and curtail building development, especially industrial agriculture and manufacturing that isn't directly related to food production.

Yes Water resource management.

Yes We attain fresh water security. We take back our forest lands and manage them with a social contract.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 86

Yes WE CANT WAIT FOR 2038!!!!

Yes We contribute to a healthier planet with the necessity of rapid carbon lowering and ...

Yes We could explore calling the area a more traditional name.

Yes We might need the farm land one day...

Yes We must not blindly fall in with the excessive focus on 'the economy', as being more important than all else. It's time to reconsider the economy (whatever that means) as a standalone and worthy objective.

Yes

We need to add a component of restoring and optimizing our current use of the landscape. There are many areas of disused farmland that could either be improved for farming and food production or restored to ecosystem types that excel at providing ecosystem services, sequestering carbon and supporting biodiversity.

Yes

We need to ask poor people (I use that term advisedly - some amongst us are financially strained and it must be admitted) what 'affordable' means to them. I was taught that housing (including rent, heating and hydro) should take 1/4-1/3 of my income. - It isn't like that in Victoria now. Will that be what we will have achieved in 2038?

Yes We need to emphasize regional transit and get cars off Government Street and perhaps other streets.

Yes We need to protect open land. In new home construction, the current trend is to pave much of the open space for the automobile. Higher density with rail transit needs to be implemented.

Yes What about affordability?

Yes What are the policies to meet targets outlined and how are they to be accomplished and monitored?

Yes What are the policies to meet targets outlined and how are they to be accomplishes and monitored.

Yes What are we waiting for? Why 2038? We have to act much faster if we hope for our efforts to be meaningful. I suggest incorporating some serious and tangible goals for 2020.

Yes Why 2038? Why not now? We need to start moving towards renewable energy, expanded local food supply now.

Yes Why wait until 2038? Why not be more aggressive, perhaps change to by 2020.

Yes You could mention the arts as sustaining the spiritual well-being of those who live here.

Yes #NAME?

More interested in the implementation a vision statement must be specific to be helpful - this one can be interpreted many ways.

Start using language regular people can understand. I know what all this means but my friends in Jordan River, Shirley, Port Renfrew say: "What the ...??!!". Commit to a healthier region from both a physical health and community health perspective as well as getting people to think regionally - this is the CRD's task to succeed or fail at. Success means hard work, determining who benefits and how they benefit. The 'who' should be the entire RD, the how should be based on avoiding sprawl into rural areas and focusing density into urban centres and developed communities; limit service (water and/or sew))r extensions into unserviced areas unless it is an order from VIHA to correct a threat to public health and safety. Stop sprawl, reduce the carbon footprint, protect large, rural lot sizes, support rural food production and security and do not consider service extensions into rural areas - that says it.

Who really spends a lot of time on these words? It's the policies and actions that count.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 87

PART C: TARGETS

1.0 CLIMATE AND GREENHOUSE GASES 1.1 GHG Emissions Reduction Target

a) What do you think about these targets to reduce greenhouse gases below 2007 levels?

By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 33%.

By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 61%.


About right 412 53.2%

Too high 101 13.0%

Too low 261 33.7%

TOTAL 774 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 88

b) Please explain or add other comments:

About right (b) In order to achieve these targets, however, there will need to be better targets on densification, and clearer definition of mobility policies than in this document.

About right

I think technology may be able to provide assistance in this matter, and I am not able to gaze into my crystal ball and make any predictions. I am aware that several major industrial corporations are looking at real cold fusion energy sources, much safer nuclear energy may be on the horizon, as well as much more efficient and cheaper solar, wind and tidal power. Methods for creating cheap plentiful hydrogen may be in the works. I think in terms of GHG emissions it will be important to have an ear to the ground at all times to make sure we are on top of new innovation and trends, so we are not investing in old ideas and technology. We may need to be a bit more nimble and willing to test ideas in smaller communities, rather than invest in major infrastructure projects that cover the whole CRD. Also, possibly tailoring different methods for different districts based upon population density, land use, housing type, whether there is industry, etc. Cookie cutter solutions rarely are best, and often cost more in the end. What we are beginning to understand is the methodology that was used with the sewage treatment was probably miscalibrated, and that smaller projects which are more customized might be more effective. They allow for quicker charge, reversal when something doesn't work at lower cost losses, and so on. If we try a few ideas, and do so in a staggered method, we can be current, and see which concepts are effective, durable, and economically valuable.

About right

* By 2020 reduce community-based GHG emissions by 33% * By 2038 reduce community-based GHG emissions by 61% They are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act (an RGS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a Sample Response: RSS Feedback January 30 2015.

About right

2020 might be a bit high, but you also need to relate reductions to costs, and ensure the tax payer isn't going to get hammered into the ground. To date, many of the CRD activities have simply downloaded more costs to the tax payer while saving the CRD money. i.e. kitchen waste collection, helps CRD, helps the environment, adds another cost to the tax payer without passing the CRD cost savings back to the tax payer.

About right 33% may be higher than is achievable. This initiative should have been initiated in 2000 to 2005 latest. Initiating programmes and experiencing goal objectives in 5 years is not realistic.

About right 61% sounds pretty radical, but the consequences of inaction are even more radical.

About right 'About right' means that this is a laudable goal. While I think it is unlikely to be achieved, I support this aggressive target.

About right About right, but without an integrated regional transit system, it won't be achievable.

About right About right. Maybe we need to be more rigourous.

About right Achieving the 33%/61% target will require political commitment to invest in smarter (and therefore more affordable) mass transit and traffic management solutions.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 89

About right Achieving the 33%/61% target will require political commitment to invest in smarter (and therefore more affordable) mass transit and traffic management solutions.

About right

After having read through the targets document, and the draft RSS up on the website, there is no way that the policies and actions proposed will get the CRD even a tiny fraction of the way towards the substantial targets that are being proposed. I support the targets wholeheartedly, however acknowledge that the targets as proposed will require transformational change, with significant investment by the regional government into a comprehensive climate strategy that fundamentally transforms the region's energy and transportation systems- all by 2020, which is 5 years away.

About right Again, transportation and land-use planning will play a major role in achieving this targets.

About right Aggressive, and unlikely to be fully achieved, but the right stance to take.

About right All well & good, but how much this will cost the cash strapped citizens?

About right

Although we are concerned that the 2020 target is unachievable. Given that other regional areas across North America have been working to this target for many years and are only just looking like achieving it, it is going to be quite a 'stretch' for the CRD to get there in just 5 years.

About right Amend targets as required to comply with IPCC recommendations for keeping global temperature rise below 2 deg. C.

About right Are you including improvement districts, and if not you should.

About right As noted previously, incentive to change habits of lifestyle . . . identify and reward the humble and homegrown? A points tracking system of amount of GHG's saved with this purchase? Points contributed towards transit, social programs?

About right As the current federal government has shown, targets mean nothing without a will to meet them. That's our challenge here.

About right Avoid urban sprawl, place growth in compact communities within the Growth Containment Area.

About right But I'd rather see targets in terms of some international metric, e.g. Kyoto or Rio. Otherwise, why 33%, why 61?

About right But why do you limit it to community-based emissions?

About right Cleaning up our overuse of the planet is much more than greenhouse gas. We shouldn't too much focus on carbon budget -- though limiting CO2 is indeed important.

About right Climate change has reached emergency levels. This level should be the floor of what we try to achieve.

About right Consider increasing the Carbon tax as well as fees developers pay to civic governments.

About right Continue to explore additional EV recharge locations.

About right Dependent on everyone contributing in some way.

About right Does this take into account planting more trees? That’s important too. Since I have lived at my location, most of the forests surrounding our property have been cut down :(

About right Don't see how you can possibly meet this target though without major investments and policy changes. Don't see the backing actions in the RSS. Need to be honest about how realistic this target is.

About right Emissions policy must meet or exceed commitments of the Climate Action Charter.

About right Five years might a tad short a time to reach 33% reductions, however a review at that time should allow us to determine if the 2038 goal is realistic.

About right Focus on cost effective efficiency.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 90

About right

For region-wide community based targets, this is a good goal. The most important part of setting targets is reaching them, and although we want to work towards reducing emissions as much as possible, setting the bar at an unattainable height won't change what is realistically achievable. The only issue I have here would be that there are emissions that are not community-based, that will be left out of these targets. These need to be addressed as well.

About right Get serious about any changes to the final RSS. Minor amendments encourages chipping away of our goals by short sighted self-interest speculators and individuals who view our land as $$$$$. All changes to our vision that could have a negative impact are major!

About right

Given we are in 2015 now how are you doing against the 2020 target? My understanding is that we are a long way off, so is this actually realistic? As for 2038 that targets seems a little unambitious. Are there any intermediate targets to keep progress on track? There is a long time and scope for things to go very off track if after 2020 the next target is 2038. I find it surprising that the only emissions being measured are buildings, on road transport and solid waste, when there is also an airport, agricultural land, heavy industry and other GHG emitters within the CRD boundary.

About right Glad to see measureables and targets here...I should probably take back my comments about your vision statement now :) I can't be bothered to read more to see if those goals are reasonable. I'll take your word for it.

About right Good to have challenging but doable targets.

About right Good to have targets, and they should be aspirational. But we need short term targets as well (what is this Board going to achieve in its term??) You need to add annual targets to measure progress - e.g. we need to be reducing by 5% per year.

About right

Good, have to have at least a target; the CRD has to sponsor and integrate with businesses examples of tools to save GHG; i.e. more very small cars (programs) more park and rides (most are very full), more electric bikes and scooters, more work with BC Hydro in home energy consumption saving techniques. People have to continuously see examples every day.

About right

Haha I think you know what I'll say. Promoting hemp, flax, and other biofuel that doesn't require changing the setup of the engine would be a great way. Divestment of course from oil companies. I recently went to the public forum on Divestment with Ben Isit and Jeremy Loveday and we need to mandate to the third party that handles Victoria's funds to not invest in fossil fuels. Possibly look into trying to harness the methane from cow farming? trying to plant greens, could be part of a community engagement learning activity with families and such learning about how to plant and grow things.

About right Hard to know whether this is enough.

About right How will this actually be achieved. What I see now is that transportation infrastructure $$ main focus is still to make it more convenient for single occupancy vehicle. With the odd disconnected bike lane added as tokysm.

About right I actually think the targets are lower than needed but because of political inertia at all levels of government may be all we can promote for now. Once some serious initiatives start hopefully the momentum will build and we can move faster.

About right I agree if these are absolute measures.

About right I am 83 years old. I plan to stay around for a long time so that I can say 'I told you so'. I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.

About right I am not familiar with the community standard on greenhouse gas emission elimination, so the numbers seem reasonable to me.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 91

About right

I believe that we have it within our means to greatly reduce green-house gas emissions. Whether 33% is too ambitious a goal is irrelevant. It is an achievable goal that we can push for. I believe that finding a solution to commuter issues for those living in the Western Communities and working in town should be the priority. Whether it be rail, driver incentives, or alternative solutions, this is the place to start when discussing reducing emissions. Also, cutting down on vehicle access in the city core (namely Government st) is also something to look at for both environmental and tourism interests. Many major cities in Europe have restricted vehicle access in their city core and have seen a great deal of success in its implementation.

About right

I don't know. Are they attainable and affordable? Besides, the entire justification seems to be because the region will be affected by climate change. Had we better not have a plan and set funds aside for measures such as shoreline protection in the event the world fails in reversing climate change?

About right

I have no expertise in what the targets ought to be, so it is easy for me to agree with a variety of targets. A greater concern is the conviction to implement the changes required to achieve targets. Targets should seem unachievable as we will improve our ability to meet targets and prosper economically as we move forward.

About right I have no idea what these mean in concrete terms.

About right I have read that the world's climate needs to change now or it will be too late. So, targets and action for now are needed.

About right I have started reading the Targets Backgrounder document, but it is long... I will choose "about right" for now and finish reading the document later.

About right I know it is hard to do, but limit gasoline powered vehicles.

About right I realize these are in concert with the provincial targets implemented in 2007, but that's for the province on the whole, and it would be nice to see our region take a leading role and go a bit further than what is required.

About right I really lack any sort of basis to understand if these percentages are too high or too low- other than just my understanding of what the term percentage means. I'd rather see a target like adding 30,000 dwellings units south of hillside.

About right I said "just about right" because I am trying to be realistic. Ideally, it would be wonderful if we could do even better.

About right

I seem to recall that in 2007 the world had already passed the tipping point and we won't be able to avoid drastic and life-destroying climate change. So, the target set is too low, of course. However, we must try to do the best we can with who we are as a species. Perhaps when we get going, we'll discover we're able to do much more than we imagined we could, and the nay-sayers and climate change-deniers will begin to see that the difference we're all making is of benefit to 'them' as well as 'us'.

About right I support these targets as long as they adhere to the CRD's provincial commitments to the climate action charter.

About right I support these targets as long as they adhere to the CRD's provincial commitments to the Climate Action Charter.

About right I think it would be good to explain how this might be achieved?

About right I think it’s okay to have the 2020 target low but the effort should become more aggressive. We are the luckiest people in the world for health and quality of life. We should be leading this not being dragged along.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 92

About right

I think targets at these levels are needed and important but given past action/ record on emissions levels in the CRD, I think a lot of action will be needed to ensure they are met. To even attempt to meet these actions outlined in the RSS need to be legislated or made mandatory, and I believe this should be done.

About right

I think technology may be able to provide assistance in this matter, and I am not able to gaze into my crystal ball and make any predictions. I am aware that several major industrial corporations are looking at real cold fusion energy sources, much safer nuclear energy may be on the horizon, as well as much more efficient and cheaper solar, wind and tidal power. Methods for creating cheap plentiful hydrogen may be in the works. I think in terms of GHG emissions it will be important to have an ear to the ground at all times to make sure we are on top of new innovation and trends, so we are not investing in old ideas and technology. We may need to be a bit more nimble and willing to test ideas in smaller communities, rather than invest in major infrastructure projects that cover the whole CRD. Also, possibly tailoring different methods for different districts based upon population density, land use, housing type, whether there is industry, etc. Cookie cutter solutions rarely are best, and often cost more in the end. What we are beginning to understand is the methodology that was used with the sewage treatment was probably miscalibrated, and that smaller projects which are more customized might be more effective. They allow for quicker charge, reversal when something doesn't work at lower cost losses, and so on. If we try a few ideas, and do so in a staggered method, we can be current, and see which concepts are effective, durable, and economically valuable.

About right

I think the target is about right, but I wonder if the changes required to achieve this target are so daunting to render them unachievable. Infill must be supported to the greatest extent possible to bring people closer to their destinations and make driving unnecessary. Existing buildings will need to be retrofitted extensively to reduce natural gas and heating oil consumption significantly. Significant support for electrification of vehicles will need to come from outside of the RD - from the province and the federal government.

About right

I think these are very optimistic targets given the limited amount of control the CRD has over the matter. Transportation impacts on GHG emissions are very important in the CRD and may need to be the focus of realistic GHG reduction. CRD should aggressively argue for higher density development in existing urban areas to facilitate more walking, biking and use of mass transit. Building height restriction in Victoria and other urbanized municipalities should be greatly relaxed or eliminated. Start phasing out the use of diesel fuel and go to natural gas, hybrid, biodiesel, or other alternative fuels.

About right I think these targets should be higher but given that we are nowhere near achieving the 2020 target for many sectors we need to see more progress on achieving the existing targets.

About right I think those targets are reasonable and achievable.

About right

I trust and believe that the GHG calculations are correct in line with the scientific understanding of given climate scenarios and the need to avoid and prevent thresholds of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. I only ask if these targets are meaningful contributions to the global task of reducing GHG emissions, and if not, can they be higher?

About right

I would say they are too low, but clearly development and regional growth has to be taken into consideration as well. Really we should be aiming for more ambitious targets and not achieving them as opposed to setting targets too low, and still not meeting them. Let’s be honest, when you set goals like this how often are they actually achieved? Not very often. Set the bar high so when you inevitably fail, you've still made some respectable progress.

About right I'd like to see the targets even higher. We need to take action.

About right I'd like to see those percentage decreases expressed also as direct necessary goals. For example; In order to reach a 33% decrease there must be x number fewer vehicles on the road. Or.. there must be x number more cyclists or electric vehicles.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 93

About right I'm accepting the financial analysis on faith. If I were to examine it, I become unhappy and so don't want to. I have experience of local politics.

About right I'm be fertilizing a nut tree by then, but hope my sons can still have a bit of property outside the city to grow gardens etc.

About right I'm not educated enough on carbon emissions to respond and currently don't have the time to look through the targets backgrounder.

About right In order to achieve these targets, however, there will need to be better targets on densification, and clearer definition of mobility policies than in this document.

About right In order to address climate change, the targets will need to be upgraded as events unfold. It is important to have aggressive targets and hope to achieve them.

About right It is good to be realistic.

About right It is imperative we don't allow the normal temperature to rise over 2 degrees Celsius; it's a matter of how to prevent that from happening. We MUST NO LONGER RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS for transportation - convert to electric vehicles first and foremost.

About right It is important to restrict development in the Juan da Fuca Forest lands. Otherwise more applications like the failed resort proposal and housing development will result in massive greenhouse emissions that would render the target unattainable.

About right It must be in all of Canada.

About right It will take more thought and regulation , zoning? to achieve this especially in rural areas.

About right It's an ambitious target as is and if it can be met then that's great. The problem is the rest of Canada doesn't really seem to have the same level of concern about things like GHGs. But focused solely on the CRD, yes this is a good target.

About right It's great that you have 2020 as a target date and a substantial reduction goal for it. Targeting too little and not having targets that are soon results in little action.

About right I've checked "about right" but if climate predictions hold true, we may have to act faster. We are at a tipping point and have to be bold. We need to build broad consensus and excitement in our region about this challenge. Like responding to a war.

About right

Keeping growth contained and providing as much of our own food locally as possible will go a long way to bringing down GHG emissions. I think we also need to start planning for some type of light rail or other mass transit system, for the peninsula as well as the west shore. Traffic over the last ten years on the Pat Bay has grown significantly, and it will be worthwhile to start planning for something more in the future.

About right Less talk more action.

About right Let's be realistic about what targets we can achieve, but let's also not be too timid and complacent.

About right Let's hope these goals are promoted in ways that make them attainable.

About right Let's not set targets we have no intention of meeting. Are these targets feasible within the authority of the region / CRD / etc.?

About right Link to "Targets Backgrounder" said "this connection is untrusted" and wouldn't let me read it. I guess it's about right.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 94

About right

Look. Even if we set these targets and go about enacting policy to meet them, one must take note of the following when coming up with targets in the first place: a growing body of scientists now say that unless we attenuate GHG emissions such that the avg global temps don't increase more than 2C, the Earth will experience more dramatic and extreme weather events. So my question is, should we be doing even more to reduce emissions within the CRD? Any up front expenses will pay dividends later in the economies of govt ministries such as healthcare, agriculture, energy, forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment. Failure to do so will result in those ministries ceasing to exist, instead of pondering further interventions.

About right Maintain programs for energy retrofits and ongoing incremental GHG reductions to keep up with annual GHG emission targets. Secure annual federal and provincial grants for big ticket construction such as LRT. We cannot start soon enough.

About right

Meeting GHG emissions reductions can only be achieved in the CRD through major changes to existing transportation modes and providing alternative affordable options to residents meeting their typical daily work/non-work movement demands without a car (place of employment, childcare, school, groceries, parks, other services). While retrofitting the region to enable this massive change is a nice goal, it seems impossible to achieve to the extent of meeting the GHG emissions reduction target. Good luck!

About right More aggressive targets if at all possible.

About right My concern that these are both aggressive targets - when you look at the GHG emission reports from the Province of BC, nothing much has changed in the CRD. There is a LOT to do to actually achieve these targets.

About right Need more intermediate targets otherwise we'll wait to 2019 or 2037 and see we are nowhere close!

About right Need to ensure we are meeting internationally agreed targets.

About right Need to focus on reducing the enormous vehicle usage that takes place in the CRD as residents travel for work, recreation and other needs. Focus has to be on forming compact, complete, energy efficient communities with the objective of reducing vehicle usage.

About right No comments.

About right NO INCREASE IN TAXES.

About right No one in Canada has even come near to achieving this fantasy.

About right None to add.

About right Not sure why you picked 2007. Thought the Federal Gov't picked 2005. Need a national plan here.

About right Nothing more to add.

About right Of course I would like the reduction % to be higher but think that is unrealistic given anticipated growth.

About right Promote the use of E V s in local food production, transport around the farm and to get the food to users. Have a look at the more progressive countries as Denmark for their ideas.

About right Provide a transit system in the Western communities as an alternative to the highway. Perhaps a monorail above the galloping goose.

About right Providing that these targets are as high as the Climate Action Charter and are seriously sought by all municipalities. Compact communities within the urban containment boundary are critical to achieving these targets. Sprawl and spot development will frustrate them.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 95

About right

Recognizing that 55% of GHG Emissions in the CRD come from on the road transportation it is imperative that communities are designed to massively decrease the need for people to leave their living areas by car for work, recreation and goods and services. And to reduce businesses being highly centralized and moving goods long distances, box stores should be phased out and few or no new box stores should be added in the CRD. We need to support locally based businesses who buy products and sell products locally. Box stores are unfair competition and destroy local business. We need to recognize that it is easier and cheaper to design communities that have local jobs, local agriculture/local food, other local goods and services than it is to design a walkable, cyclable and transit friendly system throughout the CRD. We should be doing that too, but creating COMPACT internally SUSTAINABLE communities decreases the costs of moving people and goods around on our roadways or any other way. And as long as there are cars, and they are more time efficient than other transit options, people will be lulled back into their cars... And recognize we need density of people to support the costs of good transit, cycling lanes and lots of walkable areas - so we need to define the housing types. While we need a mix of housing types, so retaining current established neighbourhoods, mixed into that we need most new housing to not be detached houses or single family but multi-story multi-unit attached housing, hopefully with shared co-op vehicles and services and businesses mixed in that can serve the new residents but also the existing residents in the older neighbourhoods surrounding. The targets are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act (an RGS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

About right Reductions of this magnitude will likely only happen if major changes occur in the next 20 years in how we move around our region and continue to grow. If that does not happen either the goal will not be met or will be met only as a result of economic depression.

About right Simply put, renewables are the only sustainable options for our future.

About right Sounds good in theory but will never ever happen with the current governing structure within the region.

About right Sounds great if everyone and all levels of government work towards it. It is easily do able with many examples, Scandinavia for one.

About right Strategy to decrease GHG's excellent. RSS needs to avoid urban sprawl and ensure that adequate facilities can be provided.

About right Support farming, encourage local food production, secure agricultural land, revive neglected inner city vacant lots and areas that needed improvement.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 96

About right

Switching to LED and Induction lighting for all street and municipal lighting needs... Begin switching to electric vehicles and investigate the possibility of building said vehicles locally to reduce transportation costs... Locally built and run Broadband and Wireless services covering the entire South Island/CRD areas....

About right Targets are helpful but shouldn't be seen as an end point - we can always strive to do better.

About right Targets are just that, targets, to be aimed for but perhaps unrealistic to achieve. Much better than setting the bar too low.

About right Targets should be intensity based or you need both. CO2 per person. CO2 per square meter.

About right Targets will be more easily achieved by tackling emissions from transportation -- presently more than 60% of total.

About right Thank you for the Targets Backgrounder doc. I applaud the CRD for the progressive, necessary attitude is taking to regional growth.

About right That is if electric and hydrogen cars become the norm.

About right That is the goal. 33 by 2020 but should be much higher 80-95% by 2050. How will we do this?

About right That sounds great. But I don't see how you will do it. Has a plan been drafted to meet those targets?

About right The 2020 target is realistic, the 2038 target needs to be more ambitious.

About right

The CRD should make attempts to reduce marine emissions within its boundaries as well, even if those reductions aren't tied to the regional reduction goals. The CRD should do more to encourage carbon reduction strategies for buildings and houses (solar water heaters, etc.) - as the municipality of colwood has attempted.

About right The goal is admirable but regional transportation (i.e. light rail )could be improved to accommodate the surge of commuters through the area and cut down on the number of one person cars on the roads.

About right The more the better.

About right The near-term target is likely what is practical. There needs to be more interim targets between 2020 and 2038, however; the latter is too far off anyone's radar to matter.

About right The numbers don't mean much to me so I picked the mid-point.

About right The reduction of sprawl is an essential component to achieve these targets. Ensure that development takes place where adequate facilities already exist.

About right The Region must find a better way to move people, and freight throughout the Region, i.e. Lite Rail Transit or people ferries from the West Shore to downtown.

About right The targets are achievable and a good start. We need to get other communities working on similar goals too!

About right The targets should reflect what is needed to get the CRD to Net Zero by 2050.

About right

The targets sound good provided there are bylaws and actions in place to take actions to achieve the goals as set out in the Regional Sustainability Strategy. This can only be achieved provided local governments develop strategies and take actions to create more compact and efficient rural and urban communities, reduce car dependency and energy use, support green politics, support bike paths, adopt zoning practices that encourage green development projects and develop land-use policies that increase density and reduce sprawl. A major concern should be increased sprawl within the JdF and all rural communities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 97

About right The targets will be difficult to reach, especially if the current rate of population growth remains the same, but the limits are essential for the future wellbeing of all.

About right There are still capable scientists who believe that global warming cannot be controlled by man's efforts, and I’m inclined to believe there is something in what they say. Even with all this reduction of greenhouses gases global warming will likely continue.

About right

These are close to the national goals and thus fairly represent the CRD's share of reductions needed to achieve that goal. Much lower targets and we fail to do our part. While they may not be fast enough reductions to slow human climate impacts, any higher targets, especially without wholesale conversion to electrical transportation, are patently unachievable and create unrealistic expectations.

About right These are only "about right" if we actually strive toward achieving them in full. If we are going to be satisfied with reaching 70% of our target and pat ourselves on the back, then they need to be higher to start with. I know, I am so cynical. But with reason.

About right These match regional and global commitments.

About right These may seem high, but we must be aggressive to stem the effects of climate change.

About right These targets are about right but how can you achieve them without taking food into account? Industrial food production, storage, processing and transportation methods account for a significant proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions in the region.

About right These targets are ambitious but achievable, and necessary. Key strategies this will come from incentivizing a change in transportation habits and modes.

About right

These targets are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act.

About right These targets are reasonable and achievable if we can get everyone on board and contributing to the reduction of GGE's'.

About right

These targets need to be bold, but achievable with effort. Please ensure that the numbers are based on our mix of greenhouse gas sources and what can be accomplished by increased efficiency and reduced vehicle trips in the region using alternate forms of transportation (including electric vehicles).

About right They are fine assuming that local government develop strategies and take action to achieve their stated goals of reducing sprawl, reducing dependency on cars, and increasing density.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 98

About right

They are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act (an RGS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

About right They are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD's provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. That assumes a recognition that compact complete communities is the primary strategy to decrease GHG's. (see Consortium submission)

About right This is a confusing question. Is aiming for 80% a higher or a lower aim?

About right

This is doable and completely necessary. A key driver of this will be reducing car traffic and the prevention of large amounts of industrial activity with high emission rates or high rates of deforestation. As well, the rehabilitation of forests will be a necessary measure to be taken in doing this. Finally, the focus on stewardship of renewable resources is a respectable and necessary measure already mentioned in the plan. Perhaps with efforts toward these key areas, emissions could be reduced even further.

About right This reduction target would be achievable only if the ALR is maintained, if all development was sustainable and compact, and if residents participate in a green, sustainable, local economy.

About right

This seems to be based on the best information available. Although I pay taxes to the CRD, and rely on CRD services, the Gulf Islands are not included in the map of the CRD area. The Islands Trust and its residents, who are part of the CRD area, should cooperatively work with the CRD on a Regional Sustainability Strategy.

About right This seems very ambitious in a five year plan, perhaps 5% per annum can be a reasonable target and that could be carried forward into the future.

About right

This sounds like a very reasonable and achievable goal, especially if we can strongly advocate all new home construction REQUIRE heat pumps, above-code insulation, solar water heaters, and wiring to support at least one electric vehicle charging station. Incentives and grants need to be offered to existing homeowners and commercial properties to encourage improving their home energy usage. Transit and active transportation aside (very important), we need to encourage those who are unwilling to relinquish private vehicles to at least consider electric or hybrid vehicles. A large part of meeting these climate goals will also require getting some form of train transit operating between Downtown Victoria and the Westshore. Considering a large portion of Victoria's economy depends on carbon-intensive tourism activities (cruise ships, tour buses, etc.), I do wonder if this is truly an achievable goal. Or are we copping out by saying 'Community-based' as in 'only the people who live here???'

About right This target meets the CRD's Climate Action targets for all municipalities. I'm assuming that these two incremental targets will make sure we are carbon neutral by 2038?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 99

About right

This targets are feasible, however, will require serious incentives on the part of citizens if they are to adjust their lifestyles. Also, municipal restrictions will have to be put in place to adjust industry and big business' role in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in this area.

About right

Those are substantial drops. If we are planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that much, we need to support: - improved public transit, including late night options for people who work in bars and restaurants or other late night shift workers. And not just downtown, but out to the peninsula and western communities where those people live - Allow for the removal of trees that block south and west roof exposures for solar panels - Require solar panels (or shingles) on all new developments, residential and commercial - Put programs in place to assist home owners to install solar panels, heat pumps, solar hot water heaters etc. - Encourage employers to allow work-from-home options.

About right Those targets appear optimistic, yet achievable.

About right To be honest, I don't fully understand if these are feasible or not because this isn’t my area of expertise. However, the CRD should be taking what I will describe as aggressive steps to reduce our CO2 emissions.

About right We are a car based society....until we have good commuter links (skytrain style rather than bus) we will remain automobile reliant.

About right We are already doomed by the damage we humans have caused to our environment, so how fast we start trying to fix it is like asking how fast we should remove water from a sinking boat while busily drilling more holes.

About right We may even need to set higher targets as we watch how global warming impacts our planet.

About right We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions or face the consequences.

About right

We need a regional campaign that repeats the message till everyone has heard it: We are serious about doing this, and we're starting today. Progress needs to be marked. Efforts need to be directed to reduce complacency. There have been too many policies of 'good intent" where nothing happens. All of the residents in the CRD need to know that the CRD is going to reach these goals.

About right We need to preserve our lifestyle, keep life affordable and still make significant advances towards sustainability.

About right We should proceed as rapidly as we can, but do so in a way that does not undermine support for the policy.

About right We won't achieve those goals without much more compact settlement and efficient transport.

About right We've stalled so long that higher targets no longer seem achievable.

About right What are these values based on? Picking numbers out of the air doesn't serve a purpose, but if these values were calculated using the most current climate models, then they are useful. The more attainable a target, the better, even if it isn't "enough".

About right While I would like to see greater reductions, setting goals too high will make citizens disengage from the process. The figures you give seem achievable.

About right While I would like to see lower emissions, these goals are probably more reasonably achievable than greater reductions.

About right While I would love to see a 60% reduction by 2020, I realize that change happens slowly so I think this target is about right.

About right Will the crd be offering incentive programs to help meet those targets?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 100

About right Would like more but this is probably a good enough stretch.

About right Would like to see some more specific measures to assist in reduction. See energy response.

Too high "Between 2007 and 2010, region-wide community-based GHG emissions remained the same “they neither increased nor decreased." I believe this sums it up rather well.

Too high

11,000 years ago the entire Capital Region was covered by a mile thick glacier. The Earth was warming and changing, as it is currently. The glacier didn't melt because of Cavemen leaving their campfires burning. What we are experiencing now is part of the evolution of Earth. It is constant and continually changing. Parts of the Arctic were once the homes of dinosaurs, sharks and wooly mammoths. There was no record of temperature or climate change ... but that was catastrophic. The CRD should be promoting and including ways to use electric scooters, geo-thermal heating, solar power and resource recovery from sewage and food waste.

Too high 2038 should be 50% - no more.

Too high 33% reduction in 4.5 years? It will take you a year to adopt this Sierra Club propaganda if you are on the fast track. That leaves 3.5 years. What are you going to do, block the TCH at Uptown to cut off the traffic?!

Too high 61% is a high target , only possible if 1/2 the cars & trucks on the road are removed

Too high A tad ambitious - will need the support of the community to achieve these, and they may not all be on board.

Too high Artificially reducing greenhouses gases does not help. The kitchen scraps "reduction of co2" is not any reduction , simply a transfer of the CO2 to peoples backyard composters or the Richmond facility.

Too high

Canada's history on GHG reductions is laughable. Your targets do not appear achievable through the means outlined. Your figures should definitely include air transport and marine emissions - our existence here depends upon them. Given the weight in global GHG emissions, your figures should also include farming activities.

Too high

Carbon is a life based chemical. It is not a poison, or an enemy, it is the basis of wealth and freedom in our country. There is no catastrophic warning, it is just a UN wealth transfer scheme, to rob from the western world, giving to third world dictators. Leftwing socialist governments use it as an excuse to tax the productive to fund bloated government, based on lies.

Too high CO2 as a precursor to warming has been debunked.

Too high Complete crap. The CRD might as well vote on the Israel/Palestine situation. This is not within the purview of a local or regional government.

Too high Cost.

Too high

Current science demonstrates that co-relation is not causation. While C02 has risen, temperatures are not following the 'climate models' that have been the backbone of AGW theory. When does 'no significant rise in global temperature become more than an 'anomaly' or a 'trend'? It's nearly twenty years now. How much more time do you need? Or is it the opportunity to tax our very foundation that is of more interest to CRD bureaucrats?

Too high FAR too high. 61% reduction of emissions, what are you trying to do, implement global fascist policy to shut down the economy? It's insane.

Too high Great hypothetical reasoning, but not economically or socially attainable.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 101

Too high

Greenhouse gas emission is a responding variable, not a manipulated one, the effects of which are thrown increasingly into doubt as the AGW debate matures. Therefore, viability of emissions targets as a legitimate long term policy goal seems hasty. If you must pay lip service, then pursue the easier goal, but rising prices are a more realistic influence on emissions.

Too high

Housing prices are too high in BC to expect this to work. If the objective is to penalize drivers not driving ZEVs by a target date, this initiative is in direct conflict with the initiative to provide affordable housing. Household incomes can't afford high priced BC houses and ZEVs. I think it's a worthy goal, but unrealistic. As mentioned previously in this questionnaire. I disagree with penalizing citizens in order to achieve these kinds of goals. Opening opportunities and providing incentives is a more appropriate solution.

Too high

How are you going to enforce this? Can you make the different communities work together to make traffic flow more efficient and reduce traffic tie ups and sitting at light after light after light? Make BC Transit more effective so that the bus becomes an actual alternative? The CRD targets are okay, but the CRD really has little leverage to make the communities involve meet them. They are way too aggressive until you have proper transit and bike pathways in place.

Too high How is this to be accomplished other than by shifting the burden out of the area? The southern VI region is almost wholly dependent on resources supplied from elsewhere.

Too high I can only assume you wish people to go back to the dark ages.

Too high

I do not perceive the CRD as a significant greenhouse gas emission area (compared to northeastern BC, for example), so I believe focusing on that as a target is an attempt at political correctness and trendiness. Let us focus on what we really need to improve, not on popular causes.

Too high I don't think greenhouse gas emission is a big issue in the CRD. We have a lot of trees to absorb C02, and not a very big population. Income equality is a much bigger issue and would be a better focus for sustainability.

Too high I don't think the 2038 goal is realistic and achievable.

Too high I see no mention of the monetary costs. Without those I have no comment.

Too high I think 61 % is too high. I would suggest 50% might be doable and it’s better to have an achievable goal that could be exceeded than missing a high goal.

Too high I think to 2020 target is desirable but impractical. I think the 2038 target should be a minimum.

Too high If population grows, as it is likely to, the targets need to be per capita rather than absolutes.

Too high If the CRD really want to reduce greenhouse gas it should be concentrating on reducing the costs of the means to this end. Not everyone can afford electric cars etc.

Too high If the region goes back to grass roots sustainability - then our greenhouse emissions can be reduced considerably and our region can be self-sustaining so we are less reliable on other sources - those that create greenhouse gases...

Too high

IF we are neutral for past 3 years, to meet these proposed targets requires a HUGE shift of transportation modes and major infrastructure investment... That means significant re-design of roadways, moving to electric buses / rapid transit, and increasing density for ridership. CRD will need a translink and a Vancouver .5% PST authorized by provincial government (GVRD is way ahead of us!!). We will need to dramatically widen Lockside and Galloping Goose Trails as transportation corridors. If we have the political will and citizen acceptance of higher taxes, then the target is "about right".

Too high Impossible targets to reach.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 102

Too high In just 5 years? Don't let the tail of arbitrary dates wag the dog of steady progress.

Too high

It is economically unsustainable. Greater good could be achieved by eliminating coal mining in the province. Digging it up and shipping it to Asia to be burned is no different than burning it here. Look at gasification of municipal solid waste, and of biosolids to achieve the goal at lower cost.

Too high Mostly out of the purview of CRD.

Too high Negligible impact on global warming. Would be much better off providing the funds to heavy polluters such as China to reduce their emissions, which would have a greater impact on climate change.

Too high Not all of us can afford electric cars nor can we bike or walk to everything.

Too high Not practical, more important issues at hand as the population ages.

Too high Not within CRD direct control. Collaboration on this issue will be a challenge.

Too high Once again, it is imperative to be realistic instead of idealistic . How will this be accomplished and live in an economy that sustains the people rather than what is a unrealistic projection?

Too high

Once again you’re outside your mandate we are a country with 33 million people between St Johns Newfoundland and Tofino to the northern territories 90per cent live within 3 hours of the American borders which leaves a lot of carbon free area, Canada has no carbon issues Keep chasing a non-issue will only increase the cost of operating in Canada 90 per cent of the population can and will shop in the USA fuel carbon tax was a joke played on BC taxpayers Australia dropped there because it was a business expense passed onto the taxpayer.

Too high

People will eventually determine the type of environment to live in. Education about ideal ways and motives will bring about acceptable and affordable improvements . Manmade greenhouse emissions are not enough to affect the earth’s climate. Change is taking place, but this is on a natural "mother nature" affair. The earth is still coming out of the last ice age, thus warming is naturally going to take place. You cannot stop this.

Too high Plants need co2 to thrive in order to produce oxygen for humans to breath.

Too high PR based to appease environmentalists and constant costs of updating increases taxes. Money would be better spent on storm water runoff education, infrastructure and allowing community improvement/ involvement without Union interference.

Too high See previous comments.

Too high So much of what you propose is completely out of your control. The funding needed to get anywhere near your goals is next to impossible. The average person cannot afford it.

Too high

Some of the only way local government can effect greenhouse gas emissions is by zoning changes or greatly reducing traffic capacity. Both would have a negative impact on the economy and families quality of life. Better to set the targets that provide incentives for individuals and businesses to adopt actual technological changes such electric vehicles, more efficient commercial equipment etc.

Too high

Spending a great deal of money on buying new emissions-free vehicles cancels out the emissions caused by government officials and staff flying to meetings and staying in hotels etc. Money is generated from taxes, which in turn are generated by people/businesses who produce in many cases items which end up in landfills. Far better for the environment to try phone-conferencing (a concept which has been around for decades).

Too high Targets should be based on aptitude of providing reliable, safe power that is renewable and self-sustaining, solely focusing on the emissions created will be naive as greenhouse gases can be spewed by other sources other than industrious infrastructure.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 103

Too high The CRD must be the follower of higher government and business leadership. It cannot lead and will simply waste money trying.

Too high

The levels haven't changed much over the last few years so how can you think of making a 33% change in a not much longer period in the future? And no costs of anything are noted in the target details. How, for example, can you aim at making buildings more energy efficient without showing costs? Nowhere is any mention - so far- made of what all this means in terms of future taxation. Also, you take no account of the influence of gases coming over the Pacific from one of the biggest carbon producers in the world.

Too high

The question is unfortunately worded in an ambiguous way. I think that the goal of a 61% reduction may be unreasonable when population growth is taken into account. A better target would have a target reduction per capita, thus allowing for some increase in total emissions based on increase in population.

Too high

The targets don't go far enough in my view. In this area we could get vehicle emissions alone down to 50% by 2020 if we were serious about it and to 80% reductions by 2030. We need to stop tip toeing around the issues and start issuing huge fines for idling, add a local emissions test program and use the revenues to subsidize EV and cycling initiatives.

Too high

The vast majority of GHG are from transportation. I don't believe that it is possible to get enough reduction in that sector to achieve the stated goal. A vast investment in transportation infrastructure will be required, and I don't believe there is enough revenue to pay for it. Increasing the public debt is not the answer.

Too high

These reductions will come at great cost economically, socially and environmentally, and will have no material effect on global issues, aside from aspirational or motivational feelings. As such, they represent expression of a belief system rather than a contribution that make any real difference. Government should not favour one belief system over another, be they organized religion, secular belief systems or other faith-based approaches that are actually "special interests". As a planet there are important things that need to be done relative to greenhouse gas emissions, but none of them are in the jurisdiction of the CRD nor will anything the CRD could do make a bit of difference in terms of worldwide emissions. The problem is global and the local solutions that do exist are in other places. Imposing serious costs and life impacts on people here won't change that, it will just hurt people in the CRD who already have a tough row to hoe.

Too high They are not achievable.

Too high This is not anywhere near realistic. Greenhouse gases - are you talking about carbon dioxide by which this planet and its inhabitants function (live and breathe).

Too high Those reductions won't be sufficient. They need to be much greater.

Too high

Those who believe that the 3% of annual CO2 emissions worldwide which are manmade are tipping the scales of temperature, should consider the fact that worldwide manmade greenhouse gas emissions, and especially from developing countries, dwarf any local emissions to the point where it is the equivalent of a drop of water in the ocean. The most emission most targeted through public policy is related to transportation, which one of the very smallest pieces of the emission pie, which means targeting transportation emissions is less than a drop of water in the ocean. While it may make someone feel less guilty, reducing CO2 emissions locally, through regulation, which will in all likelihood be costly in some way, is tilting at windmills....

Too high

To reduce GHG gas emissions by a third in less than 5 years is unrealistic and to attempt such an aggressive goal may encourage high risk, and expensive decision making. I would use the elimination of wet waste from the Hartland Rd. facility as an example. The target was the elimination by a set date but no plan on what to do with the regions wet waste after that date.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 104

Too high Too ambitious.

Too high

Too high - and frankly, the wrong focus. Between GGE swaps and carbon trading, it won't be beneficial to the people of the CRD to pursue this as a goal. The goal here should be embedding industry silver or higher standard environment practices into the core services we provide.

Too high Unless the cost of production of energy sources other than fossil fuels falls dramatically, 61% is unreasonable without very large government subsidy.

Too high Unrealistic.

Too high

Unrealistic. Unless the CRD is able to fund some initiatives for more than CRD buildings, the trend line will most likely remain about flat or get a bit better overall. I hope the federal and provincial governments can be convinced to rejoin this essential effort. We can't do this alone.

Too high Unrealistically high.

Too high Until Canadians give up their love affair with the car, these targets will never be achieved.

Too high Until the US, China, India get on board, you are tilting at windmills. Stop, get out of the business of trying to be the savior of every one, stop spending my money, UNLESS YOU PUT THE EXPENDITURES TO A VOTE.

Too high Until we can get cheap ,fast ,convenient transportation we are going to have to keep on driving our cars.

Too high Vehicles with cleaner technology are taking too long to be adapted by the public I would push carpooling to work really hard. Promote at least 2 people per car to begin with to get a lot of the commuter vehicles off the road.

Too high Very lofty. Not attainable. Need to give reasonable goals.

Too high We all must know what any percentage we may select will mean in terms of our future climate and its viability for future people. First do the science on this before selecting any target. Otherwise this will only demonstrate human stupidity.

Too high We have no industry, just hot air from humans, let humans live.

Too high We have to reduce region-wide greenhouse gas emission by 100% by 2040. 61% is not enough - not by a long way. Please see http://www.bcsea.org/2040-imperative.

Too high What do you mean reduce "community-based" greenhouse gas emissions? What do you mean by "choosing actions and lifestyles that support those targets"? Are you trying to say you will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing people to use bicycles?

Too high What is a greenhouse gas?

Too high

When the targets are too high and really not easy to achieve, then money is wasted on flashy solutions that do not work like the fuel cell powered buses for the Olympics in Whistler. Looked cool, but the fuel had to be trucked from Quebec and the bus were sold at a huge loss after. Just so it looked like we met the targets.

Too high With more people moving here all the time, I don't know how you could possibly reduce emissions by two-thirds.

Too high With population increase how are you going to meet this Quota.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 105

Too high

Without a serious attempt by all levels of government to move our economy and lifestyles away from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, goals as stated are ludicrous. 2020 is 5 years away. Think about the level of success we have had in the last 5 years in reducing greenhouse gasses, and the fact that our Federal government is making every effort to expand fossil fuel extraction as a national goal. I see virtually no meaningful effort by any level of government to develop research or education in alternative energy.

Too high You ignore the massive changes in the electricity grid, in vehicles and in other products necessary to achieve this, and the time required to bring them about. What's more, the CRD's influence on the necessary changes is, to put it politely, minimal.

Too low

We certainly can design sewage facilities that will provide their own power requirements .I'm angry that the CRD has done a dismal job on this issue and wasted a lot of taxpayer money and time .increase local food production! so we don't require so much transportation of our food supplies and create jobs LOCALLY . let farmers access compostable waste, as well as backyard growers .we keep hearing about climate change and max levels, which we're already at, so why wait another 23 years to reduce emissions by 61% . why not move on light rail, 'legislate' all buses, incl tour buses, to meet higher emission standards within 2 years? The GVHA is lagging in this regard with vehicles servicing the cruise ships, AND where is the legislation requiring cruise ships to use shore power, instead of running their engines while in port?

Too low

2020 target is great! 2038 target feels like it might not be enough considering current conditions. But I don't have any expertise in this area, no solid numbers regarding what this reduction would look like and so I would support the proposed RSS values. I'm also unclear on the 2038 target, whether that is a 61% reduction on today's levels or on 2020's levels?

Too low 33 may be realistic but www.StoryofStuff.org shows what is actually achievable and necessary.

Too low 33% in the next five years is okay; but by 2038 we should be closer to 0; so reduce by 90% by 2038.

Too low

55% of the region's GHG emissions come from vehicle traffic. We need to massively reduce this number by creating compact communities that are self-reliant. That have jobs, foods, goods and services available and being produced in the local area. They are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act (an RGS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

Too low 80% oil/gas/lng must be left in the ground if we are to avoid climate catastrophe. Yet any more than a 33% reduction within the next 5 years seems unrealistic ... Incentives and Penalties are needed - urgently.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 106

Too low A carbon tax should be used to reduce other taxes.

Too low

A comprehensive understanding of how carbon emissions work in the atmosphere and affect climate leads me to conclude that if we SEVERELY reduce emissions NOW we will be able to gradually reintroduce fossil fuel use. The slow path of reduction is a certain road to disaster.

Too low According to Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything", we have 10 years to make significant changes, if we want to maintain a liveable planet. I would like to see these targets increase.

Too low

Again you are planning based on the past. This year, solar production of electricity became cheaper than oil generation. Within 10 years it will be the cheapest source other than using sea tides. Plan on having a solar collector on every roof feeding the power grid. Plan on having an electrical generation plant in the channel between Oak Bay and Trial island. This year there was a breakthrough in battery technology now being jumped on by Tesla and Apple. Plan on pushing electric motorcycles and bicycles as everyone's second vehicles. Plan on hybrids and gasoline vehicles disappearing and be replaced by electric and by high efficiency/low emission diesels (the diesels that have revolutionized Europe over the last 10 years, yet are still not imported into Canada in any great number.) The same can be true of transit buses.

Too low Also think it is too slow ...how about concrete action for 2016 and then 2018 and then ....every two years.

Too low

Although it is very difficult to imagine how we could achieve higher targets, my understanding of the IPCC study online at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html is that to achieve an increase to average global temperature of no more than 2.4 degrees Celsius (a target which will still result in very significant environmental changes and resulting social problems), CO2 emissions must not increase after 2015 and must be, compared to emissions in the year 2000, reduced by 50-80% by 2050. Even though according to the RSS backgrounder region-wide community based GHG emissions were stable between 2007 and 2010, given the global need to so significantly reduce emissions in such a compressed timeframe, Canada's significant role as a GHG emitter, and the relatively privileged position we are in compared to poorer nations, we need to shoulder the absolute maximum in GHG emission reduction targets, to buffer areas of the world where it will be much more challenging to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally I have been very concerned by scenario projections of what the world will look like with just a 2 degree Celsius increase - which we as a world are already at least halfway to at this point in time - so think we need to really strive to reduce even further, faster. I do recognize that this is an incredibly challenging goal and will require a total transformation of every facet of our lives, and do believe that setting targets with no actual plan on how we will meet them is not helpful.

Too low

Animal agriculture contributes between 17 and 50 per cent of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, in addition to common, pesticides, antibiotics, nitrogen, and phosphorous. It contributes to land erosion and sentiment, in addition to requiring enormous amounts of land for grazing and to grow their food. Please read the United Nations' 2006 Report titled "Livestock's Long Shadow" for more information. If everyone were to move to a vegan, plant-based lifestyle, not only would we spare 58 billion land animals per year, we'd be a healthier population and the climate crisis would be under control.

Too low As an aspirational goal, targets should be raised.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 107

Too low

As is seen in the targets report, 55% of all emissions are from transportation. If electrified rail based transport were instituted and vehicles were taken off the road then this number would be changed significantly. Buildings also contribute a sizeable amount of greenhouse gas emissions and this number could be reduced by increasing the taxes on home heating oil and natural gas and giving the funds that are raised by these taxes directly to building owners that spend money on insulation and making their buildings better, similar to the BC hydro powersmart initiative.

Too low Better protection of food sources - agriculture and seafood.

Too low Bring the year back to 1990 as a base.

Too low By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 50% By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 78% By 2050 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 100%.

Too low By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 50% By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 78% By 2050 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 100%.

Too low By 2038 we should be reduced 61% below 1996 levels.

Too low By removing vehicles from the roads by collecting the true cost of the road system by road and highway users, and transitioning to rail based transport whoever possible, even more ambitious targets could easily be met.

Too low By the time methane gasses are being released from the tundra due to climate change there will be no way these targets are acceptable - action is needed now.

Too low Climate change is happening much faster than predicted by scientists; disasters much more frequent and more devastating. Reduction in greenhouse gases should be seen as a top priority by all levels of government with immediate action taken to cut levels sharply.

Too low Climate change is happening now and its effects will be severe, we need to act now.

Too low Climate change is such a severe problem that I think we should try for somewhat higher targets. Given our climate walking and biking can be fostered and supported by better road design, location of work sites, etc.

Too low Climate change is the most urgent issue facing our planet and it is a local as well as an international issue. The CRD should set very stringent requirements.

Too low Climate scientists seem to be saying all targets are too low at this point, but we must do what we can to mitigate the damage.

Too low Completely outside the scope of the CRD.

Too low Concern: all is irrelevant if climate, air quality, water quality reach critical levels and 2038 could be too late regardless of economic consequences.

Too low Consider a more aggressive approach to reducing our reliance of fossil fuels. Start to build a green economy based on green initiatives today.

Too low

Development of compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s. The RSS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households. The RSS should state how these targets are going to be met.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 108

Too low

Encourage and support public transportation. Find ways to reduce traffic. Create tough bylaws to reduce greenhouse gases wherever possible. Subsidize buying the best technology wherever that can help. Increase taxes to support all these activities. We are all in this together, we must pay for it, as long as the money is well spent, completely for the future. Pay now for later benefits.

Too low Even at those levels of reduction it is likely too little too late.

Too low Follow Kyoto Accords Regulations, it was ratified into parliament in 2002 in Canada.

Too low For reasons described earlier.

Too low From my experience I believe we must radically change how we live and interact with others who we share this planet with.

Too low

GHG emissions are presented in the DRAFT for transportation and buildings primarily. What it does not account for is consumption (either consumer products or services like flying). I realize that CRD and the RSS cannot control for what a person does or consumes within their own homes, but in light of the present situation, and that we have surpassed the 2C mark with today's present 400PPM co2, we need to reduce to these levels now, not in 5 to 20 years from now. I do understand that it is hard to sell this concept and that it may just be a "foot in the door" - SFU ACT team had to get their foot in the door to begin discussions with communities, but very much realized that the information they were feeding the communities was heavily sugar coated. I am torn between sugar coating and delaying versus being frank.

Too low Greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced as much as possible as soon as possible. By 2038 it may be way too late to stop catastrophic climate warming.

Too low Greenhouse gases starting causing a problem during the industrial revolution. Returning to 2007 is hardly going to help. return to 1807.

Too low Greenhouse gas emissions are rising fast.

Too low Greenhouse gas levels in 2007 were still far too high, so 33% of that will not stop runaway climate change. 2038? Do you have any sense at all of the state of, say, the oceans or fresh water or the air right now? Already this is not a serious response to the stated plan.

Too low Have you seen the ppm charts compared with temperature that span the past 800,000 years? We're in trouble and we must do more.

Too low Higher Carbon taxes and alternate energy can do better than that.

Too low I am glad that this is a goal and hope we can do even better than these targets.

Too low I am guessing at "too low" because it would take a great deal of analysis to determine what was actually doable.

Too low

I believe that we need to aim much higher. Victoria is very privileged within Canada as far as climate goes: we live in a place where people can cycle or walk all year round. With enhanced cycling routes, built-in initiatives to encourage cycling and walking, improved public transportation, and regular high-profile education programs in public places about cycling and the rules of the road, more people will being to choose healthier transportation options. More bikes on the road mean a safer future for everyone, both with respect to traffic safety and the environment.

Too low

I believe the 2020 target is appropriate. The 2038 target is too low. This is a target, meaning to me that it often is considered as such (a soft target, that may or may not be met). I would set the target for 2038 higher - perhaps to 80% or even more - with hopes that this target will inspire appropriate break-through planning and actions to make the meaningful reductions in emissions that are needed to support a stabilized climate system and feedbacks associated with related earth systems (such as ocean acidification).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 109

Too low

I believe the 2038 target is not nearly ambitious enough. With the rapid evolution of clean energy sources, the critical importance to localize energy production, our prime geography for solar, and a building stock ripe for efficiency improvements, I believe we need to set a much higher bar.

Too low I don't believe this is enough to combat the progression of climate change.

Too low

I don't really think we have the time to dilly dally.....the climate is already radically changing and causing erratic weather patterns worldwide! There have been many more very strong typhoons, bigger grass and forest fires, the Arctic ice is melting at an astounding rate. We need to ACT NOW to stave off full out destruction of our planet. There has been far too much talk and not enough tangible action! I'd say by 2020, 50% and by 2038 75%. Go big or die:-(

Too low I don't think we can wait ... We need to take bolder step NOW!

Too low

I know that it will take investment on the government's part, but these are lazy targets. People and business will need to make uncomfortable changes to scale back even further. There is momentum here, and BC has been recognized as one of the healthiest places on earth. That did not happen by accident. There is a lot of buy-in here, on both a personal and societal level.

Too low I know we have to work with what we are, as human beings not aim for the impossible. I can only hope that once we set out to reach the goal as described above, we will discover we can do even more than we now imagine.

Too low I really have no way of relating to this. targets are important to manage but I have no idea what is realistic.

Too low I support aggressive targets. I support raising taxes to reach them.

Too low I think 33% in the next five years is a good goal but we'll need to go faster than 18 years for the next 33%. In fact, Guy Dauncey recently said our goal needs to be 100% fossil fuel-free by 2040 based on climate change projections.

Too low I think GHG reduction should be a VERY high priority. As there are communities striving for carbon neutrality, I think this is something that the CRD should look into.

Too low I think that the 33% is way too high considering that is 5 years away and the 61% should be at least 75%.

Too low I think that the island could produce enough energy for its own needs with tidal power from Finlayson Arm and solar farms to serve local neighborhoods. I think your goal should be for the island to be self-sufficient in renewable energy sources by 2025.

Too low I think that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 61% by 2038, but I think that it will be a difficult target to reach if the capital regional district's initiatives are not supported by the provincial and federal governments.

Too low I think the 2020 target is probably unrealistic, unless some drastic actions are taken quickly in the next five years. I think the 2038 target is too low.

Too low I think the 2038 goal should be higher!

Too low I think the first target of 33% is far too low and should be set more around 50% and look to reduce greenhouse gases by 70% by 2038. I understand this is a large target but there needs to be better goals in order to make a serious impact.

Too low I think the front target is excellent. The end target has too much time from beginning.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 110

Too low

I think the levels should be 1990, and the percentages higher â€¢ By 2020 reduce community-based GHG emissions by 50% below 1990 â€¢ By 2038 reduce community-based GHG emissions by 80%by below 1990 level â€¢ By 2050 reduce community-based GHG emissions by 100% BELOW 1990 level Climate change knows no borders We must raise this issue that while we can try to address the urgency, with targets in the regional district, we have an obligation to urge that bold measures be taken all across Canada and to demand that the Canadian Government to no longer obstruct the negotiations and undertake to use the baseline level of 1990 increase the percentage to 50% By working with senior government partners, regulated utilities and others, the CRD and local municipalities will lead through example and strive to meet the BC Climate Action Charter targets for the reduction of GHG emissions from regional and municipal infrastructure. Innovative: Is this decision/investment innovative? Will it provide new solutions to address problems? Will it lead the way for others? Will it stimulate economic activity that is cleaner/greener than would otherwise be the case? Canada signed the UNFCCC in Rio in 1992 and 1992 the province of BC endorsed at the cabinet level. BC is therefore bound by the UNFCCC; therefore the divestment is long overdue. I would also revisit the concept of due diligence which has caused investment managers to be deemed not to have exercised due diligence if the stock in socially equitable and environmentally sound investment falls; but if the investment manager invests in the fortune 500 and the stock falls, there would not be the accusation of failing to exercise due diligence. What needs to happen is that an investor who invests in fossil fuels must be deemed not to have exercised due diligence. Given that in this RSS draft, strong support is given to taking bold action on climate change and given that many decisions affecting climate change are dictated at the federal level, the CRD should undertake to have input into the COP 21conference in Paris, and into the Canadian government’s weak target tor 2020 See Climate Change: COP 20 Lima - Time to be Bold. http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9958:-climate-change-cop-20-peru-time-to-be-bold-november-30-2014&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210

Too low I think they are too low because I think things are already worse than we think. But they are probably realistic for community buy in.

Too low I think we can reduce even more if we break with the status quo. We have to show Canada what's possible by setting the bar high.

Too low I think we have left it too long to start with such a low number for 2020, but of course, the process of change can be slow. Better 33% than nothing at all, but climate change is accelerating, now that it has well begun.

Too low I think we need to aim higher, setting an example for other municipalities and communities. We could become the poster area for GHG emissions reduction!

Too low

I thought IPCC's targets were lower as they were for 1999 levels On the other hand how are we going to reduce 2007 levels by 33% in 5 years with a growing population and greenhouse gas emissions that have raised since '07, do we have any sort of incentive (other than morally) for achieving this target?

Too low I would always think the targets are too low, but I know how complicated and difficult change in this department is, so any improvement is welcome.

Too low

If more is done to increase public low or no carbon output transportation and reduce the number of cars on the roads we can reduce the transport part of the graph by at least 50% by 2038 By increasing building standards for buildings, i.e. more sustainability and helping to increase sustainability in older structures we could again probably reduce the building side of the graph by 50% by 2038.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 111

Too low

If these targets reflected our complete GHGe they would be about right. However, the GHGe being measured are not taking into account the whole picture. For instance, Consumption emissions are not included and air travel is not included. Consumption emissions is the CO2 produced from the production of all of our materials goods (building supplies, electronics, cars, planes, household goods, clothes, etc.). Consumption emissions are thought to be at least 100% more. We are consuming these material goods in our community and we account for the GHG's used in their operation and in their disposal but not in their manufacture or transport to us. It's complicated as these consumption emissions are thought to be accounted for in the country/location of origin. Even if we can't count these GHG's here in this section, I think it's important to count them and track them.

Too low If we are serious about avoiding the worst effects of climate change (and we should be) these targets will need to be met and exceeded. Also - we need a target for 2018 - what do we expect this Board to have achieved in their four years in office?

Too low Increase the use of solar and geothermal. Discourage the use of natural gas and eliminate excess taxes on electricity as they are penalizing the electrical homes built in the 1970-1990s.

Too low

It could be a fine amount, I'm not sure. I just know that we on the west coast need to be leaders for climate action and for respecting the earth, so, we should probably have the most lofty goals. I moved here BECAUSE the west coast is the most environmentally aware place in Canada. So many more younger people are doing the same thing as me. It really encourages green tourism and young families making healthy lives for themselves and their future generations.

Too low

It has been said that part of the challenge in getting people on board with greenhouse gas reduction targets is that the population knows the targets are so low as to be meaningless. We need targets that are bold - in the order of 95%, to inspire the kind of innovation that will shift our economy and society to a sustainable way of living and working.

Too low It is about time for leaders to acknowledge our climate predicament.

Too low It is already very late in the game - I think the greenhouse gases needed to be reduced much more than that.

Too low It is important to set achievable goals so that we can succeed, but when it comes to ghg emissions, we need to be taking serious action now. Perhaps change the phrasing to AT LEAST 33% to encourage us to go beyond the set target.

Too low It is not going to be easy.. Prepare for angry feedback.

Too low It may not be feasible to speed the process, but I think we need to try, as explained in the previous comment section.

Too low It's is possible to make radical change in our use of fuels and in our behaviour to reduce GHG now. We must, it's already too late.

Too low

It's probable that the CRD's models can not anticipate consequences of some environmental changes, such as ocean acidification, jet stream wobbling, and the impacts of clean tech and renewable energy. The total investment in clean tech and renewables -- right now -- is equal to all investment in fossil fuels. Yet our current federal and provincial governments focus almost completely on subsidizing and supporting fossil fuels. How can our regional district achieve these targets without the help of senior governments?

Too low Kyoto accord standards should apply.

Too low Let's challenge ourselves. There is enough knowledge out there: time to apply it!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 112

Too low

Local and regional governments need to lead the way, as the federal government has lost its path. By considering the national needs in order to globally contribute to reduction of greenhouse gases, we need to consider our local responsibility as being fundamental to achieving national and international goals, and in doing so, reduce GHG emissions as much as possible, as soon as possible, to set an example and begin to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Simply putting in a policy that is a "lowest common denominator" minimum, but that does not adequately contribute to GHG reductions on a larger scale, is no longer an option.

Too low More action and a higher target (40%) is needed.

Too low More efforts and money should be dedicated to protecting the environment right away.

Too low More needs to be done.

Too low More people in the region should be driving electric cars.

Too low Need to be net zero by 2050 (IPCC) at a minimum; so I would suggest being more aggressive early on.

Too low

Not only is it imperative that the CRD be a leading example of GHG emissions reduction, but there are key leverage points that could drastically reduce the overall levels. By making it a regional priority to shift away from individual/private 'On Road Transportation' towards an integrated mass transit system, GHG emissions from this source could be drastically reduced in a short period of time. Moreover, building GHG emissions can also be greatly reduced through conservation and retro-fitting homes, businesses, and public buildings. Reducing GHG emissions must be made with hard targets over a few years and within one decade rather than ambiguous and loose targets over 20+ years.

Too low Not sure what these targets mean in relation to recommended reductions by scientists. I am assuming these are too low....

Too low

Once oil production ceases due to alternative power sources, there could be a dramatic lowering of GHG emissions and these numbers will be higher than what they should be. Perhaps add "or better" to the end of this sentence and the next one: "By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 33%:" "By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 61%".

Too low One huge factor has not been included in the equation.

Too low Our targets for greenhouse gases needs to be very high as Gov'ts tend to always only end up doing a portion of what is projected.

Too low

Overlooks great gains available through the goal of: 1. free and significantly improved bus transit, combined with automobile abolition planning 2. reduced work week's impact on carbon release 3. dramatic dietary flesh reduction: local flesh foods are not an improvement if there is no overall flesh and animal0-derived consumption reduction (includes eggs, dairy, fish, chicken).

Too low People will not react until they have to.

Too low PLEASE.

Too low Please see previous comment about solar power use. European countries & other places like Hawaii are installing solar power on all buildings. We are not moving fast enough on this option.

Too low Please see the comments made by the Consortium.

Too low Public transit must become the predominant form of transportation.

Too low Raise 2038 target; that's a long way into the future, so it should give us time to achieve more.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 113

Too low Really, it is too low. We need to push ourselves and if we fail, we will be able to target the culprits and tax those issues/individuals/companies/sources much higher, and use innovation to find solutions.

Too low

Reduce by 33% How about everybody who currently has a car now (not truck or other vehicle necessarily) is to drive an electric car. Make big business take their part in this. The shipping and factory areas. This should not be all on the backs of the working people who can hardly keep up.

Too low

Scientific consensus as summarized by IPCC and leading scientific societies indicate that it may be difficult to keep warming below 2C by the end of the century even if emissions were reduced dramatically. There is also increasingly concern in the scientific community that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet can no longer be prevent, which will ultimately lead to the loss of coastal cities and communities through sea level rise. However, any reduction in emission trends will help to prevent further damage.

Too low Targets need to be more aggressive to account for population growth at the same time.

Too low Technology exists to do all of this much sooner ... spend money on the right things.

Too low The 2007 levels - why not use the 1990 levels? I can't remember the details, but aren't the 2007 levels the smoke-and-mirrors that Stephen Harper uses to make it look like Canada is actually doing something, when we aren't, whereas we should be using 1990 levels?

Too low

The 2020 goal is reasonable; the 2038 goal could be higher. Decarbonizing the heating of buildings and regional transportation should be high priorities to achieve this. District heating / combined heat & power systems in urban centres and industrial parks should be supported, and we badly need a rail system that moves people around efficiently and is not dependent on fossil fuels.

Too low

The 2020 one needs to be about 40%. We need more urgency in changing our fossil fuel dependence to more sustainable sources of energy and to ways of living that are more energy efficient. The region needs a good light rapid transit system, one that would eliminate or significantly reduce the Colwood crawl and provide rapid transit to the ferries, the university, the Western Communities and Sooke.

Too low

The 2020 target (5 years away) will be a complete bust unless there is a radical and dramatic investment in cycling, transit, and electric vehicles over the next 5 years. The 2038 target is too low. Globally, the full carbon budget for the planet is 506 Gt of CO2 if we are willing to tolerate a 20% chance of crashing through the 2C barrier, and 1100 Gt if we are willing to risk a 50% chance of crashing. (For context, most people would not board an airplane if there was even a 1% chance of crashing). When that budget is applied to Canada, it runs out in ten years, if we stick with business as usual. If we reduce by 25 Gt a year (5% of 2015 level), it runs out in 2040, The slower we reduce, the faster we rush to exhaustion of our carbon budget. That's why we need to set a clear goal of 100% reduction by 2040. For the science behind this, see the Potsdam Institute's initial paper, and the recent McGlave/Ekins paper in Nature (January 2015). (It's Guy Dauncey writing this - author of two major books on climate change solutions, and founder of the BCSEA).

Too low The 2020 target seems realistic, the 2038 target too low. The biggest question is, what will the CRD do to meet these targets? Initiatives, regulations?

Too low The CRD should adopt GHG reduction goals that are no less stringent on a percentage basis than BC’s legislated GHG reduction targets, i.e.: 18% less than 2007 levels by 2016, 33% less than 2007 levels by 2020, and 80% less than 2007 levels by 2050.

Too low The CRD should adopt GHG reduction goals that are no less stringent on a percentage basis than BC’s legislated GHG reduction targets, i.e.: 18% less than 2007 levels by 2016, 33% less than 2007 levels by 2020, and 80% less than 2007 levels by 2050.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 114

Too low The fewer greenhouse gasses we emit the healthier the environment. Lead by example, other will follow. Look at the change in attitude that has occurred with respect to smoking in public spaces.

Too low The future of our children and grandchildren will rely on us showing leadership today in reducing our carbon emissions. The planet and it's weather systems will not wait for us.

Too low The need is vital.

Too low The original Kyoto protocols called for a reduction of GHG below the 1990 levels and that were deemed acceptable to help avoid catastrophic temperature increases and higher PPM carbon levels.

Too low

The planet will have to do far better than 61% reductions by 2038 given the problems our current emissions are causing and projected to cause The targets backgrounder gives no indication why these particular numbers were chosen; also does not explicitly state that the reductions are relative to 2007 emissions estimates The total emissions reduction of 61% includes an expected population growth of 28%; hence, the per capita emissions will have to decrease significantly more. I can't see that coming without significant changes in technology or expectations. Do the carbon costs of electricity generated elsewhere and used here count against our total?

Too low

The real message of global warming is going to require much more work than greenhouse gases below 2007 levels by 2038. If we really wish to reach reasonable emissions levels, our local governments need to be lobbying the provincial gov. for much more investment in alternative technologies - especially now when petroleum is low. This is a golden opportunity to put some of those billions into research and development that will truly make a difference.

Too low The science suggests we need to reduce more and faster.

Too low The Suzuki foundation in 1990 reported that we were at the outside limit of greenhouse gases. Does the 2020 reduction of 33% of 2007 levels take us back to that limit?

Too low The targets don’t go far enough and the question is a bit confusing. The percentages are too low while the level of emissions they represent are too high. By 2038 we need to be at 100% below 2007!!!

Too low There is a lot of uncertainty about climate change and the idiot politicians do not want to understand the significance it?

Too low There were rail tracks between Langford and Sooke. You would have thought someone would have thought by now putting in a LRT by now. Helloooo people!

Too low These are challenging targets, but still remain inconsistent with what we know about the needed pace and scale of change. Keep them high, to stimulate the scope and scale of action needed to achieve the changes at the pace we need to.

Too low These targets won't achieve the needed reductions to prevent significant climate change. The 2038 goal of 61% should be the 2020 goal, especially given that the way GHG's are measured is deeply flawed and likely to not truly represent the emissions of the CRD.

Too low They are probably realistic as to what can be achieved- but are they enough to slow the accelerating rate of climate change?

Too low This is a more urgent issue that has been ignored already for too long.

Too low This may be too low. We should probably aim for higher if we are to survive.

Too low

This might be in the wrong comment section but would love to see a community "Clean-Up Langford" (or entire CRD) take place at least once a year. There are lots of garbage cans throughout Langford but the amount of litter everywhere is disgusting! We could encourage residents, condo/townhouse stratas, churches, non-profit groups and businesses etc. to all do their share one date a year to help clean up Langford! : )


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 115

Too low This will take too long to have any effect. Shorten the dates.

Too low To prevent runaway climate change it's necessary to achieve a higher GHG emissions reduction possibly by eliminating internal combustion engine-vehicles from the center of Victoria and other municipalities not unlike London and Beijing.

Too low To reduce CO2 and methane output give strong priority to: Compact, complete, more energy efficient communities (rural as well as urban) Planning to reduce care and truck usage Reserving lands in large amounts for green space.

Too low Today incentives could be put in place to reduce energy use in buildings and vehicles (electric) so the target dates are far too long.

Too low Too little, too late.

Too low Too low because by having electrified railways transporting freight and people these could be easily accomplished.

Too low Too low, but given how slow governments are at implementing policy, probably realistic, and possibly higher than can be achieved. Can we trust the CRD to take serious and effective action in a timely manner that reflects the urgency of the problem? I hope so.

Too low

Unfortunately the targets are too low. We have been talking about climate change but have been slow to take action. This means that our carbon footprint has gotten larger due to lack of leadership by the Federal and Provincial Governments. Is this reduction in line with other countries/governments/municipalities in the world? Is this a reduction that is proposed by climate scientists? It needs to be defined as to where these reduction numbers are coming from.

Too low Vital to move very quickly.

Too low

Way too low, 2007 is not a standard reference and much too late in the game. As transport is highest offender, see my other comments, it is possible to reduce; use Malmo and other cities as an example. Use Ottawa Sustainability Conference as an example, I forgot the year. It must have been before Harper.

Too low We all know that GHG emissions need to be cut drastically. Let's aim higher.

Too low We are expecting a global collapse of seafood species by 2048. We don't have time to mess around.

Too low

We are rapidly approaching global tipping points where we will be unable to reverse anthropogenic climate change, acidification of the oceans, mass extinction of species, and ever-spreading social injustice. These targets reflect a certain complacency or lack of awareness of how acute our crises are.

Too low We as a society and a community can do way better than 33percent lets hit the 50 % mark and be as close to 100 % by 2038 here on the island.

Too low We can do better.

Too low We can, and should, be more ambitious in reducing GHG emissions.

Too low We don't have enough time. These are modest targets!

Too low We have to be radical or climate change will get the whole world.

Too low We keep putting off taking important reduction targets.

Too low

We must be bold. If we believe that GHG are leading to world-wide harm, we must take immediate action. Costs of changes will only increase in the future. We would be wise to develop the industries and support businesses needed for renewable energy and other green initiatives in our region, then market them to others.

Too low We must do ALL that we can to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 116

Too low We need complete greenhouse gas emission elimination as soon as possible to save the planet, 100% by 2038 or sooner.

Too low We need more exploration and incentive into wind and water and sun power, like Colwood has started.

Too low

We need to act NOW - setting achievable and high targets and just getting on with it. Enough dialogue and debate about it. Just start taking about better cycling and transit infrastructure and reducing/eliminating new construction for vehicles. Great that parts of the region are now 40KPH!

Too low We need to aggressively reduce emissions and embrace a green energy present & future to save the planet.

Too low We need to be a leader not a follower in reducing GGEs - we have significant renewable energy resources on the island, a climate that is conducive (spelling?) to low energy demand and the opportunity to be a world leader in transportation integration.

Too low We need to be aggressive about emissions reductions if we're going to stave off 2C warming or higher. By 2038 we should be striving for 80% reduction at minimum.

Too low We need to be leaders on the island and have the resources to be such--let's move it along and up.

Too low We need to be more aggressive in lowering greenhouse gasses. We have the technology to do so, and must encourage people to use it.

Too low We need to be more aggressive.

Too low

We need to be much more ambitious. Compact, complete communities are a primary strategy for achieving this, and accepting the Rural Settlement designation for all of Juan de Fuca is a serious failure: it should be Rural, with Settlement containment areas, as the majority requested in public workshops. Shirley and E. Sooke OCPs are in draft form right now, and work should be suspended until the RSS is accepted. We must take the time to get this right.

Too low We need to be taking more drastic action in support of measure to reduce climate change.

Too low We need to be working right now at reducing dependence on fossil fuels, automobile use, and energy wasting practices.

Too low

We need to do more by restricting the use of personal automobiles by increasing incentives to use public transit or walking or cycling or by creating disincentives to drive, i.e., tolls on bridges and roads, more tax on gas, CRD tax on vehicles. Make it more difficult and expensive to drive in the region so that people will choose not to.

Too low

We need to drop GHG emissions by much larger amounts to avoid runaway global warming. Reference the program put forward by Marc Jacobson of Stanford in the journal "Energy Policy" in the 2011 and 2013 issues for achievable and practical ways to do this using existing technology.

Too low We need to move faster on reductions.

Too low We need to move more aggressively to get to the 61% reduction.

Too low We need to reduce greenhouse gases much more rapidly have any chance of saving human life on the planet.

Too low We need to start now to harness the value of solar power especially because of our proximity to the airport where airplane engines powered by pollutants are active for most of the day and part of the night.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 117

Too low

We need 'wake up call like action and leadership' to direct citizens to make the right choices to reduce our emissions. Therefore, having even higher targets for emissions, stress the urgency for action now and not constantly procrastinating or holding off cutting emissions for some future time. The more we can do right now and then forward the better off we all will be - we need leadership in every community and area of North America that can be leaders as models and inspiration for those who aren't moving at all towards cutting emissions or even see it as a problem.

Too low We really are in a crisis, and delaying implementation is no good.

Too low We should be aiming for a carbon neutral region prior to 2050 as the IPCC is pushing for agreement on - I don't believe these targets are aggressive enough to get us there. also, more should be done sooner than later.

Too low We should be learning that climate change is accelerating...we need to accelerate our move away from emissions...

Too low We should set an example for the nation in the region.

Too low Well, the science says these are too low. Obviously, the political and public will is different from the science. So, the targets are too low, but good luck anyway.

Too low What incentives do we really have to reduce GHG Emissions ? No public transport. Some practical solutions please.

Too low

What is so difficult to understand about climate change? This is about human responsibility, and we, all of us humans on this planet, need to make some major adjustments. Will industry be exempt from this reduction, like has been negotiated for so many industrial sectors? Be bold, be real, make the change that needs to happen. You know how people are - we need to set the level high so we may make it halfway.

Too low

What level do we see as acceptable? In what year were we at an acceptable emissions level? According to the Suzuki Foundation, I believe that 1990 levels were the breaking threshold. Does the 2020 target of reduction of 33% of 2007 levels come close to 1990 levels? If we are to be serious about this, if we want our younger generations to be healthy, painful reductions are required. Sustainable growth seems contradictory to me. If we continue to build new infrastructure, we have little money to maintain existing infrastructure and provide more public shared transportation initiatives.

Too low When are we going to address the greenhouse gasses emitted by the airport, float planes, cruise ships and the heliport? We are all cutting back while the plane traffic continues to increase.

Too low

While I accept these targets are realistic and achievable (when all players participate), there is a grave need to look beyond what is achievable and strive for what most feel is unachievable. Call it fantastical thinking, but that style of thinking has fuelled our 'progress' to date. Let's apply the same technique to being disciplined and thinking beyond our human-needs-only parameters.

Too low Why are these expressed in terms of 2007 levels instead of 1990 levels?

Too low Widely available, Solar panels, electric cars and emissions can be reduced much further.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 118

Too low

With a combination of enhanced public transportation using clean renewable fuels and personal electric vehicles, there is no reason why those percentages can't be lowered much more quickly. A big push, locally/provincially/federally to raise taxes on fossil fuel consuming vehicles and the fuels themselves - to the levels that cigarettes are taxed - combined with serious incentives to use other alternatives, would see far fewer gas guzzlers on the roads and go a long way to achieving these goals. Make driving gasoline-fueled cars, as they are driven now, as unpopular and frowned upon as cigarette smoking. Make most parking garages electric only, with hookups to recharge, while parked there. Make spots for gas driven cars few and far between and parkades inconvenient to downtown.

Too low Without addressing the #1 source negatively affecting climate, health and waste we cannot coherently address the issues that we want to improve.

Too low You can incentivize right away, this year, to add electric vehicles to the roads, and upgrade energy efficiency of buildings, so why wait???

Too low

You have people commuting to work when they could work from home. How do you have one vision when you have all separate interests - here is a great idea shop at Walmart where all products are cheaper because they are made overseas. That will sustain the economy and help the environment, the community has to get together and collectively get over the fascination with cheaper, and what’s good for me!

Too low You wouldn't idle a car in a garage, why do people do it daily in their driveways and on the road? The Earth is in a closed system, we have known this for a while. We need to breathe clean air.

A lot of work has gone into this survey. What is needed is enforcement.

Fine as long as they are the same as the Climate Action Charter. Recognize that compact settlements work toward reducing urban sprawl inefficient and costly infrastructure.

I am not in a position to judge because I won't be around for those dates. Dates are arbitrary, and everything depends on the method and how willing people will be to comply.

I am not in a position to say what is or is not a reasonable amount to reduce GHG but I feel it is the obvious choice that we should reduce them.

I believe that the numbers are good targets and that the term "community based" is ambiguous. I prefer terms industrial, private and public. I believe it makes sense to use taxes from gas sales to fund better transit, however policing how much wood people burn in their stoves at home will cause conflict and sickness.

I don't know.

I have to assume there is information available to the authors of the plan that tells them the CRD is making good progress on the targets set in 2003. Otherwise, the targets set for 2020 in a RSS to be adopted in 2015 seem too high. If we haven't made progress in 10 years how will we get there in 5?

I think I have answered this question already.

I understand your need for targets...but I see this very limiting. In having dates you have a goal to get there with the resources, mindset of today...it does not allow for acceleration...You also do not speak of beyond the region...almost as if the region is in a bubble unto itself...You need a much, much bigger vision. Who cares if we reduce GHGs if our neighbouring region doesn't even care...GHG don't just go away from our region...and never come back...If we are not in this collectively, regionally, provincially, nationally, globally what is the point?

I'm not sure.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 119

It's hard to know if this is reasonable, as it doesn't appear to be relative to anything. What have other similar communities who have active GHG emission reduction plans accomplished? At the same time as setting a goal of reducing GHG emissions, ostensibly because 'the CRD is especially vulnerable to increased severe weather events, sea level rise, flooding..." it's ludicrous, isn't it, for the same CRD to entertain the idea of building critical sewage infrastructure not only practically at the water's edge, but requesting variances to the minimal setbacks of 7.5m, even as the province is moving towards recommending 15m setbacks? And then to be pushing to build a pressurized sewage pipeline running 18km through an earthquake zone??

Just know we have to improve traffic patterns, community buses (what's with the big empty buses?) safe bicycle routes, park and ride to bring workers in. Coordinating lights. There are so many things that the city could do that don't have to cost a lot.

Not enough information to decide - is it achievable? Is it affordable? Is it in line with the commitments of others? The backgrounder says it's important because climate change will have a serious effect on the Capital Region. We'd darn well have a plan that assumes that climate change happens - we may spend resources for naught if others do not similarly reduce carbon sufficiently.

Not qualified to answer this.

Pay more attention to revive the city core to avoid unnecessary traffic and increase green space.

Sure GHG reduction is a good thing for most of the globe, but what priority should this be for our region? A few degrees warmer would be OK for us. Sea level rise won't really affect us as we have generally steep coasts. A federal/global carbon tax should be enough incentive to have us reduce GHG locally. Push the feds on that, but don't hamstring us locally.

The CRD produces 3600 tonnes of CO2. The world production of CO2 is 34 billion tonnes (that's 34,000 million tonnes). Even if the CRD reduced its CO2 emissions to zero that would be 1 10 millionth of the world's production. This is a useless feel-good gesture. Spend your time reducing your share of my tax bill.

These are close to the national goals and thus fairly represent the CRD's share of reductions needed to achieve that goal. Much lower targets and we fail to do our part. While they may not be fast enough reductions to slow human climate impacts, any higher targets, especially without wholesale conversion to electrical transportation, are patently unachievable and create unrealistic expectations.

They are fine assuming that they are as strong as the CRD’s provincial commitments as a signatory to the Climate Action Charter. If they are different from the Charter, what is the justification? Specifically, paragraph 5(a)(iii) of the Charter states: Signatory Local Governments agree to develop strategies and take actions to achieve the following goals: (iii) creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.) This recognition that compact complete communities is a primary strategy to decrease GHG’s is also expressed in s.849(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act (an RGS should work towards avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit). However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

This is not in the CRD mandate quit wasting money.

This means nothing if not compared to a BC base line.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 120

Where & how and who is going to benefit and in what way from these targets. The food scraps ban from Hartland will undoubtedly reduce the CRD corporate carbon footprint but the same amount of methane (GHG) will be produced wherever those wastes are disposed of whether in urban and rural backyards, in a composting facility here or outside the CRD or on a logging road somewhere in JDF where fugitive dumping happens. Do something real to reduce GHG's and the CRD's carbon footprint; don't shift the responsibility to local taxpayers to deal with waste and later claim to have achieved GHG emission reduction by XX%; it will be a false statement, we'll remind you of it. Actively promote good transit connections and get people out of cars; develop with local municipalities a functional pedestrian/cycling commuter network not just recreational trails and cycling paths.

Without a commitment from senior governments GHG reduction targets are unachievable. Use growth planning to improve regional livability and increase density to areas served by efficient transit. Encourage a more diverse economy to reduce reliance on public sector employment.

2.0 COMMUNITIES

2.1 Dwelling Unit Growth Target

a) What do you think about the following dwelling unit growth target?

Locate 30% of new growth in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing

types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space.



Too high 55 7.9%

Too low 421 60.5%

TOTAL 696 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 121


About right

"Transit" is a word that is too vague; its use is something like, "Johnny, please go to the store and buy some fruit." By this, it is strongly suggested that "transit" be defined; "Bus Transit" and "Rail Transit" are suggested terms. Even if we have no rail transit currently, a true vision for the Region should include it. Inclusion of the "rail transit" term will help to get people accustomed to thinking about it.

About right

30% is probably the minimum requirement in order to achieve sustainability. Schools need to be included as well as grocery stores and other small scale services. In order to achieve this goal it will be important to play a leadership role in creating a cultural shift away from suburban type developments.

About right 30% might be OK....but families want safe neighbourhoods, nice homes with a yard, more than they want a bike path.

About right 30% seems like a good start. Getting people closer to the city is a good idea and one that seems to have caught on with younger people. I note rental apartments going up in Langford. Good thing.

About right A considerable portion of growth should be affordable housing.

About right A good place to start reducing our dependency on cars for transportation. I'd rather see increased urban density rather than more urban sprawl.

About right A reasonable, attainable plan.

About right Add more affordable housing, add more housing for the homeless, work hard to improve the lifestyles of the working poor.

About right Again, I support this aggressive goal, while recognizing it may not be achieved by 2038.

About right Again, I will choose "about right" as there is much to consider and I am sure that you have done an amazing job and a great deal of research to come up with these targets. Like anything, it seems to take way to long, but there is many things to consider.

About right Again, sounds good but will not happen under the current governing structure.

About right Agree that development and densification should be centered around hubs.

About right Agree with targets, but I believe the focus should be increasing density in urban areas and combining housing with commercial in core areas.

About right Allow higher density in all core areas especially Saanich.

About right

Allowing and planning for higher density housing via legal suites and multi-unit houses already in areas serviced by transit etc. with new car improvements, busing may soon be a less environmental option and changing infrastructure must look to future when public transportation may decrease or remain the same. Can't force people out of cars at public expense. Social engineering doesn't work for the cost expended.

About right

An urban containment boundary is essential. Besides walkable centres, the region must sincerely protect its agricultural lands, sensitive ecosystems, and forest 'lungs'. There needs to be an added developer surcharge of all lands with .3 km of a major transportation corridor (highway, or railway - active or abandoned), with the appropriate density to hopefully achieve a balanced housing (luxury to affordable). Build the efficient transportation system and recreation / arts / parks will be "close" to the residents. (close is relative to the time travelled). Encourage and recognize those municipalities who plan for walkable centres.... and they don't all have to be 'uptowns'. The Cycling / Pedestrian Masterplan needs more than just lip service to pedestrians. They make up 30-40% of the transportation mode & will increase as population ages. Sidewalks are not mere municipal responsibilities -- people don't just walk to their boundary. Similarly, pedestrians need 'wayfinding' just as much as do cyclists.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 122

About right Another good target. Will need creative ideas to provide pleasant, affordable, and dignified housing in already developed areas. Support the walkable village concept being developed in existing communities.

About right As long as it doesn't use existing farm land or natural areas to build these communities.

About right But against densification of existing built up RESIDENTIAL areas.

About right Central Saanich is doing a good job already. Set a conservative goal to leave room for flexibility during periods of economic change.

About right Central Saanich needs to expand its residential housing area, not its commercial areas.

About right Concentrate building footprints to maximize green-space.

About right

Currently mixed use residential/business construction is the trend. However, quality housing with adequate living space and a healthy surrounding environment are essential. Condos and apartments should NOT be so tall that sunlight is blocked out. There needs to be park space planned for every densely populated neighbourhood. Building near a service core is important, but why not spread the core out a bit. For example, the Shelbourne Valley (draft) plan is a model for increased density but does nothing to increase the sense of community. It does not increase park space, it doesn't build links to the University of Victoria, and it doesn't make Shelbourne Street more livable. Every redevelopment plan needs to have a primary focus on livability and community. And beauty...we have enough ugly streets already.

About right Density should be increased in many areas, promote suites in houses etc.

About right

District of Sooke needs to identify an urban growth centre, not a "rural" growth centre. Also needs to identify areas of potential urban growth. I expect these are in the District's OCP. On the other hand, Port Renfrew should be identified as a "rural" growth centre since a population node is logical at that point on the Pacific Marine route and the settlement is already identified as a town and has in place fire hall, church, wharf, public sewer, public water, street lights, ambulance station, library, rec centre, and elementary school. Bylaws will not make Port Renfrew grow but they could hasten it turning into a ghost town. The Port Renfrew OCP area needs to increase to include the settled areas on the fringes which are now in the RRL OCP area.

About right Do not think that you need to place housing everywhere and thus leave out green spaces and agricultural regions. This would leave you dependent on importing almost 100% of your food with no locally grown fresh supplies.

About right Excellent, and as far as possible include areas for food growing, even a bit helps to create a focus and awareness.

About right Focus on infilling.

About right Focus on infilling.

About right Good ideas...but it won't happen until we have cohesiveness within our municipalities (Amalgamation).

About right Great. This is perfect! Sooner than later is always better.

About right Greatly dependent on living costs as rental and real estate housing is still far too expensive for many families.

About right Growth should be on non-farmable land , example non arable land Rock etc.

About right Higher density areas must be made safer for pedestrians & cyclist. Implementation of those should not be development driven. It needs to be driven by political will to implement sooner rather than in the distant future.

About right I am concerned about the presumption that growth must continue indefinitely. Is the population to continue growing without limit? We should be assessing what the realistic population is for this area. This is a difficult issue, but the sooner we address it the better.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 123

About right

I am concerned that this may act as a disincentive for growth in the outlying areas not supported by transit or pedestrian/bike trails. This could, of course, by offset by offering developers incentives to develop is the lesser serviced areas if they include in the development plans the creation of the missing services.

About right

I am not sure about these targets - they are similar to what we have in 2014 but I am wondering just how much more growth the westshore can take. We have seen such huge growth in the westshore over the past few years and the burden on roads/transportation and probably water usage is immense. Why does every house built have to have a lawn? Why can't we encourage more row type housing so that wall/insulation factors are improved? We desperately need affordable housing and subsidized housing or rental units in the CRD - short of needing a National Housing strategy - what can the CRD do to require and set goals for a lot more of this kind of housing? Close to the services that would be required by those who can't afford all the transportation costs.

About right I completely agree with the target.

About right I hope that is enough.

About right I like the idea of infill development. Update existing communities to support the above.

About right I suggest adding variety of affordability levels as well as variety of types and tenures.

About right I think this local community model follows what Europe has had for many centuries. It makes sense to walk or cycle to work no more than 2-5 km.

About right I would increase this percentage if it turns out that it is a fairly easy target to reach at only 30%. (Sorry but I just don't know enough to guess if it is an easy target to reach.)

About right If one looks at the issue in a regional context and in consideration of our 13 municipalities/communities the target is reasonable. While my instinct would be to go higher I want to see residential and commercial growth/tax base growth in all of our municipalities.

About right If you're going to promote more walkable and bikeable areas then you need to start with repairing most of our roads and having proper bike lanes and markings on existing roads before thinking about new ones! The region's roads are currently very unsafe for cyclists.

About right

In the Gulf Islands there is a move toward denser, complete, connected communities which is inappropriate in an area without transit and is barely bikeable or walkable with the many hills and narrow roads with no shoulders. I like the statement above, because it would not support new growth in the Gulf Islands.

About right Infilling should be a priority.

About right

It appears as if a trend is being maintained rather than significantly increased. I would like to see increased quality of building, so as to maximize privacy, sound control and the feeling of individuality in units within these higher density developments. I think this provides more 'pride of ownership', even with renters, and a more maintained appearance. Encouraging rooftop community gardens, rainwater storage and onsite high-level sewage treatment (with water re-use for toilet flushing) can reduce demand on existing sewer and water infrastructure.

About right

It would be more helpful to consider distributing the work sites. For example, all of the government main offices are in downtown Victoria, thus increasing costs and traffic issues. Working with other levels of government to spread the offices out could potentially reduce traffic congestion.

About right

Just like to remark on biking. Only the young ones will bike with the current set up of bike lanes. Take a look at Copenhagen and other cities. The bike lanes are completely separate from the roadway and this has to be the way if you expect anyone over 40 to use them - they are not safe and never will be when they are sharing with the cars.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 124

About right Keep the bikes off main roads, way too dangerous and costly, the city has miles of sidewalks, lets widen them for bike use.

About right Look at what Copenhagen, Denmark is doing. Use you-tube and search for Copenhagen_ize good info on converting back from a gas vehicle obsession by some of the public.

About right My concern would be to stop clear cutting in the 70% new growth areas. Perhaps a more environmentally conscience method of expansion could be implemented.

About right Need integrated dwellings, not just more condos.

About right

New growth in walkable bikeable and transit is to low but housing types it is too high. Until there is better infrastructure for more houses and traffic, and because this is a high earth quake area, less is better. There needs to be more family business in every district being built, so that people can access more near home than heading to the big box malls. More land in ALR for future food growth.

About right Not conversant with this; will take your figures.

About right Not everyone wants to live like that so I believe the target is reasonable.

About right

Of course this would be a dream come true for many people but the details and definitions matter. In general this sounds admirable, but the inertia in Victoria-region urban planning and general conservatism in the political culture (when it comes to big changes like bike routes and transit priority) makes specific region wide change hard to imagine e.g. another Galloping Goose style bike highway or HOV lane to Langford. It is important to aim high, though.

About right People move to the location they want to live in. Allowing commercial properties into those locations is the answer. And more frequent transit in and out of those areas to commercial properties and schools.

About right Perhaps you can achieve this, but again, no costs shown, and really the layman can't assess the possibilities without detailed planning projections and knowledge.

About right Running out of land to do that in CRD, but I like the idea.

About right See previous comment. Probably too low to encourage the rapid development of rapid transit but also the location of any rapid transit will have a significant effect on development density.

About right Sounds OK. We really need to contain the Langfords of the region that think that blowing the top off a mountain and creating a community miles from anywhere is good regional planning.

About right The core needs to densify population.

About right The Juan de Fuca Forest must be separated from the Westshore municipalities - from the Highlands to Sooke - to avoid that huge territory becoming developed.

About right The limited growth must be placed in already serviced areas, and redevelopment of "incore" residential areas fits the target plan.

About right

The target should be rephrased in terms of the social networking dimensions of "community" such as social capital, social cohesion, local autonomy, and citizen participation in decision making. The greater the element of community, the greater the capacity for self-organizing response to local problems.

About right The walk ability should read accessibility.

About right

This action needs to be accompanied by improvement of transit, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to be feasible. Also, specifying a percentage of growth needs to be in a certain area does not create any guidelines for how much growth (total) is appropriate, this is missing from this target.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 125

About right

This goal makes use of density growth that supports walking, biking, transit etc. This is the way to reduce traffic, rather than restricting car traffic as a means of getting people out of their cars. Unless development happens close to transit, shopping, recreation, employment, people with cars will generally choose to use the most expedient and comfortable method of transportation which is their car.

About right This is an area that needs to be discussed and implemented very carefully with as much input from public and businesses as possible. This is something that I see as being very valuable if implemented correctly.

About right This should be a minimum goal with incentives given to communities wanting to surpass 30%.

About right Transit service from West Shore in form of train on existing tracks.

About right

Use technology to assist companies and businesses determine commute distance of employees; there is technology out there for this, it can be used for school teachers for examples, allow teachers closer to a school at home to work there, a bank to shift employees to work closer to a branch, etc.

About right We are not all physically capable of getting to work and to grocery shopping on a bike. If public transit is to be a viable option, it must improve greatly or there is no point.

About right We must be more active as a society.

About right

We need to make working communities which include varieties of financial and age groups, types of dwellings, garden land, access to doctors, dentists and other medical care, services and products, jobs, education, wide recreation (including the arts) and respite (forests, parks, etc.) for humans, as well as providing areas for wildlife to nurture. However, to accomplish this goes well beyond the design of the area. To have a broad base of workers who can live in an area, (professionals, service workers, retail workers, manufacturers, etc.), either wages have to be high enough to allow people to live in those districts, or housing needs to be priced reasonably. There are many areas in BC where the service and retail employees make too little to live near where they work. They end up renting condos for 2 or 3 people and pile 5 or 6, having some living in closets. This is undignified and unfair. Or, they have long commutes, if there is even adequate transportation, or have to buy vehicles and pay for gasoline, insurance and parking. Often these are the demographics who can least afford to be spending that amount of time or costs to commute to work. So, these solutions aren't just about the design, but involve minimum wage, cost of utilities, access to internet, etc. If we are to reduce our carbon footprints we need to lower long travel distances, and make mass transit affordable and workable, which it is not (currently) for people living in outskirt communities, like Metchosin. Besides there being inadequate daily frequency of transit, it ends too early in the evening and is almost non-existent on weekends. Worse still, those coming in from more rural areas often are left missing their bus by a matter of minutes causing exceedingly long wait period between transfers to other buses. To give one example, I had a medical appointment on upper Fort Street. I left from around Kangaroo Rd. in Metchosin. Between the walking to get to and from the bus, plus the waits at transfers, it took me over 5.5 hours to get to my 15 minute medical appointment by bus service and home again. I did nothing else during those 5.5 hours That was with using the first available bus at each transfer point. By using a car the same round trip would have taken me, at most, 2.5 hours, less than half the time, in the comfort of a private vehicle. What sane person who could afford to do it, would use mass transit under those circumstances?

About right Would like higher, but maybe not realistic.

Too high "The greenest building is the one not built," says retired Land Conservancy Director Bill Turner. There should be no growth as the ethic. That will minimize the growth that occurs.

Too high 30 % is too high. I suggest 20%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 126

Too high All environmental problems are made worse by overpopulation.

Too high As all of Oak Bay and most of Victoria is fully built out, Saanich is the only "Growth Centre" to take most of the new Dwelling Unit and Jobs growth. I would look at 25% overall due to these constraints.

Too high Be realistic rather than idealistic! In already dense municipalities where will the land be found? For those that have the land it is a great idea.

Too high Do not concentrate people - they need space for wellbeing.

Too high

East Sooke can't meet this target. We have no variety of housing types, no places of work, shopping or learning and with our present governance we never will. We have nothing except wilderness park which is suitable only for hiking (by the young and fit) and with no other amenities to attract those poor people who are crammed into settlement areas and who are supposed to be able to enjoy the parks. There is no transportation to East Sooke Park other than by car. (The very young and elderly can't cycle on East Sooke Road - it isn't safe) Let's have more emphasis on people's needs than on trees.

Too high Expanding our development areas is short-sighted. Infilling the already populated areas would cut down on park and farmland disappearing forever.

Too high Far too high. Many people are just not capable of cycling long distances. Get over yourself already.

Too high Follow the need to build but not create a need. Don't build more than people are able to move in. Again: concentrate on vacant run-down houses within the city boundary before digging up green space.

Too high Given the rural nature of North Saanich, this expectation is too high and unrealistic.

Too high

Have you asked the people in these areas if they want to be high density communities or did you just pick them out. I moved to the area I'm in because it has lots of green space and I can walk to some things but I don't want 12 story apartment building here. That kind of growth is for the downtown core where the money jobs are located. If you dispersed the government buildings to other areas then a lot of your transportation woes wouldn't exist. Move the government jobs to Langford or Colwood and the Colwood crawl would disappear.

Too high

Historically the "variety" of housing types does not include lifestyle and financial options that people desire, resulting in trading one type of market failure for another, government-imposed, market failure. As an example, low cost low density housing options that enable backyard food gardening in a setting where the individual has a significant degree of control over their daily environment get replaced by corporate (including government) environments where people have little control, their security of tenure is dependent on others, and their only gardening option is an allotment controlled by others and perhaps remote from where they live. Not an improvement!

Too high How about we let people - otherwise known as the 'market place' - determine how and where people want to live? How about I tell you that in the interest of sustainability, you have to move out of your 2000 sq.ft. house and into a 630 sq. ft. condo? Sounds fair to me.

Too high

I do not agree with more and more condo towers to reduce air pollution because Victoria copies and looks like Vancouver. Look into the amount of oil that is required to produce the concrete that goes into the concrete towers that are being built in the CRD right now. I do agree with more walking, biking etc. but as the newer cleaner vehicles eventually appear that will cut air pollution too.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 127

Too high

I've been witnessing the housing development along Happy Valley and now it seems to be creeping into Latoria road area. This dense housing is an eye sore and is not something that can be sustained as I previously mentioned, the youth of today 1. Cannot not afford housing. 2. Are not interested in living in the urban areas. We MUST maintain green spaces, forests, wetlands to ensure that those generations behind us have some appreciation for nature, wildlife, etc. What is happening here is Langford is shameful. For the sake of the mighty dollar, the planning committees are jeopardizing sensitive eco-systems and protected habitat for the sake of dense housing, which just means a high tax base and more money in the municipalities’ coffers. Shameful.

Too high

Much too high - the levels of densification suggested cannot provide enough property tax revenue to provide the increased levels of infrastructure, amenity, service levels, health care facilities etc. etc. required - My statement is supported by the UBCM but I am sure this is already known by the CRD "Authority" & planners If development was not the only goal the CRD would not be suggesting the population targets it is.

Too high Need to factor in the realities of available space.

Too high Not achievable in the Sooke area. We have no choice other than commute.

Too high

Oak Bay is one of the most special neighbourhoods in Canada because it has wonderful greenery, cottage houses by-the-sea and isn't overcrowded. If 'new growth' has anything to do with destroying the greenery and replacing original homes with much larger houses that overfill the size of the lot, or even duplexes or introducing the hell Vancouver is going through with too many people and an infrastructure that isn't keeping up - then a resounding no to that. It would destroy the very essence of Oak Bay. If people want to live on top of each other without birdsong and leafy charm, other neighbourhoods offer just that.

Too high People will continue to drive regardless of their proximity to these facilities.

Too high Please, no more housing! Improve walk/bike paths and transit of the existing communities which is lacking.

Too high Protecting agricultural land and building housing near the airport and other employment areas do not jibe.

Too high Quite trying to control every aspect of your residents lives with this socialist Agenda 21 approach. The Russians tried it and it only led to misery.

Too high Specific density targets are needed for each Municipality since some will remain more rural.

Too high

That is ignoring the reality of the multiple urban centres already in existence - Sooke, Langford, and Colwood are not about to limit growth. These are the areas with affordable housing and a good living environment for families. Cycling to work, much of which is located in downtown Victoria or Esquimalt, is only an option for very few, the young and members of the spandex crowd. A tradesman needs a vehicle for his tools and materials. We're not about to shuffle off to live in an artificial environment in downtown Victoria.

Too high The idea of a core area with a lot of housing and businesses together is nice but many people like the quiet area's outside the core better. These core areas are already very busy.

Too high

The majority of jobs are government. Are you going to move those offices out of downtown Victoria into the suburbs? I don't think so. Langford and Colwood are growth communities because they are affordable. Transit and roads need to be improved. Downtown areas are NOT affordable and too many panhandlers and druggies. I don't want them in my neighbour or a mass of social housing which have high drug rates and robberies.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 128

Too high

The map is not useful because there are some areas where +30% would destroy the community not make it more sustainable. Others +30% would not be noticeable. So I disagree with how this question is being handled. My community would be negatively impacted and I move there from Vancouver to get away from the congestion and increased energy use (traffic, added time to travel, reduced security, general unsustainable culture for a family) that sustainable policies created there, so it's really important not to copy for the sake of looking green.

Too high The market will determine housing not the CRD. You cannot force people to walk, ride bicycles or take transit. They will only do so if other forces compel them to. At that time the market will react to it.

Too high The market will determine this. If you try to "manipulate" it you will drive the prices beyond affordability. SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.

Too high

The problem with trying to accommodate new growth in dwelling units is that in residential neighbourhoods, and especially in neighbourhoods of significant historical value, densification has disastrous results. The tree canopy disappears, along with most of the green space. Developers merely propose larger footprints for more massive buildings. This ruins the small-scale, green nature of our neighbourhoods. There also need to be serious disincentives to driving. As long as driving is the most convenient mode of transportation, most people will choose it.

Too high There is no room for new growth of any kind if sustainability is to be a realistic goal.

Too high This doesn't seem like something the CRD has much control of.

Too high This is an expanding area but we should limits on growth if we expect to be sustainable.

Too high This is fine for young families ,it may be more affordable for them , but not for retired people who wish to live outside of the cities and towns. Try throwing a whole pile of rats into a small cage an see what happens. We all need a little space to ourselves.

Too high

We don't need growth. It's an illusion created to foster wealth--especially for those who are already wealthy. We need to take better care of people, environment and animals that already live here. Growth is what makes cancer so terrible. When we look at human growth and natural systems, it is this human population growth that, like cancer disturbs and disrupts wellbeing and health.

Too high Why do think you can control it?

Too high Why do we need to expand??

Too high With Saanich (especially from Uptown to McKenzie) the new hub of the CRD, you have to totally rethink your "old think" strategy.

Too high You can't put everyone in the same place.

Too high

You going to control the cost of housing, you start dictating where people live the areas you pick will see housing value go up local municipalities are basically giving control of their housing and growth to a third party. Are you sure the C stands for capital I'm getting the impression it stand for the other capital C Sooke is dying because Langford is operating with a lower cost property value in 2012 243,000 2015 182,000 your plan will finish Sooke.

Too low 50%.

Too low 1/3 new homes being produced in a sustainable way doesn't equate to a real commitment to the future...

Too low 100 % of new growth must be directed to core communities to meet our GHG emission targets. It is all related, and we cannot allow the distant rural communities to increase their number of dwellings without increasing jobs for those new residents.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 129

Too low 100% of all new growth should meet this criteria.

Too low 100% of new growth must be in walkable, bikeable, transit-serviced communities!

Too low 100% of new growth should be in walkable, bikeable or transit serviced communities... and will have to be, if the region is to make some progress in the GHG targets that have just been proposed.

Too low 30% for new growth seems rather low, especially in areas outside of the Juan de Fuca electoral area. What isn't within biking distance honestly?

Too low 30% is far too low, will make achieving 61% GHG targets much more difficult.

Too low 30% is not a big hike from 28% in 2003-2014.

Too low 30% is too low to prevent/contain sprawl.

Too low 30% may be reasonable for the next few years, but over the life-time of this plan it seems low.

Too low 40% or higher - the population is growing internally (birth rate) as well as externally (new residents).

Too low 40% would be better.

Too low 50% of our new housing should be multi-family dwellings (townhouses and duplexes and condos). They need to spread out in all neighbourhoods, not just near malls.

Too low 50% would be a better target because of the limited land available in greater Victoria.

Too low 70% of new growth will be outside these walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities. That means a lot of sprawl.

Too low

80% or higher will protect our farmlands. We need to reduce our Urban containment areas in size, and take firm policy actions which will prohibit future growth from rural and agricultural areas in order to protect air quality, watersheds, and agricultural potential. Central Saanich's recent decision to send to the CRD a proposal to increase its urban containment areas around Keating (likely as an attempt to make another end-run around the CRD to put in the Co-op shopping mall on viable agricultural land) is a foolish decision, and one that is not mindful of a sustainable future, for the reasons outlined above.

Too low A Disney Land statement.

Too low A higher percentage needs to be in areas close to shopping, transit, etc.

Too low A much bolder target with specific zoning changes is needed now!

Too low About 90 % at least of new growth should be in dense cities. Non on farm lands or other countryside.

Too low Again, concentrate new population growth in already existing urban locals.

Too low

Again, I accept that we have to start at a realistic point. Still, if we re-write the above statement it looks very dark. See below: "Locate 70% of new growth in unwalkable, unbikeable, non-transit served communities that provide no variety in housing types or tenures, far from places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks or green space." Is the glass 1/3 full or 2/3 empty?

Too low Again, outside the scope of the CRD.

Too low

Again, probably realistic, but is it enough? In theory increased density should preserve green space but in the core areas that have already lost huge amounts of green space there is currently the most pressure to add density, without any guarantees of preserving the green space we have.

Too low Again, this is probably too low. I would suggest aiming for at least 50%.

Too low Aim for 50% of new growth in the above mentioned housing.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 130

Too low Aims not much better than the last two year's record, double the target, set specific density targets for each municipality, taking into consideration each one's objectives.

Too low All development should be towards more walkable/bikeable cities!

Too low All growth in existing areas.

Too low All growth should be in areas with these amenities at varying levels of development. Conversely planning should lead to these amenities at different levels of intensity be available in all areas.

Too low All growth should be in currently serviced urban areas.

Too low

ALL new dwellings should be within WALKING distance of essential facilities (grocery, pharmacy, schools, bus stops, parks). You cannot dictate where people will work, but you can make cheap efficient public transportation available for getting to work. If schools are to be a matter of personal preference, then safe public transportation should be available for school kids. Still, there should always be an elementary school within walking distance for all kids.

Too low All new growth requires the growth target!

Too low All new growth should be in existing areas. What happened to the regional centres concept?

Too low All new growth should be in existing population centres.

Too low All new growth should be within walking distance from home. If people want to go hundreds of kilometres to an area and capitalize from it, we should live there so that we can be good stewards of the land and be responsible for our actions.

Too low

All new growth should have the characteristics listed. There is an abundance of underutilized land which could be redeveloped to meet our needs, without developing new areas. Much of our old development is not liveable and will take time to transform. If new development is not livable, the transition to a more livable community will be too slow.

Too low All new growth should have these or similar restrictions on them.

Too low

ALL new growth should occur in walkable, bikeable, transit service communities, etc. As it stands, the proposed target clearly indicates that 70% of new growth will occur within car-dependent communities that aren't walkable or bikeable, don't provide a variety of housing, etc. Not only is this unambitious, it setting the region up for failure in the future. If the region's GHG targets and sustainability goals more generally are to have any meaning, then growth must occur in a sustainable manner. It is much, much easier to channel growth in a sustainable manner before it occurs than to try and "retrofit suburbia" after the fact. Development decisions taken now will have implications for many decades, so we'd better get them rights.

Too low All new residential growth should be this - and existing neighbourhoods should be changed in this direction only.

Too low Allowing 70% of new growth to potentially take place outside of already serviced communities sounds like urban sprawl to me.

Too low Any new growth not specifically related to agricultural or environmental protection must be within existing urban areas.

Too low As city grows should include higher% so it can be factored into building expansion.

Too low As in locate 70% of new growth away from all the good stuff? I say way too low.

Too low As long as that doesn't mean encroaching on green space. Denser housing in already developed areas and better clean public transit must be the way to grow, especially on our small south Island.

Too low As mentioned before, spending money on new infrastructure of spreading urban communities leaves little financial support for maintaining current infrastructure and more important shared transportation initiatives.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 131

Too low As much NEW growth as possible should be within existing walkable communities. A higher target than 30% is necessary - how about 90% instead of contributing to any more urban sprawl.

Too low As noted above, I worry about the seemingly endless population growth on an island that produces little food and only a fraction of the required electricity supply.

Too low As we decrease our reliance on individual car transportation, we need to reorganize our lifestyle and community so that the vast majority of people can access work, shopping, school, recreation, etc. by walking or bicycle.

Too low At least 50% of all new growth should meet these criteria.

Too low At least 70% of new growth should be located in 2.1a) areas. To reduce the need for high carbon output transportation - cars.

Too low At least half of new growth in housing should be walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space!

Too low

BCSEA believes this target is much too low, as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. The goal should be 60%, implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment Area given that the GCA will absorb at least 90% of regional growth (see 2.3 below). Specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This principle should be detailed and supported in the Draft RSS, so that suburban jurisdictions will be able to densify and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low


Too low By building dwelling units within the city core (Victoria/Saanich) on areas that are currently taken up by parking lots and car sales lots we should be able to increase this target.

Too low By creating higher density in population area, you protect the natural environment.

Too low Central Saanich: We have been plagued by spot zoning which has resulted in a sprawl type of community. This has to end if we are truly make the best use of the land.

Too low

Communities should be walkable. People should work in or near their communities. Make it easy for people to live and work in their home areas. Make sure a lot of farmland remains in production or even expands. Protect water systems diligently. Reduce petroleum industries and the carbon footprint.

Too low Concentrate new growth in the urban core. Enough of this commuting from Mill Bay - traffic gridlock - habitat loss.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 132

Too low Concentrate on more alternatives to widely-spread, need-a-car subdivision planning, and sprawl; use infill as much as possible; counter added density with innovative energy, water supply and waste streams.

Too low Could certainly be higher, and should include a proviso that such new housing not be at the expense of existing green space, but rather in redeveloping urban areas in a more sustainable way.

Too low Create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise townhouses and apartments within the city boundaries.

Too low Currently we are at 28% so this isn't much of an improvement.

Too low DENSIFY without compromising COMMUNITY.

Too low Density equals improved services. Until we have the population, we can’t just point a finger to Europe and say "they do it".

Too low Do we need and can we sustain constant growth? An assumption of the necessity for growth is being made here.

Too low Does this mean 70% growth in areas that are not walkable, bikeable or transit served? Then we are supporting 70% non-sustainable growth.

Too low

Dwelling growth should be much more focused in existing urban/built-up areas, more high-density, multi-unit buildings in densely populated areas rather than allowing more subdivisions of large, suburban single family houses which people have to drive to and are not conducive to public transit routes. Massive high-rises such as Roberts House, should also be avoided. More lower height, multi-unit buildings are better, than single eye-sore skyscrapers.

Too low Encouraging density in urban areas can enhance our quality of life. Look at the West End in Vancouver as a good example of a high level of livability in densely populated urban area.

Too low

Existing natural areas should be prioritized for protection, and any area that can be restored to a natural state should be next in line for protection and investment. Biodiversity needs to be paramount. Green space concepts are too broad and the resulting plantings are homogenizing the planet. Plant species that belong here, providing food and shelter for native wildlife. Wildlife in this case is an inclusive term: native fauna from birds to bumble bees to butterflies to mammals.

Too low Expanding alternative transportation, while building multi use zoned buildings means we should increase neighborhoods that are not car reliant.

Too low Focus needs to be on maintaining the agricultural land we have and densifying more. Also transit needs a huge improvement.

Too low For new growth this number should be a lot higher.

Too low Getting cars off the road and encouraging transit that supports this - rapid transit (Calgary has one of the best systems) - promoting green space - resource recovery to water the green space... heat recovery for use in industrials or the hospitals.

Too low Given that this new growth will be within the urban containment area, I think a larger percentage should be the target (I recognize that both Langford and Sooke included their entire municipality in the UCA so there will be sprawl in these areas).

Too low Go big. Create excellent, cheap public transportation, and top-quality bike lanes.

Too low GROWTH HAS TO BE CONTAINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Too low Growth is not sustainable. Land needs to be protected and any development should occur in already developed areas.

Too low Hard to understand why virtually all planned development wouldn't meet these criteria.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 133

Too low Higher density, build up not out.

Too low

How about "locate all"? How long are we going to use up what's left of natural spaces? When will we know when to stop? When there's one tree left? We live on an island. We have 3 days of food here in case of no ferries, and really, nowhere to grow food. Radicchio a patio pot doesn't count.

Too low How about %80.

Too low How about 100%.

Too low How about 100%. Why would you put 70% of housing outside of those areas? The only people living outside those areas should be farmers and ranchers.

Too low How can you reduce emissions if you are allowing most of the growth where there isn't any transit?

Too low

I am confused. Why would we set such an aggressive target for GHG emissions and then have a target of only 30% of new growth in walkable bikeable, etc., communities? And this target does not even have a target date. I would think this is a more achievable goal than the unrealistic GHG emission reduction goal and one should tie to the other. Unless the real goal is to invest heavily in a strategy that improves public transportation options by ignoring the needs of the automobile.

Too low I believe most of new development and dwelling unit growth should go into such communities.

Too low I believe that increasing the portion of households residing in compact, walkable neighbourhoods is the single most effective way of achieving economic, social and environmental objectives.

Too low

I believe that these targets for new growth are standards that should be accessible to all people. While I understand that difficulties exist with the provision of such community types for all new growth, I think that the CRD should set a MUCH higher standard for new communities. This target should be at least 60%. If we are properly defining sustainable growth, all new development must be conducive to low emission, healthy lifestyles for all people.

Too low I believe the current percentage is 23%? If so, we could go further than 30%.

Too low

I can't tell from the backgrounder whether new growth centres are imagined, but 70% of new growth outside of fully serviced, walkable and bikeable communities is too high. Planning needs to be made around where that 70% of new growth is happening, such that if/as necessary new growth centres are developed, rather than more sprawl.

Too low

I do not understand why in such a small, compact region we would not shoot for a MUCH higher target. Failure to do so would seem to build in failed dispersed-living models that do nothing for social, economic or environmental well-being. It also seems to maintain the status quo.

Too low I don't have enough expertise in this area to comment meaningfully. My recommendation would be to go with what is best-practice in this regard based on a lit search.

Too low

I feel this is crucial and would like a higher target. like 50%? Also you show (map) the entirety of saanich in "core area". but saanich is so large, with a lot of rural area. population growth should be guided by the existing urban containment boundary with minor exceptions ONLY where some absolutely compelling case is made. (Maybe I’m wrong about how I read your "core area"? Maybe you are using UCB?)

Too low I have a gut feeling that this is way too low. All communities should have very high walkability scores.

Too low I have always personally chosen to live within cycle/walking distance from my place of employment. I have a good job; the cost of housing prevents many from exercising this option.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 134

Too low I know it may be difficult (or perhaps even impossible) but I think the target should be to create all new growth in such communities. We now all know the value of strong community and vibrant urban interaction so why not create all new housing with that goal in mind.

Too low I suggest you look to Copenhagen for what is possible when considering cycling infrastructure.

Too low I suspect a dramatic change is necessary'.

Too low I think 100% of new growth should be designed to be walkable, bikeable, and transit serviced. In addition, efforts should be made to make existing communities more walkable, bikeable, and transit serviced.

Too low I think 40% would be a better target.

Too low I think a monorail system for this town would be a great idea.

Too low

I think closer to 70 or 80 per cent of the new development in Victoria should be serviced in this Vancouver model of development. This is *new* development, not old forms of development. Victoria should be a city that looks to the future when developing anything. What will the people and the city of Victoria need in 20 years, 50, or 100? We will need sustainable, walkable, transit serviced communities. We will not need car centric forms of development that perpetuate the oil ideals of the twentieth century.

Too low I think more effort needs to go into providing affordable housing alternatives in existing centres that appeal to young families. 70% of new growth away from the types of communities you mention seems to mean we are willing to accommodate this percentage of sprawl.

Too low

I think more emphasis needs to be placed on developing high density infill in already-dense, well-serviced areas, and encourage medium-high density along proposed transit routes. This goal could be bumped to 40% I think. Again, we have to respect the fact that a number of new residents to the region come here to build their 'dream retirement' homes on custom build lots, and tend not to be commuters per se, but do use private vehicle transportation. Furthermore, this housing needs to be very carefully planned to be located near major places of employment. I would urge higher densities near UVIC, downtown, and Esquimalt Harbour.

Too low I think new growth should ALL be accessible by alternative (non-fossil fuel dependent) transportation.

Too low

I think that in order to reach the carbon emission reduction targets, we need for the majority of new growth to occur in serviced areas. Along with locating new growth in walkable, bikeable, and transit serviced communities, we need to better service communities/suburbs that currently are not serviced.

Too low

I think the CRD should aim for the skies when it comes to accessibility to new growth in urban areas (something closer to 50%). A modern society has multimodal transportation networks integrated into its development phases, bike lanes on all major corridors, shortcut bike networks routes through residential neighbourhoods, greenspaces to reduce stormwater runoff, frequent transit on all major corridors. The responsibility needs to be put on land developers to help build/update these types of infrastructure. I highly support denser growth within urban areas.

Too low

I think the target should be considerably higher because it reflects the vision of RSS affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles; expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources; and achieving greater social equity. A higher target will counter urban sprawl and will ensure the necessary ecological integrity of the region.

Too low I think this could be increased to 50% or more with most growth occurring in the urban core and village centers.

Too low I think this should be at least 50%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 135

Too low I think we could do more.

Too low I think we need all new growth to be in walkable, bikeable transit serviced communities. We MUST protect our agricultural lands and make certain that our watershed is protected.

Too low I would encourage more infill housing in already built areas. Improve existing infrastructure (transit, green space) to these density increased areas. Urban sprawl will up your greenhouse gasses as people commute, and eat up your arable land.

Too low I would like to see it closer to 50%. If we want more diversity in our communities and truly want to keep carbon in the ground, we must act boldly.

Too low I would like to see the target be 50% of new growth.

Too low I would like to see this closer to 50%.

Too low I would make it 90% ...otherwise it is not sustainable.

Too low I'd like to see 100% of new growth needs to be in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities. Why not?

Too low

I'd rather see vertical densification in urban areas maximized to spare green urban spaces and to retain as much rural space as possible. However, I would not want to see first nations reserve land within urban areas surrounded by high density growth, unless done in agreement with first nations.

Too low I'd say most of our growth should be in those neighbourhoods that are served by active transportation, not just a small portion.

Too low

Ideally, I think all new dwellings should be walkable, bikeable and transit-serviced. They should also be mixed-use, with plenty of nearby greenspace. I realize that a target of 100% is counter-cultural, but ultimately, I feel that target is the one we should aim for. After all, when it comes to things like airplane safety, people aim for 100% because it's important. Sustainability, community, and the environment (not to mention the mental health benefits that spring from the aspects in this particular target) are of paramount importance to me.

Too low

If current status quo is the benchmark then I can see how this target is applicable but what we should really be doing is combining the dwelling growth with associated transit hub growth. For example, the highway cannot take many more cars so we should be considering a light rail solution or similar from the West Shore to allow the inevitable development there to happen alongside ways for the people in those communities to move around without a car. You should also consider car sharing schemes as an essential and mandated part of community growth.

Too low If it's not possible to locate new growth in already walkable/bikeable/transit serviced communities etc. then we should be actively making the areas for new growth into liveable, vibrant, accessible communities.

Too low If only 30% of new growth is in these types of communities that means 70% of new growth will be contributing to a car culture - that seems very counter-intuitive to wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%.

Too low

If we are to get somewhere - and achieve our targets - we must try for 100%. Ideas exist and the community must understand that this is for the greater good. We are a very rich nation and we can afford to do this. It may create some problems in the beginning, but there are enough creative and enthusiastic people to realize that planning for such a future can not only be very good for us, but will create jobs and a new impetus for new ideas.

Too low If we don't start dealing with smart growth in communities that don't require driving for almost everything we will never achieve the GHG reduction targets just mentioned.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 136

Too low If we want to achieve the vision that the RSS describes and the GHG reduction we are going to need to location more than 30% of new growth within complete communities. No more sprawl! We cannot afford it- financially or environmentally.

Too low

If we want to add another 1/3 to our population over the next 20 years (providing that we have the carrying capacity for it!), I think we will require higher densification in existing urban centres, in order to avoid developing on future food-producing land. Remember: just because it's not producing food now, doesn't mean we won't need it to produce food later. So, we need compact, walkable, transit-friendly, affordable neighbourhoods.

Too low If you're to achieve the goal of 42% of all trips made by walking, cycling, and transit it'll likely require a higher ratio for centrally located Smart Growth housing. No?

Too low I'm opposed to unlimited "new growth" since it puts too much strain on the existing population and the environment. Limit the new growth and honour the densities in each member municipality.

Too low In eleven year, “2003-2014” 28 % of dwelling unit growth within the region was located within a Growth Centre. So to say that only 30% by 2038 is to be located, seems a bit low to me.

Too low It doesn't seem adequate to say that 70% of new growth will be outside these communities. The bar is set too low at 30%.

Too low It is not clear to me what the boundaries are of Growth Centres. Movement from 28% to 30% through to 2038 seems awful slow. This leaves 70% of new growth outside of Growth Centres. The CRD should be aiming for something like 40%.

Too low It seems to me that 70% of new growth that would not fit the above criteria would need to use forest/parkland/parks and that seems too much to me.

Too low

It took Westhills in Langford about 7 years to get BC Transit bus service. The Province won't located any office building in the Westshore. CMHC forecasts over 60% of regional growth in the Westshore in the next 5 years. That seems completely at odds with this statement. Keep dreaming.

Too low It would be great to limit any new growth/building and also to locate at least 50% of new growth in existing communities.

Too low It's crucial. I'd aim for 80%.

Too low It's pretty clear that the CRD needs to entice more businesses and entrepreneurial activity in the West Shore. That's where we need jobs the most.

Too low Keep growth in containment areas. Somehow, Central Saanich's 'growth area' has been expanded without input from citizens.

Too low

Less than a third is a paltry sum when one considers the ramifications of building accommodations as per the status quo. The sheer variety of transport alluded to above, should assure us that all communities in the CRD make this the #1 problem for "sustainable growth". Otherwise, urban sprawl will continue the array of problems already facing us today. Focus should be placed on revitalizing existing areas with higher densities, such that an expanded route system for bus or LRT service isn't required. More frequent bus/rail service - especially with electric or hydrogen engines - would be much more effective than more buses on longer or new routes.

Too low Let's do more!

Too low Locate 99.9%.

Too low

Locating only 30% of growth in "walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space" means that 70% are locked into car focused commuter lifestyle. How is that sustainable?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 137

Too low Majority of growth should be this kind of smart growth.

Too low Make it 50 %.

Too low Make it 50%.

Too low Make public transit more convenient and car travel less convenient.

Too low Maybe 40%?

Too low Minimum 60 %.

Too low More areas need to be densified to allow for a more sustainable and resilient lifestyle.

Too low More is better, why not a first class effort for 75%.

Too low More needs to be done to make it easier for individuals to avoid single-car use transportation.

Too low More of the same. Why not 100%?

Too low

More of this! This is what I want, where I want to live, the neighbourhoods that I want to live in and near. Do it! Fun neighbourhoods, places where people from eight to 80 can live, work, and play. Lots of green space - and a vibrant outdoor feeling (Montreal has a wonderful culture of hanging out in parks during the summer, having BBQs etc.).

Too low Much more than 30 % of new growth should be located in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space.

Too low Nearly all new growth should be located 'walkable, bikeable, and transit serviced communities.' It should be changed to 90+% and made with consideration of expanding the transit system to the major centres and metropolitan core.

Too low Need greater density in larger, existing communities, not carving up potential farm land for housing. I would suggest 75% of new growth in those areas.

Too low Need more affordable dwellings.

Too low Need to be aggressive on this - lead the way!

Too low Need to get most growth in areas free of private cars.

Too low Need to increase the ability to work from home, although this may not always be practical.

Too low

New developments that are scraping off important ecosystems should be banned, and developments should ONLY occur in existing GCA. Why would residences be built that do not have access to amenities by walk or bike?! That is absurd. Please read some Jane Jacobs and wake up! No more Radiant City developments spreading across the Westshore, please!

Too low New growth should as much as possible (and way more than 30%) be about intensification of already developed areas. There should be no further expansion of the urban footprint, no conversion of existing farmland to residential.

Too low New growth should be tied to population outflow. I.E. no net population increase.

Too low Nix sprawl. Allow "tiny" "micro" homes on existing lots.

Too low No improvement over the past - specific density targets should be set for each municipality in line with their OCP.

Too low Not enough; all new residential communities should follow this building plan.

Too low Not much better than the last two year's record. Double the target and set specific density targets for each municipality, taking into consideration each of their objectives.

Too low Once a community is thriving it attracts more people. As long as there are mechanisms in place that would accommodate more people moving in to an area after 30%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 138

Too low Only 30% in transit serviced areas??? This is ridiculous, they should all be in transit serviced areas! This number should be much higher to prevent urban sprawl.

Too low Other than some growth in rural properties, all housing should be located in areas with walkable, bikeable and transit serviced areas.

Too low Our communities need to be sustainable as they are planned out. Why only 30%?

Too low Over 50%.

Too low Please encourage co-operative housing models.

Too low Probably should be about double. Density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality recognizing the unique characteristics: some densify, some rural, agrarian, etc.

Too low RAISE THE FERRY RATES. DOUBLE THE FERRY RATES.

Too low Rampant development in the CRD should be stopped. Preserving farmland and forest ecosystems should be a priority.

Too low Rapid transformation of public transit and urban densification is needed.

Too low Relates to first target. They don't match. Missing some urban centers in your backgrounder? Where is Quadra Village for example?

Too low Revitalize current neighbourhoods by increasing density. Eliminate suburban sprawl.

Too low

Settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit. However, the draft RSS does not specifically link land use patterns with reduced GHGs. Households living in attached forms of housing in compact, complete urban communities use up to 60 percent less energy (household and transportation) than do rural households.

Too low Short commutes and non-carbon-fueled traffic are key to a sustainable development, and probably the easiest to implement. ALL new development should meet the stated criteria.

Too low Should aim higher for new growth areas.

Too low

Should be 50% of new growth, but for rural areas also should extend the concept of "walkable, bikeable, transit-serviced" to include mixed-mode travel - e.g. enable the practice of driving (preferably in a carpool) or biking a moderate distance to more and better park and ride nodes.

Too low Should be 50% or above to get real change. 30% is natural for planning. We should push further to make an impact.

Too low Should be 70% otherwise its sprawl.

Too low Should be at least 50% in my opinion. And might mitigate against too large population growth generally and prevent any more disasters like the Langford nightmare!

Too low Should be at least 60%.

Too low Should be at least 60%.

Too low Should be at least double.

Too low Should be closer to 40%.

Too low Should be higher - 50%.

Too low

Should go harder to increase density in urban areas. This can be done by requiring developers to put more facilities underground. The whole of a sewage treatment plant should go underground, for instance. Then it won't matter where it is. Any other development that encounters NIMBYism can to some degree be counteracted by following such a policy.

Too low So higher, any new development should be in areas where people have access to transit, shopping, food, restaurants, libraries, etc. Let's get out of our cars folks and bike, walk or take transit. We can and need to make a difference! I think it should at 60%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 139

Too low

Something that I always find puzzling is that there already other places in the world where solutions already exists and so there really is no need to "reinvent the wheel". There are many cities in Europe that have already achieved considerably higher targets and communities are thriving.

Too low

Sooke needs to be an urban growth center Port Renfrew needs the potential to grow Sooke and the JdF EA area are not Westshore Density targets should be set for each municipality, areas within them and within the OCP area's These areas should be linked with trails offering safe alternates to driving.

Too low

Sprawl is killing us with commuting, development / infrastructure / service costs, etc. We need to really push for human-scale living once again. If we are going to continue with population growth, it must be through density or our footsteps will end up trampling the garden that feeds us. And for goodness sake - we must stop the housing developments on prime arable lands. The ALC seems to allow a lot of land-swapping with big developers - we need local government empowerment to protect ALR and non-ALR lands that are prime for food production.

Too low Sprawl is not something the landscape of the CRD is well set up for. When you look at an aerial map it is largely due to the first Nations that we still have forested areas. Some parks sure but I think all new housing needs to be accessible by transit.

Too low Stop rural development...focus on smaller units and infilling current urban areas.

Too low Stop urban spread, big box store mentality encourage greenspace, & agriculture land.

Too low Strive for at least 50 to 75%.

Too low

Suburban sprawl is largely responsible for making our GHG emissions as high as they are, since we must cover greater distances than traditional compact communities in Europe, for instance. Realistically, all or nearly all future development should be within existing communities, converting them, albeit over time, into the compact urban landscape we must focus upon from now on. This rather feeble target will only slow continued expansion, not build compact communities. It also casts light on how difficult and slow it is to achieve changes in GHG emissions relying upon compact cities; again suggesting the absolute necessity of vigorous work slashing transportation GHGs, the only other significant source for potential reductions.

Too low

Suburban sprawl is largely responsible for making our GHG emissions as high as they are, since we must cover greater distances than traditional compact communities in Europe, for instance. Realistically, all or nearly all future development should be within existing communities, converting them, albeit over time, into the compact urban landscape we must focus upon from now on. This rather feeble target will only slow continued expansion, not build compact communities. It also casts light on how difficult and slow it is to achieve changes in GHG emissions relying upon compact cities; again suggesting the absolute necessity of vigorous work slashing transportation GHGs, the only other significant source for potential reductions.

Too low Such projects seem core for long-term viability.

Too low Target always seem to come in under the estimate ... AMP IT UP!!!

Too low Target is not an improvement over record of past decade. I believe target should be 50-60%.

Too low Target more density in those areas.

Too low Target should be higher - as high as terrain and distance allows.

Too low Target will not adequately reduce (measured as time function) existing infrastructure incompatible with sustainable community design: specifically commuter travel from home to work.

Too low Tear down suburbs to redevelop as local food production lands.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 140

Too low

The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low

The CRD should push the province and FCM to develop a national scale PSA to emphasize "future proofing" of lifestyles, particularly for the baby boomer generation. Most boomers are not being confronted with the reality that they WILL age out of driving, and need to start building a lifestyle that is resilient to that change.

Too low The definition is vague, so I can only assume what you mean. I think we really need to be looking at European levels of density. It should become acceptable and normal to have row houses.

Too low

The GHG target won't be achievable without bringing as much of the new growth as possible into walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities. New development should be done using mixed-use principles. Big developments like Royal Bay offer an opportunity to create new centres, enabling this target to be easily surpassed, as long as planning departments are committed to the Climate Action Charter commitment.

Too low The great majority, if not all, new growth should be in those areas.

Too low The greenest building is the one not built - if new population cannot be accommodated in existing dwellings of all types, well, then it's time to regulate total population growth.

Too low The Growth Centres map is very unclear - I have no idea on the boundaries of the Growth Centres - dots aren't representative. Given the control of re-zoning applications, why not be so permissive on high-density housing that you can guarantee a higher figure than 30%?

Too low The importance of TOD communities is being undersold - it should be at least 60%.

Too low The majority of new growth should be located in such communities.

Too low The minimum should be 60%.

Too low The parks and green space targets are too low. When you draw the population closer and closer together, the green space balance is crucial to mental health.

Too low The percentage should be much higher to improve on present level and to ensure that present rural communities remain rural. Urban densities should be strongly discouraged in rural municipalities.

Too low The presumption here is that the house with a piece of ground is the ideal. Most houses now cover as much of the lot as zoning allows, devouring the open space. Stacking residences allows for more common open space.

Too low The principles you discuss are valid. We need to do far more though if we are to reach the 2040 target.

Too low The target should be 100%, otherwise the targets (sustainability, energy reduction etc.) will never be met.

Too low The target should be 50%, and should have a target of 25% for the Metro Core and Uptown/Mayfair Major Centre, as these are areas with the highest potential for the sustainable modes.

Too low The target should be considerably higher, at least 50% and ideally, 65%.

Too low The target should be doubled to around 60%,. This can be achieved by urban densification in compact, comprehensive communities within the containment boundary, increasing retrofits and encouraging non-vehicle transportation.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 141

Too low

The urban small lot single family home sprawl happening around the CRD needs to stop. Langford has the majority of this and it has not created successful communities, and has not even been a successful model for development as many lots go unsold and are undergoing turnover in owners and/or renters. These failed neighbourhoods, where the small lots do not offer the needed living and recreation space at home, nor the needed storage place or the room to park the still needed vehicles so have created bedroom neighbourhoods that are totally dependent on their vehicles and leave their local area for work, shopping, food and recreation, that should see redevelopment with multi-home densification with shared spaces for recreation and wild spaces in their neighbourhoods and the density to justify the expense of transit, bike lanes and walkable paths, as well as blending mixed-use that would see jobs, goods and services being brought into those neighbourhoods and serving the surrounding neighbourhoods as well. This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment area given that the GCA will absorbs at least 90% of regional growth (see 2.3 below). More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low The walkable/bikeable/transit service part is right on. 30% is too low. We're putting up houses and other buildings too far from where people work. Doesn't do the community much good to promote new growth if people have to commute from Leechtown to Uptown every day.

Too low

The West Shore is expanding too quickly. Too many people moving out here and there isn't a proper transportation system to commute to downtown. Personally, I'm moving away from Langford because of the commuting time. Housing may be cheaper here, but at what cost to the environment, my family's well-being, and my budget?

Too low There needs to be a focus on making public transit more affordable/efficient - we need greater density to achieve this.

Too low These are just numbers...we need to do our best...we could start by getting the E & N working as a commuter service...but of course, Victoria misguidedly eliminated access to downtown Victoria...sigh...

Too low Think it should be 50%.

Too low This “target” doesn’t improve significantly on past performance. If CRD is serious, it must do better than in the past. A doubling to 60% of new dwelling units within walkable areas would be far more reasonable and more likely to achieve overall climate goals.

Too low This “target” doesn’t improve significantly on past performance. If CRD is serious, it must do better than in the past. A doubling to 60% of new dwelling units within walkable areas would be far more reasonable and more likely to achieve overall climate goals.

Too low

This goes to my previous comment. Good job. But the target is far too low. This is such a timid and ineffective target if the current context suggests that we have been achieving 28% currently. Basically this is saying to not do anything different than what we've been doing- but to expect to be doing much better in terms of reducing GHG emissions. That target should be double. I'm not joking- or we are basically saying that the status quo will suffice.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 142

Too low

This is almost the same as it was back in 2003-2004. It should be at least 70% Allow infill developments, less stringent easements for new buildings and houses...in short, update our building codes to allow denser neighbourhoods, and increase pocket parks, more urban green space for community gardens, small playgrounds. Encourage builders to build low rise rentals (three to six story apartment buildings). Make sure good public transportation service is available in all neighbourhoods so that streets can be narrow with fewer cars. Reward sound developments (low rise, low rentals small pocket parks narrow street etc.) with tax breaks.

Too low This is long overdue and our time to dream and dream big. If we are going to do this, especially with Baby Boomers on their way out, we need to start to be responsive and attentive to those generations coming up.

Too low

This is the same as the growth in the last decade or so, and we need to do better. Different municipalities and regions should have specific targets that support sustainability and prevent sprawl. It makes no sense whatever that JdFEA should absorb the 5th largest percentage of growth between now and 2038: that growth should be in dense, serviced areas.

Too low This is unambitious, to be generous, given the goals for carbon emissions and non-auto transport.

Too low This is way too low.

Too low

This isn't much better than current performance. The flip side of this is that 70% of new growth would not be walkable, bikeable, close to work, etc. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the goals of buying and maintaining more green spaces, where CRD had identified quite aggressive, but appropriate, targets to meet. A target for dwelling unit growth in the 50 range would be better.

Too low This leaves 60% of new growth to rural and sub-urban areas making it impossible to meet any of the RSS Objectives.

Too low This means 70% of growth won't support the goals of walkable, bikeable, transit serviced.

Too low This means that 70% of new growth is going to infringe on existing greenspace or agricultural lands. We need to grow up, not out and densify our existing communities.

Too low This needs to be higher to avoid further congestion and waste of arable farmland on housing.

Too low

This number must be much higher. New growth must be in areas that already have infrastructure noted above. The current infrastructure will be difficult to maintain without adding more. It will be difficult to change habits if communities cannot offer infrastructure to accommodate walking, shopping, working, education in close proximity.

Too low This seems a tall order, but certainly worth trying - and change the % to 50%.

Too low This seems to me a major way to reduce car use, and I believe the location of new dwellings is something the CRD actually CAN control, so I'd like to see this target increased.

Too low This should apply to virtually 100% of NEW growth. And we need to retrofit existing communities to put in the missing elements.

Too low This strategy should be incorporated everywhere and, by extension, would force less development. Put the focus into infrastructure that supports this ideal, and stop developing where this can't be in place.

Too low This target is essential in achieving the reductions needed for emissions.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 143

Too low

This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least 60%. More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low

This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment Area given that the GCA will absorb at least 90% of regional growth- see 2.3 below) The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighbourhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can densify and thus qualify in their in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable transit-friendly commercial centres and residential neighbourhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere. see Consortium submission.

Too low

This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment area given that the GCA will absorbs at least 90% of regional growth. More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can densify and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low

This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment area given that the GCA will absorbs at least 90% of regional growth (see 2.3 below). More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low

This target is much too low. The current record is 28% so a 2% increase is hardly making any improvement at all. We should set targets of 50-60%. Specific targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of the particular qualities of each region or municipality; some will increase density, some will remain, some will remain rural.

Too low This target is way too low. All new housing should be located in livable and relatively self-reliant communities. If we are serious about the above mentioned goals further suburbanization must be stopped.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 144

Too low

This target says to me that 70% of new growth will then continue to follow the current unsustainable sprawl model. We need to drastically reduce this kind of wasteful and expensive land use pattern (which is difficult to economically provide transportation and other services to). We may find / decide that some of the big box stores / malls are no longer needed in the future; these big chunks of land should be repurposed for high density living.

Too low This type of growth is critical to reach the other targets.

Too low To achieve greater reductions of GHGs we need to up these targets.

Too low

To ensure climate change goals are met over 80% of the new growth should be in walkable, bikeable, transit service communities...the goal is to remove need for vehicle usage which is the largest producer of GHG emissions in the CRD. Communities along the west coast such as Sooke, Shirley, Otter Point need to be very compact...they cannot be allowed to become a bedroom community for people working in the core. Sprawl should not be allowed to develop along the west coast.

Too low To low. In areas with defined UCB growth should be where these things are opposed to sprawl.

Too low To make progress the target should be 50%.

Too low

Too low. By instituting urban containment areas serviced by rail ways and lowering property taxes inside urban containment areas while at the same time loosening zoning laws (particularly in the areas regarding parking for cars and building setbacks) and raising taxes outside these urban containment areas as well as by having all roads be toll roads outside of these areas, people would migrate to the urban containment areas.

Too low Too many badly designed houses cheaply made. How long will they last?

Too low Transit, parks, bike paths, etc. should always be part of development and more of the onus should be on developers to make sure these things are in place.

Too low Transport to/from work is a big contributor to our lack of sustainability.

Too low

Try to get the percentage as high as possible, into the +50% range... One way to achieve this would be to bolster public transit into the areas selected for development and also linking commercial and residential development so people working in an area have a better chance of finding residential accommodations closer to their places of employment....

Too low Urban sprawl never seems to stop in the Greater Victoria area. This target is too low. We require greater density while maintaining liveable urban centres.

Too low Urban sprawl should be minimized, it's the ultimate cause of the high-carbon use lifestyle.

Too low Variety of housing types, should have a consistent aesthetic and not random styled and sized building types. Multi storied apartments or condos should not be built.

Too low Victoria is already walkable and has bike lanes. How about giving people places to live??

Too low Victoria is an expanding community, we need all of the bike lanes and public transit necessary to meet that demand.

Too low Virtually all growth should be in urban core.

Too low Way too low - at least 70% and preferably 90-95% should be in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space.

Too low We also need to include incentives and guidelines for lowering consumption.

Too low We have no time left.

Too low We must be more aggressive in our approach. Aim higher.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 145

Too low We must contain almost all of growth to the types of communities described above to in order to reduce urban sprawl.

Too low

We must dramatically reduce the construction of greenfield residential housing that commonly occurs as suburban/exurban sprawl. These developments are not economically viable from a service-provision standpoint, increase our food insecurity, and increase environmental impact. This target needs to be increased both from a density-focused standpoint as well as an effort to expand infrastructure that is walk/bike friendly.

Too low We must only develop new lands for the production of renewable resources. If we want more people, we have to get comfortable living closer together.

Too low We need "smart growth" - Langford doesn't count!

Too low

We need a regional strategy (not just one municipality, but the whole GRVD) to allow for innovative urban design and get rid of all the stupid bylaws and red tape that limit urban densification, within reason. Carriage houses, micro homes in places reserved for parking, additional suites, house expansions so people can continue to live in their homes, these are the things we need to best make use of existing space. In addition we need to limit foreign purchasing of real estate for speculative purposes which making living in Victoria unaffordable, look to the lessons learned by Vancouver.

Too low We need family friendly housing, on bike routes, and transit routes.

Too low We need to aim high: no less than 50% of new growth in high density transit oriented nodes.

Too low We need to concentrate growth in "Village Centres" close to transit. No more sprawling suburban developments should be approved that are car-dependent.

Too low We need to encourage density in housing, allowing many different models. Laneway houses, suites, townhouse developments, condos. Co-housing.

Too low We need to go towards more density and all new growth should be in the above setting.

Too low We need to increase this to at least 60%.

Too low

We need to inject people into already existing areas of housing. our city (Victoria) is no longer the vibrant hub it once was because it is too expensive and many services have left the hub for outlying areas. we must not encroach onto land that is not currently developed, as there are too many developed areas that are not being used to their full potential.

Too low We need to preserve precious land. In Vancouver densification around transit hubs has been very popular.

Too low We should aim very high here to avoid mediocrity.

Too low We should be able to do considerably better than this target. And we will need to in order to minimize GHG emissions.

Too low We should be aiming for high density housing.

Too low We should be minimizing any growth anywhere that is not walkable, bikeable, or at least transit serviced. 30% is way too low a target for this.

Too low We should be placing ALL new growth in smart growth patterns, using infill to densify and expand services available. Again, need 2018 targets.

Too low

What this really says is that 70% of new growth should NOT be in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space. This is really a big problem. If municipalities use a Sustainability Checklist for all potential developments, as Port Coquitlam, Whistler and others do, they can screen out any proposed developments that do not provide walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities.

Too low Where are the Gulf Islands in all of this?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 146

Too low Where is the other 70% going to go - out in the country?

Too low

Where people choose to live is a matter of preference and affordability. Potential homeowners need to be educated about the increasing costs (financially - fuel, service expansion) of living in larger homes further away. Incentivizing smaller, denser living is a must. Ultimately this is about reducing our footprints and consumers must actively make that choice.

Too low Why not 100%? I don't see why any new developments shouldn't be walkable.

Too low Why not go higher? We have a vision for the type of region we want, and that involves these services being available for all. New growth in urban areas should all include the factors the 30% target is setting. 100% is obviously not possible, but can you go higher than 30?

Too low

Why would we aim to plunk 70% of growth in places that suck? Why would we aim to have 70% of new growth be entirely car-reliant? How is this even part of a RSS?? How can this type of car-reliant growth possibly lead to a 61% decrease in carbon emissions???? How is this "bold" and "innovative"?? I do hope I'm missing something here.

Too low Why wouldn't all new growth be is livable areas?

Too low With the current economic contraction and the 33%/61% Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Target, a Dwelling Unit Growth Target of at least 60% is more appropriate.

Too low Without having done the science suggested in the previous section, we are flying absolutely blind and irresponsibly. Be very conservative until the community fully understands what is at stake.

Too low Won't achieve vision unless this is higher.

Too low Would increase target to 50%. More importantly, suggest finding ways to keep developers with skin in the game, so the outcomes they say they're developing toward are actually met. e.g. surety bond, holdbacks on profit margin, some other mechanisms?

Too low You need to target 100% to be in passive house construction - your energy targets cannot be achieved without that. Please do the calculation and you will see I am right.

Too low Young people don't want their parents' houses. They're all about the tiny home, community-oriented living. That's also what we will want in 15 years. There is plenty of big housing stock in the suburbs already. Focus on this new housing model.

Too low Zoning laws should be established that ensure developers build up before building out.

Certainly curtail growth in Saanich and the Westshore! All our traffic woes are due to the commutes. How to stop gov't and corporate offices locating in these areas?

Locate 30% of new growth in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space. This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment area given that the GCA will absorbs at least 90% of regional growth, see 2.3 below). More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 147

Again, how does the CRD have any authority to make communities follow this? if you can control where houses are built, why are you not also enforcing the size of houses built? Larger houses mean more pollution, from needing more supplies to be built into using more fossil fuels for heating, more chemicals for cleaning. Are you planning to create more green spaces? Or is the plan to replace single family houses with big yards with two or three houses with no yards, or multi-family housing with no yards? What about the need for kids to be outside and learn about nature? Should they not be able to do so without having to walk to a park?

Again...perhaps this could be seen as the region being a poster-child for going green...but we need to educate first. You can have all the greenspaces you like, but if I do not understand how I personally impact my community and world in terms of adding garbage and GHG to our environment these green space will merely be token.

All these targets depend on the economy at a present time, so will be unlikely governed by.

Complete crap. The market will find the right balance of housing types and locations. Get government out of interfering with the market. You really think bringing up kids in a concrete highrise is a good idea, simply because the parents can walk or bus to work? It isn't. Try taking a kid, replete with goalie gear, to a 5am hockey practice on the bus. The suburbs developed for a reason…because they are a good place to raise a family. Living in a concrete jungle, stepping over bums sleeping doorways and sending the kids out to play with a warning to look out for needles isn't appropriate.

Development needs to be limited, it's out of control in my area (Happy Valley - Luxton, in Langford).

I am concerned about where these centres are. I agree that there urban sprawl needs to be contained, and that we should not allow what happened to Langford and Collwood be repeated.

I don't really understand this. I think we need to get the bike lanes and laws straight. Our laws are not clear and so putting more bikes and bike lanes does not help until we know what the rules are. Such as turning right and crossing a bike lane that is different at every intersection and no one seems to know what the law is.

I really can't comment on the percentage.

Other than for in JDF where and how will the CRD be able to achieve this? There are 12 municipalities, the Southern Gulf Islands and numerous First Nations Reserves where the CRD has no authority. How are these objectives going to be achieved in these areas outside CRD authority. Langford, Colwood, Esquimalt and others are already balking at CRD controls and regulations; how is the CRD going to handle/accommodate that? There has to be a strong willingness to cooperate with and support local municipalities in achieving their goals for the better CRD-wide good; otherwise this is window dressing.

Things change. Where will the coastline be in 50 years? How would the CRD enforce any of these goals?

This seems too low. Ideally, all communities would have the option of biking, walking or taking transit. I realize the CRD isn't the only authority responsible for these issues, but it would be nice to increase the amount to at least 50%, with a goal of making all growth compatible with this vision of "livability".

Would 60% then be allowed to spread the footprint?

You cannot legislate where people choose to live. Jobs change, as do the locations of jobs.

Your survey is far too long and confused.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 148

2.2 Jobs/Population Target

a) What do you think about the following jobs and population target?

Achieve a jobs/population ratio of:

0.61 in Core Area

0.53 in Saanich Peninsula

0.36 in West Shore

Higher ratios mean that there are more jobs located close to housing.



Too high 57 9.1%

Too low 235 37.4%

TOTAL 628 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 149


About right

(I) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays Without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without (Article 7 (I) And in the Convention Against all Form of Discrimination Against Women The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation (c C087 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (Entry into force: 04 Jul 1950) Preamble Considering that the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organization declares "recognition of the principle of freedom of association" to be a means of improving conditions of labour and of establishing peace; (d). C098 - Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) Preamble Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals concerning the application of the principles of the right to organize and to bargain collectively, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention, adopts this first day of July of the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine the following Convention, which may be cited as the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949: Article 1 Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. Article 2. Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to-- (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership; (b) Cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours. Article 4 Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations.

About right .53 should be West shore & .36 Peninsula , Westshore has the big Box stores & infrastructure.

About right A difficult one as different family members may work in different parts of the CRD. More increased mixed used density will hopefully give rise to more jobs, but there will definitely need to be a large affordable housing component for those in service and other low wage jobs.

About right A good target but as the RSS says creating jobs are difficult for local government to have affect. At times the goal of creating jobs can have an undue effect on local government regarding rezoning.

About right A good target but as the RSS says creating jobs is difficult for local government to have affect. At times the goal of creating jobs can have an undue effect on local government regarding rezoning.

About right A higher target for the West Shore might be a good idea, to provide more local employment for suburban dwellers already there, and discourage commuting into downtown.

About right Again, try to push those figures higher by balancing commercial and residential development to be more complimentary....


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 150

About right Again, a bit of a guess for me but seems reasonable.

About right

Although I indicate 'about right', my actual take is that West shore appears too low, while Core seems too high relative to the others. I understand these are ratios and will be impacted by change in growth in the denominator, however, I would still attempt to create 'leap frog' options for more employment closer to hubs in west shore. Also, how are you defining job locations? Many more jobs are being undertaken through telecommuting. Where is that telecommuter counted? Shall this target incent more telecommuting as execution strategy?

About right As a Sooke resident, I'd like to see a higher ratio of West Shore jobs to cut down on commuter traffic ... hopefully CRD will work in tandem with the District to develop light industrial and telecommuting opportunities.

About right As long as there is sustainable transit to jobs and density is maximized.

About right Be clear that it's as much about adding housing where the jobs are.

About right Best way to reduce transit demands.

About right But increase density in the core area.

About right But where is the affordable housing located? Less on Westshore, more downtown - keep people working and living (affordably) downtown.

About right But would like to see more emphasis on job creation in the Core Area, no more distribution of govt jobs to periphery.

About right Can be achieved with denser housing.

About right Commuting is not only a big use of resources but a big waste of people's lives sitting in vehicles being unhappy. If we can get people walking, biking or even bussing to work every day we will have a happier, healthier, cleaner, quieter and yes even more sustainable city.

About right Concerned that it is too low on the West Shore.

About right Core area must be higher. Downtown Victoria is the hub of regional commerce and t should be encouraged to stay that way.

About right Create more places like the neighbour store shopping (is cook street village)for office/repair etc. as mix so people really do work and live in their community , end result less transportation and driving required for daily commuting.

About right Don’t know.

About right Except core area which should be much higher.

About right Good luck trying - but again, Saanich seems to be the primary location jobs (other than government jobs) will grow in the foreseeable future.

About right Hard to weigh in on this....

About right How are you planning to control where people get jobs? People tend to choose the location of where they live over where they work. How do you ensure a quality of life that will make people want to live by where they work?

About right

I am concerned about the definition of Wes Shore. I believe that the characteristics of Sooke, the Rural Resource Lands and the communities of otter Point, Shirley, Jordan River and Port Renfrew are completely different from View Royal, Langford and Colwood. Lumping the former in with West Shore misses the opportunity for a much refined picture of sustainability requirements.

About right I am inexperienced in this area, but indications are that the strongest growth will likely be in downtown Victoria. Affordable housing is key. With Shaw announcing a large call centre for Uptown, one wonders about the affordability of housing for the low income employees.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 151

About right

I am not an economist and I cannot discuss these numbers. But I know that when the conditions require it people will show up and do the job, as long as there is complete leadership in this direction from the government. Just think of the reconstruction after the war. The government was leading a movement that everyone agreed to participate and give something more, not for immediate benefits but for the future. If the leaders will look at this opportunity like we are coming from a war (which in a way happened, considering the destruction that we produced in the last 40 years) there will be lots of jobs in new areas for "rebuilding" for the future.

About right I do not know about this, but more jobs closer to where people live is a logical objective.

About right I don't feel qualified to speak to this.

About right I don't know enough about this to make an informed opinion.

About right I don't really have the background to make an assessment on this.

About right I have no background in this area, therefore I defer to your writers' expertise.

About right I have no idea.

About right I have no idea if that will help.

About right I hope you can achieve this or better but it all depends on so many other things, like the kinds of jobs that will be generated in the region and what kind of population demographic we have.

About right

I marked about right because there is no none of the above option. Why can't the ratios be even, as in there is work and housing available in all neighbourhoods. Government could lead the way by moving offices to the west shore. The amount of government workers commuting to town is insane.

About right I question the validity of this performance measure with the expected decrease in the labour force participation rate resulting from an aging population. So, I actually don't choose an answer and ask that you review your calculations and assumptions.

About right I think that if we had a functional public transportation network, we wouldn't need to depend so much on housing and jobs being closer together overall, but it certainly helps and makes sense.

About right I think the targets are too low in all areas, especially West Shore.

About right I think the West Shore could be increased.

About right

I think this goal is actually achievable, given the trends in the core area and Saanich. I think there will be greater community development in West Shore over the next 2 decades, keeping residents working and recreating in their residential areas more, making this goal of .36 achievable.

About right I think this may be harder to reach target - job creation in surrounding regions.

About right I trust the intent and intelligence of those who set this goal (and all the others, regardless of my concerns as expressed in the survey).

About right If these people are working. It would be better to have them closer to the job site to cut down on commuting time and extra pollution from driving cars.

About right If this is believed to be a realistic ratio, I support it. I wonder if it is at all possible to work with the West Shore to develop the urban centres to support more jobs in those areas instead of the need for commuting into the Core Area.

About right If you are going to limit sprawl, then West Shore development , and Saanich Peninsula should be reduced, most new development has to take place in the core area, to fit your goals.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 152

About right

I'm not sure how important or feasible this is, really. I believe we are going to be faced with generally lower employment when we finally acknowledge that the recent "growth, growth, growth" madness that has gripped the developed world is simply not sustainable and we must accept lower growth rates, lower employment etc. and do away with some people working 60 hour weeks while others are unemployed or marginally employed.

About right I'm not well-informed on the issue of jobs, but I agree we should encourage investment/new businesses in priority growth areas and not permit sprawl.

About right It is hard to judge how effective such a target would be without knowing the type of jobs in an area and whether the people living in the area are the ones actually employed in them.

About right It's hard to answer this question without knowing what the ratios are right now.

About right

I've said about right, but I don't really know since this is a broad and complex issue. The west shore figure means it will primarily be a dormitory with a lot of commuting. And on the Peninsula - does this mean bringing more people here to fill jobs, or more jobs to employ the people?

About right Jobs where people live is an excellent goal.

About right Just numbers...don't really mean a thing...

About right Locating housing next to some housing doesn't mean it is closer to the housing of the persons who have the jobs. I think we need a target something like "x% of workers live within X k of their homes".

About right Move Prov Gov ministries to western communities, take away traffic to downtown, then no need for lrt.

About right Need to make sure services are distributed along with the population.


About right Not conversant with this; will take your figures.

About right Not really sure if this is a good target or not.

About right Pair with the Uvic Coop department to ensure internships, work terms and job mentoring are all possible.

About right Population ratios for Saanich peninsula are O.K. There is, however room to increase the target for Victoria.

About right Prefer lower than target on peninsula and higher than target in west shore.

About right Should be higher in the Core Area.

About right Should be higher in the core area.

About right Sounds good to me.

About right Sounds good. This is not my specialty so I have less to contribute in feedback.

About right Support local shops as repair depots and small store in walking distance from population.

About right Surely there is room for more jobs as well as population growth in the Westshore. If there were, it would be an additional means of helping the transportation-commute issues as well as helping with carbon-reduction target achievement.

About right The jobs population ratios should be higher for downtown Victoria, Colwood and Langford, and remain about the same for East Sooke, the JdF, Saanich Peninsula as these are rural areas, not commercial areas.

About right

The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore are fine. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target to perhaps 0.70.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 153

About right The targets are good, but I would suggest that the ratios be switched between the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore. As the fastest growing area in the CRD, with already the worst traffic, this is where jobs and housing should be encouraged.

About right The three choices--too high; about right' and 'too low' are inadequate because they don't allow for a mixed response. I think the West Shore estimate is probably too low, and the Saanich estimate, too high. Reversed would be more likely.

About right The Westshore needs to work on its infrastructure to ensure it can handle this amount of growth. I can see traffic becoming a real issue.

About right

These figures are likely ok overall, but I feel there should possibly be a few areas where the best plan would be to allow a higher ratio because of particular circumstances. For example, the airport area is ideal for many jobs and far from ideal for homes because it is in an agricultural area. It would seem wise to allow for some special conditions - if adequate housing for jobs is not in the interest of sustainability, consider shuttle service for get workers to population centres. This would work best in places that have regular shift hours so fewer shuttles would be needed. There are 2 income earners in most households and rarely do they work in the same place, so the benefit of getting housing near jobs is less than it might appear. Be sure you include that factor in your plan. It is not as simple as the figures above suggest.

About right These should have been separated out: Saanich peninsula is about right, given that we have so much farmland, and need to keep it that way -- not have industry build on it like they have done at the airport. So that means that Core Area needs to be higher, which makes sense.

About right These targets are probably okay, but should strive for higher in the Core Area.

About right This area looks in order, we may even have a person shortage for the trades work and other employment services, but need to follow like Seattle and offer a living wage for workers with benefits--social justice piece again.

About right This is way too low.

About right This one is a bit confusing. I would like more jobs being close to housing but does it mean that the West Shore would have very little jobs close to housing? I might like to see that number up a bit if it means that more people living in the west shore didn't have to commute so much.

About right This question should have offered the opportunity to rate the targets for each of the three areas separately - not collectively. As such, the answers you get will probably be meaningless because the question is so fuzzy.

About right This seems realistic. As the capital of the province Victoria will be the location of many employees But offset this gravitational pull towards Victoria with improved transit.

About right This seems right. I think in terms of a regional area the majority jobs/population ratio should be in the core. Perhaps the ratio should increase to 0.65 in the core.

About right This sounds realistic, given the historic trends and the growing community focused development in the Westshore areas.

About right TRAFFIC CONGESTION on the West Shore is insane - and certain to increase with Royal Bay development/Langford growth.

About right Victoria its self needs to have more housing and jobs in order to keep its tax base It is still the core of the CRD and needs to be vibrant At the moment it is rather in need of help.

About right We need more commercial and industrial in the West Shore.

About right West shore target should perhaps be higher to help alleviate traffic problems (as one of the quicker growing areas, population growth without a greater employment growth will just exaggerate traffic issues).

About right Yes, the closer the better to where one lives.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 154

Too high Areas that already have high density housing have no agricultural. The Saanich Peninsula (Central and North) could remain at lower densities of housing and higher numbers of farming areas as they are now.

Too high Businesses simply do not want to locate in rural areas.

Too high Central planning and control has never been successful.

Too high Density is a bad idea. Every country that has tried already knows it. Why do we have to relearn all of these lessons. You are stupid, incompetent, and mislead.

Too high Does this goal not assume that people will work near where they live? Given the costs of moving and the loss of tenure in many employment situations, all this goal ensures is that people will work near where SOMEONE lives.

Too high Far too high in the Saanich peninsula. That is the best growing area in B.C.

Too high Far too high in the West Shore unless you're planning to improve public transit to that area.

Too high Figures appear to be somewhat arbitrary.

Too high Governments don’t create jobs, they destroy jobs by taxation and regulation. The CRD is one of the worst offenders if bureaucratic bloat and excessive costs.

Too high How can a regional governing body realistically create this level of job growth?

Too high I believe developers will continue to eat their way through all available land in municipalities without exploring alternatives to new housing.

Too high

I do not understand your percentages. I understood the west shore has most affordable housing and the land to expand. Why is their percentage for job creation so low? The only way you can make the core area have more housing is to go to all apartments and condo 's. What about the families?

Too high I have lived here for years and not one plan has ever been carried out.

Too high

If jobs were designed to keep our lakes and rivers clean, provide protection for wild animals and plant natural plants and food for them, to maintain farm land at reason prices and higher paying jobs on farms, training for people to become community members in food development and bee keeping, these jobs need to be full time. Anything to do with our environment like park managers, park caretakers. Get rid of full time and pay people a livable wage, with work share.

Too high

It is unrealistic to think that in a world of multiple-job families, shifting employment trends such as multiple jobs within a career, multiple employment roles at any given time etc. that people will live near where they work. People choose where they live for a number of reasons, including schools, amenities, property pricing and value proposition, and then travel to wherever each of them may be working at any given time. In this reality, well demonstrated in our region as in others, the right answer is not to try to restrict where people live and work. Rather, effective and economical transport options that enable the way people actually live need to be available, so not everybody is driving a car with barely more than one person in it.

Too high

Just reflects what is occurring presently. Will encourage folks to live on the West Shore and commute into the core area for jobs Also, this seems to ignore the number of retired folks who currently live in the core municipalities. They need to be near a variety of nearby support services that do not strain their generally reduced mobility and their limited ability to pay inflated housing costs/rents. Rents and housing costs for the retired will become even more costly because of the pressure of those who have inflation-protected jobs and will be able to afford the extra housing costs. What happens when financially well-off singles and no-children young folks start having children, will the accommodation be suitable for families? Or will they become future slum buildings?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 155

Too high

Maintain LOW ratio in agricultural areas, areas of potential agricultural viability, and those areas affecting water table and other critical resources. Where poor management decisions have been made in the past to develop prime agricultural land, consider, repossession and remediation of land to permit its future use as agricultural land. Do the same thing for developments near critical water sheds and other critical resources. If the government is prepared to protect a midden on Grace Islet, surely we can do the same to project prime agricultural and other resources.

Too high More in core and core area ; less in west shore.

Too high Move the jobs to the West Shore and most of the traffic woes would be gone.

Too high

My concern is in the Westshore area, and particularly the less developed areas. In order to accomplish these numbers there would need to be massive influx of businesses, population, and housing. I don't believe that would be best for this region. However, with better mass transit, it might be possible, but might also be costly. The growth containment area appears to be large enough to keep the vast majority of the new growth within it, however, there would need to be CRD coordinated zoning on building of properties. Currently, each municipality is allowed their own vision of population density, type of homes built, acreage per house, etc. There would need to be a more cohesive collaboration between municipalities to maintain designed growth patterns.

Too high Not your mandate to dictate people life style.

Too high

Once again are you going to get rid of the government offices downtown? Are you going to move the Esquimalt base or shipyard? What are the jobs you want to move out of downtown? Any jobs in the service industry are not high paying jobs. So you either have to be a CUPE member; work for the municipality; etc.

Too high Once again idealism reigns! Much thought needs to go into the aging demographics as we have a Silver Tsunami quickly moving. There will be a huge retirement rate rather than younger individuals to fill the job vacancies.

Too high

Once again there are SF residential areas within the defined core area and those should be unaffected, so the map is too general for the question. There should be more jobs relative to population in commercial areas, but not in residential areas unless multifamily / mixed use, and those areas should be identified in order to answer the question.

Too high People don't want to be forced to live where they work!

Too high People who place economic growth FIRST in our priorities are not thinking clearly. The need for continuous growth is an illusion that causes virtually every problem we face as residents of this beautiful land. We can take care of each other better and make more music together.

Too high See comment in b above. The area is already vastly overpopulated.

Too high Sounds like social housing policies. Pretty difficult to regulate where people will work and live, such as Russia tried to do.

Too high The CRD has NO control over jobs or where they are located.

Too high The CRD should reduce red tape to allow small businesses to flourish. $ help reduce sots of small businesses. In a free and open society jobs will be created where they are needed but not by local government mandate.

Too high The CRDE has no control over jobs creation.

Too high

The function of the CRD (government) is to regulate business/job creation, NOT to subsidize or create it. Supply and demand will dictate these ratios. The CRD can work with local business to forecast how many jobs the private sector will create in future which in turn will advise the feasibility of increasing density in core areas.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 156

Too high The land available to the West (Sooke etc.) would be a natural place for population growth. Peninsula land is limited by comparison & also a region for farming to reach our agricultural goals.

Too high

The ratio itself encourages inexorable carbon intensive new growth. We need to delink from the idea that the economy and work require commuting. They do not. Obviously some jobs require commuting. To determine what is a necessary commute we need planning processes that integrate carbon factoring into the nature of all work to see what requires individual commutes, public transit commutes or no commute at all.

Too high The Saanich Peninsula needs to be conserved for local food production, so if "jobs" mean agricultural then the ratio is right.

Too high The westshore is growing, saanich should be less than the westshore.

Too high This just gives a ratio. We must face a total population level - or is CRD to have a population that keeps a given ratio, but goes on growing indefinitely until life is no longer possible?

Too high This objective makes the faulty assumption that people will work near to where they live. I think it will result in people working near where other people live.

Too high Too high in the west shore, which would mean expanding and too much development.

Too high Unrealistic - it’s been tried for decades - the critical mass for employment is downtown.

Too high

West shore employment is primarily service related, many of those jobs won't support home ownership even in so called affordable neighbourhoods. And as long as individual councils can plan and execute the destruction of viable farming areas like Happy Valley most regional development plans are impotent. Density goals are a good attempt, but they must be enforceable and that requires a change in governance. Focus on the achievable, starting with moving people out of "affordable" neighbourhoods like those going up in Langford and Colwood.

Too high What incentive for New Companies to come here. But not at expense of residents.

Too high What jobs are being suggested - the minimal wage low paying jobs - the majority created by population increases?

Too high

Where we live has economic factors that don't necessarily fit into your guidelines. Higher density is an attractive catch phrase for round table discussion. Is it logical for everyone? Personally I believe some will feel that their quality of life is jeopardized by too many in too confined an area...and they will gladly pay to not be a component in that scene.

Too high

Why not 33/33/33? Generally this target makes sense, but is the provincial government on board with this? CRD hasn't done any sort of job publicizing this survey. I never heard of it, until a friend referred it to me. Is the CRD been talking to the public or other organizations about this project?

Too high You have the ratio in wrong order. West Shore .53 with Peninsula at .36.

Too low 0.36 in the furthest area from the downtown employment core? That seems counterproductive to the stated goals of sustainability.

Too low Again East sooke doesn't support any kind of light industry or business that will cause traffic.

Too low Again too low, this continues to look like a commuting structure, few people committed to a community to serve most of their needs.

Too low

Again, my comments from the previous question seem appropriate. This is basically maintaining the status quo. Needs to be revised to show job growth way higher in the core. Our core can handle so much more and is very underutilized. These targets are not really supportive of the mission statement at all.

Too low Again, not a big hike.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 157

Too low Again, outside the scope of the CRD.

Too low All jobs should be close to housing. People should not have to buy outside of town and then be stressed to the Max from a nightmarish commute.

Too low All new jobs should be in core areas. None should be in outlying areas needing transportation by more cars.

Too low All ratios, especially the core and West Shore ratios should be higher. I would say 0.75 and 0.50 respectively.

Too low As above.

Too low As per previous comments, over the timescale of the RSS I think the aim needs to be higher for high-quality densified growth + easy access to natural spaces, which will make sprawl less appealing.

Too low


Too low

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter generally supports the proposed job/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula. The ratio for the Core Area should be higher, perhaps 0.70. We do not understand why the proposed West Shore ratio is as low as 0.36. We believe there is room for more business and residential densification in the Langford and Colwood areas. We suggest 0.50 in the West Shore. In addition, we suggest that people need to live as close as possible to their jobs, and achieving this should be an explicit goal of the Draft RSS. In rural areas, transportation emissions are a serious issue.

Too low Changes proposed are insignificant.

Too low Could be increased to 0.70 in the core area by further densifying and encouraging people to live within the core, especially downtowns.

Too low Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher.

Too low Each community should have sufficient employment opportunities without the necessity to commute. Better incentives for business to locate to these areas is required.

Too low Either increase the ratio, or provide rail transport in congested corridors.

Too low Encourage EVERYONE to live within walking or biking distance of their jobs. Your numbers imply 2/3 of West Shore residents should commute long distances to work, which condones long commutes for an expanding population.

Too low Especially in rural areas such as Central Saanich, the jobs and population should be in urban containment, in order to protect rural and agricultural lands.

Too low Especially re the Saanich Peninsula.

Too low Everyone wants the quality of life afforded by being able to walk to work! This is good for meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets, and excellent for health!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 158

Too low Everything that can get a worker to her or his job with as little transit as possible is needed. Higher density is needed. Higher density actually provides more opportunity for expanding park land and regional farming, while reducing the need for private vehicles.

Too low Far too low for the West Shore - it's saying that 0.64 of jobs will NOT be located close to housing. This is a goal to fail, before we have begun.

Too low Far too low for West Shore - if we want walkable communities, then jobs needed for residents.

Too low For the core area - try 0.7.

Too low For the West Shore, it makes much more sense to add good jobs in the urbanized West Shore (Colwood, Langford, south edge of Highlands) than to have resident commuting all the way into the core. Less time in traffic, less GHG, less need for expensive high volume transit corridors.

Too low Given the rate of development in the West Shore this ratio should have a higher target.

Too low Gulf Islands? You should always strive to have jobs close to housing in order to have a low carbon economy.

Too low

Hard to 'dictate' how people work and live in proximity, and how that evolves over time; however, creating opportunities for a wide variety of employment in regional locations helps reduce the impact of travel, pollution, energy costs, etc., and promotes community in more localized areas.

Too low Higher ratios are required to reduce traffic and meet GHG targets. Higher ratios also foster the development of viable and healthy communities.

Too low Higher ratios would mean less use of vehicles, less carbon emissions and higher fitness levels for people who are now closer to their places of work so can walk or ride bikes instead of riding in vehicles.

Too low Higher target in core and less in saanich peninsula which is becoming sprawl.

Too low I believe the target should be higher for the Core Area - perhaps as high as 75%.

Too low I hate to see over a quarter of any population as noncontributing members.

Too low I just want to lend emphasis. I think you have a great goal here and want you to push harder. don't allow bedrooms sprawl away from complete communities.

Too low I support policies that increase the portion of housing and employment in the core cities. There are good reasons to maintain a strong core.

Too low I think more people need to work in their community and commute less.

Too low I think of Saanich Peninsula as farm/rural. With the population growth estimates and half the population (0.53) must travel, it doesn't bode well for the climate change goals.

Too low I think Saanich and West Shore should be the same. Why would they not be?

Too low I think the figures are backwards...the Westshore will have a higher ratio than the core.

Too low I think the target is reasonable for the Core Area and Saanich Peninsula, but there should be a higher goal for the West Shore. The gridlock is greatest there.

Too low I think too low in Westshore. This is where land is affordable and balanced communities are being created. In Saanich and Core, we are playing catch-up in all respects and have a lot of inertia to overcome.

Too low I think west shore is a bit low, because I thought the general thrust was to keep such expansion in already occupied clusters, therefore maybe employers ought to be encouraged to be locating in or very close to these clusters.

Too low I would suggest to raise the ratio in the Core Area to about 70%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 159

Too low

If I understand this correctly, I believe that a higher ratio in the West Shore would be more desirable, as there seems to be a high number of commuters from that area. The environment would be better served if more people lived closer to where they work; however, I may not completely understand this properly.

Too low If no jobs...then welfare, eh?

Too low If people live out in the West Shore, there should be jobs there. That would cut down on commuting, an especially important point because we don't have great infrastructure for sustainable transportation.

Too low If the jobs to housing ratio is lower in the West Shore and Saanich Peninsula, then there needs to be improved transportation networks to connect housing/jobs. The Core Area should support more jobs, especially with its dense existing housing stock.

Too low If transportation is improved, then the percentage job/population ratio might be increased. Perhaps also consider greater live/work opportunities in the core areas avoiding the need to use transportation; making walking the preferred mode of transportation.

Too low If we raise the Dwelling Unit Growth Target to 50% or greater, then it should draw businesses to locate within those areas and increase the jobs/population ratio.

Too low I'm not really sure about this one, but I think I would like this to be higher. Have more people living and working in high density downtown, with easy and affordable access to wonderful outdoor areas at varying distances away.

Too low

In addition to however you plan to meet these targets - I sometimes wonder if it could be promoted that it is important/urgently needed for folks to swap jobs when reasonably possible. As a simple example if 'Bob' lives in Langford but works at the Canadian Tire in Gordon Head and 'Jane' lives in Gordon Head but works at the Canadian Tire in Langford then Canadian Tire should give them both the encouragement and training to be able to swap jobs so that they no longer have to commute so far.

Too low In conjunction with multi-use living areas and mass public transit, jobs and population target ratios should be much higher in all areas, especially in the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore. This would help ensure that new growth is within the 'Growth Containment Area.'

Too low Increase core area ratio to 0.7.

Too low Is jobs really the right metric here? Do people want jobs or do people want prosperity? Instead of measuring jobs which doesn't achieve a meaningful outcome, my recommendation would be to change this metric to one of measuring prosperity against cost of living.

Too low It would be good to see more jobs in the Core areas (Victoria, Esquimalt), but only with adequate transit to the west shore.

Too low Job creation within core area must be higher encouraging commercial and residential growth within the core area.

Too low Jobs are scarce right now and pay too low...needs increased specially as more baby boomers come here to retire.

Too low Jobs should be totally connected to housing. The greater the division, the more energy is wasted.

Too low

Just having jobs close to housing doesn't mean much. More important is having affordable housing close to the many low-paying jobs in the region. Business owners should imagine that workers cannot use cars to get to and from work, and plan their business investments based on an accessible work force.

Too low Keep the downtown core the focus....

Too low Less travel means less gridlock, less reliance on transit, and a more vibrant downtown core, Saanich Peninsula Area, and Westshore Area.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 160

Too low Let's do more!

Too low Live close to work. Work close to home.

Too low Look at status quo numbers no, the targets represent not significant change at all. Need benchmarking here perhaps to understand better what the numbers mean and what is possible.

Too low Lots of people live in the west shore, so government and other major employers should consider moving operations there where possible. Again, that would cut down on car use and emissions.

Too low More affordable housing needs to be created - more infill lots, smaller houses, secondary suites, etc.

Too low More detail needed here on nature of jobs and what needs to be done to make them happen.

Too low More housing will be needed on the Peninsula to support the jobs being created in the area and by projected additional industrial sites around the Airport.

Too low More jobs closer to where people are housed is a good thing for sustainability.

Too low More jobs in west shore obviously. Shouldn't just be a residential location that everyone commutes from.

Too low More jobs need to be located in the westshore.

Too low More jobs should be possible in the west shore. The commute from the westshore to the core and the Saanich Peninsula is not sustainable.

Too low More jobs should be targeted in the West Shore to reduce the commute requirements.

Too low More telecommuting (which many jobs can do) should be explored.

Too low Need a lot more jobs in the Westshore so residents can live and work here and not add to the Colwood Crawl!

Too low Need more density.

Too low Needs to be higher in the core area and in Saanich Peninsular.

Too low No sure what it should be but this seems like a lot of commuting and really depends transportation availability.

Too low Not enough jobs here to start with. UVic co-op program is taking away jobs from non-students and it drives down a living wage.

Too low Ok in the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. see Consortium submission.

Too low

People need to be able to live and work in the same community. Good planning would make this possible. Jobs need to be spread across the region according to housing density. How can people bike/walk to work if they are too far away? The Saanich peninsula goal needs to be much more aggressive, and the same for the Westshore.

Too low People should work near where they live. The west shore should build its own job base, rather than being a remote bedroom community for downtown.

Too low Please aim for higher ratio in West Shore.

Too low Rail transit oriented development along Douglas Street and the streets through downtown can allow more jobs downtown with less pressure on open ground.

Too low Reduce sprawl. Encourage green jobs. Ultimately, reduce our CRD population in the long run rather than increase it.

Too low Same response as above.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 161

Too low See above comments- if CRD is to meet the GHG reduction targets it has set, housing: jobs ratio will need to be really high.

Too low See comment above.

Too low

See my comment above, I would like to see much greater density in the urban areas and little to no sprawl. "Detached" houses that are 1 metre apart with 2 metre deep back yards use way more space than necessary and do not provide actual privacy or green space. Far better to build attractive linked/row/houses or apartments and achieve really walkable/bikeable urban living, with enough density to have great services (supermarkets, etc.) nearby.

Too low Seems to be too low for West Shore - most traffic problems seem to come from commuter traffic from and to the West Shore.

Too low Should be higher in all areas - LESS COMMUTING!

Too low Should be higher in westshore to reduce commuting.

Too low Shouldn't there be an effort to have more jobs where people live, even if it is the West Shore? Each area should be about the same to reduce greenhouse gases and make us more sustainable, less bedroom community.

Too low Since the West Shore is growing faster, I think job ratios should match more closely in that area. This figures don't reflect that.

Too low Sooke and JDF area are not the same as the "West Shore" municipalities and therefore these targets, while laudable, are not realistic for our area. Please separate Sooke and JDF from the "West Shore" region designation. Yes, its simplistic for staff but does not reflect reality.

Too low Stay out of rural areas on the Saanich Peninsula and the West Shore. Stop sprawl; protect rural areas. Focus development and density in Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, View Royal and Colwood/Langford. Keep rural areas rural.

Too low Support more on-line jobs that can even be AT home let alone near home.

Too low Surely we would increase efficiency and thus sustainability if we increased the jobs/pop ratio in the Core Area; and surely it's easier to do so in a compact, already developed area.

Too low Target should be higher in West Shore.

Too low That's very close to the status quo. We can and have to do better.

Too low The allowed responses are flawed. I think the number is too high for the core area, and too low for West Shore.

Too low The core area should be higher - this is after all downtown is it not? Why wouldn't you want a higher ration there? For Saanich and West shore it is ok.

Too low The core area should be much higher.

Too low The core should bear the burden of growth and these numbers are too low.

Too low The housing density in the immediate downtown core has increased dramatically over the past few years so hopefully that number could be higher.

Too low The importance of the journey to work is not adequately recognized.

Too low

The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore are fine. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target. We suggest 0.70.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 162

Too low

The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula are fine. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target. We suggest 0.70. The jobs/population ratios for the West Shore should be higher, .45 -.50 at least. The communities of Colwood and Langford are becoming the regions secondary commercial and residential hub. This needs to be recognized if we are planning until 2038. The most economic feasible housing and commercial lands will continue to be outside the downtown core, development will take place outside the downtown core. We need to plan for that. We need to plan to keep the rural nature of other West Shore communities like Highlands and Metchosin. We need to define in the West Shore where the densification of housing and commercial spaces will be so we can plan regionally for the infrastructures to support those and not continue to allow the single family home sprawl that is currently happening.

Too low

The proposed targets are unambitious. The Core Area target is only 0.02 higher than currently, and the targets for the other two sub-regions offer no improvement on the current situation. Again, if the GHG and sustainability aims of the region are to mean anything, we have to do better to minimize travel distances.

Too low

The ratio for west shore needs to increase dramatically. This is the area where the majority of growth is being seen and there needs to be a strong concerted effort to encourage large employers (government, health authority?) to relocate at least some of their workplaces to this region.

Too low

The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target. We suggest 0.70 The ratio for dense urbanized areas of Colwood and Langford should also be increased to 0.50 to reduce the number of people traveling outside this area to work. Metchosin and the Highlands target should be much lower as befits their low density and rural nature.

Too low The ratio needs to be much higher in the core.

Too low The West Shore area needs more jobs; your ratio is too low.

Too low The West Shore in particular should not be allowed to become a dormitory town for the central core.

Too low The West Shore ratio is too low. Commuter traffic will be a major source of emissions.

Too low The west shore ratio seems very low.

Too low

There needs to be more movement away from the downtown core to both the Peninsula (airport area) and the West Shore. Obviously if there is business movement to the Peninsula there needs to be housing developed nearby as well or it is useless. The West Shore already has the infrastructure and housing to support a larger commercial and business core, then let’s get people away from commuting to downtown and Saanich and start encouraging governmental offices and offices to relocate to the West Shore and develop a 2nd commercial area similar to Surrey.

Too low There should be more focus on west shores. If .61 are in core but more people are moving to the affordable westshore, and we want to reduce carbon emissions, how will this be achieved exactly? The costs of living in Victoria, Saanich & Oak Bay are not affordable for many.

Too low These ratios allow too much commuting, less community building, intra connections.

Too low These ratios should be higher. People should be working where they live.

Too low These ratios should be more even. It's the only solution to traffic congestion.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 163

Too low

This appears to give a pass to the West Shore. Even Langford's Council announced a drop in development fees to encourage development in the center of the community, densifying it. They appear to be on board with the advantages of compact communities. Don't underestimate them.

Too low

This appears to give a pass to the West Shore. Even Langford's Council announced a drop in development fees to encourage development in the center of the community, densifying it. They appear to be on board with the advantages of compact communities. Don't underestimate them.

Too low

This is complex. We also need to encourage people to grow their own food and to engage more in agriculture. That means encouraging the use of more land in non-urban areas for food production. That implies more people living outside urban areas in order to grow food. Community gardens and tax incentives and free gardening classes in food production, aquaponics etc., would be steps to promote this trend.

Too low This is the key to achieving 2.1 above - The core area target is way too low - should be 75% at least. Let's try to increase the peninsula and West Shore as well - I think there is greater potential in West Shore - maybe like 50%. This would help immensely.

Too low This is too low in the core area and should be raised.

Too low This ratio is already being met in Saanich Peninsula and is very close in the Core area. It seems like these targets are too low.

Too low

This seems like a tiny change, but the only comparative data are for 2014. What does it really mean? Developers and planners like to muse that people will prefer to live near their workplace, but I don't know if there is actual evidence that is what they do. I believe that US Census data have suggested that as urban populations have grown, the average commute distance (and time) has increased. People choose their home locations for all sorts of reasons other than proximity to work. Furthermore, businesses and jobs relocate for reasons other than where their employees reside. Perhaps we'll all become self-employed and working from home- that certainly would help meet the targets, but would not necessarily be positive for the area's economy.

Too low This seems to lock in the status quo, which suggests we have nothing to shoot for here, which is not true.

Too low This target is largely meaningless, as it can be "solved" in ways that don't achieve any sort of sustainability. An example would be having a highly balanced jobs/population target but still have high single occupancy vehicle mode share.

Too low

This target is much too low as it makes almost no improvement over the 2003-14 record of 28%. It should be at least double or 60% (implying a ratio of at least 45% of growth in the Growth Containment area given that the GCA will absorbs at least 90% of regional growth (see 2.3 below). More precisely, specific density targets should be set for each sub-region or municipality in recognition of each of their unique circumstances i.e. some will be densifying, some remaining rural, and some creating significant urban density. The best way to achieve economic, social and environmental goals is to increase the portion of households, particularly those with lower-incomes, living in compact, walkable, and more affordable neighborhoods. This needs clarification, so suburban jurisdictions can density and thus qualify in their existing urbanized centres if they create more walkable, transit-friendly commercial centers and residential neighborhoods, while discouraging suburban densities elsewhere.

Too low To cut carbon drastically people need to work closer to home.

Too low To reduce the need to travel by car to other communities, it is important to try to locate as many jobs as possible in each community.

Too low Too low for the core, certainly, if we want to reduce the centrifugal force to the Westshore and all its sprawl implications.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 164

Too low Too low for the core, certainly, if we want to reduce the centrifugal force to the Westshore and all its sprawl implications.

Too low Too low for west shore.

Too low Too low in core area.

Too low Too low in the West Shore. The West Shore is growing exponentially and the transportation corridors are almost maxed out heading into Victoria.

Too low Too low in the westshore.

Too low Too low in western communities based on what they say.

Too low Too low. By having rail lines that can transport goods as well as people, the region could have higher jobs / population ratios.

Too low Too many young people who are unemployed. Raise minimum wage to at least $ 15 per hour.

Too low Too much growth in West Shore, without job base there growing.

Too low Urban sprawl has already happened in the western communities with houses far from amenities. We need to build up and centre any new development where the jobs are. Let's say .80 Core area, .60 SA and .45 Western Communities.....and yes I still do call it that!!!

Too low

We must preserve the Peninsula and the West Shore for food production and we must all bite the bullet and move inward to a highly condensed and efficient but human city. We must redesign our city with modest building heights and surface rail transport, to withstand the coming earthquakes.

Too low We need to cut fossil fuel burning travel by as much as possible as soon as possible, so more people need to be living closer to their jobs. the problem is to make real estate close to jobs affordable.

Too low We need to work where we live to get out of our cars.

Too low We need to work where we live. Separating the two creates waste.

Too low West Shore is a glaring problem and should be addressed faster.

Too low West shore needs to catch up.

Too low

West Shore NEEDS to have more jobs growth. While the vast majority of current commuters living on the Westshore are commuting to jobs located Downtown or around Esquimalt Harbour (e.g. military personnel), it must be recognized that the Westshore communities need to grow significantly more in jobs and residents in order for a rail-based transit option to be feasible between the Westshore and Downtown Victoria. I do not see how we will achieve Provincial/Federal funding for this given the countless priority transit projects in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, a higher jobs ratio in the Westshore may encourage existing residents who commute far to consider new employment options that may be located closer to their homes.

Too low

West shore needs to reduce the commuting into other areas. At the current ratio of 0.31, traffic is a major problem. If the jobs aren't in the west shore, don't allow increased housing there. Alternatively, create an efficient, useable, desirable mass transit from west shore to employment locations.

Too low West shore number is way too low!

Too low West Shore numbers need to be higher.

Too low West shore percent should be higher.

Too low WestShore job targets are too low. Having people work closer to home will alleviate Colwood crawl and car usage if people live closer to work. there are many services lacking in WestShore that make it imperative for people to use transportation to get to Victoria to access these services.

Too low Westshore needs to be higher.

Too low Westshore should be higher.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 165

Too low What about volunteering? Is that a job? Increasingly rural jobs are volunteer. I want to see 'Employment Centres' parking lots taxed for farm development.

Too low

While we want to transition these changes in a manner that increases the likelihood of buy-in, it is better to be honest with the public about what is really needed. What is needed? That is what needs to be communicated and ratios that are too low suggest the problem isn't that urgent and that we've got more time to make these changes than we actually do.

Too low Why so low in West Shore? If you are serious about jobs close to housing then put the jobs where the housing is!

Too low

Why such a low target in the West Shore? This is where the people of the region are moving. We need to encourage new and existing employers to move their operations to where the growth is. The Provincial government operations are a prime example of an organization that should be encouraged to look at the relocation of some of their operations to the West Shore. We need to stop focusing on the downtown as the central business district model. This model is the reason we have transportation challenges.

Too low With Saanich (especially from Uptown to Mckenzie) the new hub of the CRD, you have to totally rethink your "old think" strategy.

Too low

With the current economic contraction and the 33%--61% Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Target, more appropriate Jobs/Population Target ratios would be * 0.68 Core * 0.57 Saanich Peninsula * 0.60 West Shore All levels of government (except possibly Federal) need to engage citizens and businesses to come up with incentives for businesses and individuals to help reach these targets.

Too low With the increasing move toward virtual workplaces, I believe the West Shore target in particular is too low.

Too low You cannot achieve your vision statement with these low targets.

Too low

You need a third bullet "not the right proportion"... I'm fine with the core, but maybe high in the peninsula if the region plans to protect essential farmland... or is the CRD planning high rises? Too low for Western Communities, unless the thought is Langford is 0.88 and Metchosin / Highlands are 0.18??? If West Shore is just Langford and Colwood AND that Langford plans to build out to all 4 corners with NO urban containment boundary, then I would think that municipality / West Hills is more like .53-.57. Remember the 21 story tower proposed on Bear Mtn? In other words, just reverse the #s for peninsula and West Shore.

80% in the Core.

A tsunami would wipe out the lowlands, so crowding even more people into these areas would be very foolish and should be considered when making those decisions.

Achieve a jobs/population ratio of: 0.61 in Core Area, 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula, 0.36 in West Shore.

Arbitrary. How are you going to make employers move to the West Shore to keep up with this? The City of Victoria is doing its best to tax businesses out of the core. Hopefully the airport industrial area keeps generating jobs.

Complete crap. Government is the number one industry in Victoria. Year after year, we are building more office for government - all downtown. Then we wonder why the traffic is bad, and "Oh, we need better transit," and "Who will pay for the transit," when we could have built offices in suburban office parks close to where people live. The Jawls have a lock on BCBC - and it is not serving our region well. Why is BC Ferries head office not in Keating Industrial Park? Those who work for Ferries could live in close proximity and walk or bike to work. Why isn't BC Med in Langford? What is the sense of locating all the jobs in one small downtown and then fretting about how you're going to get everyone there? And fretting about the carbon expending in doing so? Shortsighted.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 166

Core area should be higher, Victoria is still the hub. Peninsula and West Shore might be okay.

Don't know.

Don't know.

Don't know enough to answer.

Don't know the answer. So much depends on individual choices, but if zoning is strictly enforced so that when there is no more room in one place you have to go elsewhere where there is room, then sprawl will be contained. If transportation is clean and efficient between areas, then it may not matter so much where you live, except between true city and village.

Don't know.

Good jobs are a requirement of all communities. Are they not???

I am not sure even after reading the attached material that I quite understand this target. I guess that the West shore is much more spread out and has less opportunity for work in the area.

I am unsure how to answer this question but I do agree that the urban sprawl into the westshore is not a sustainable development strategy for the region.

I don't have the knowledge to comment on this.

I don't know how District of Sooke would look as to jobs/population ration in 2015 but I would guess very different from Colwood and Langford. Sooke would like to increase the proportionate number of jobs and decrease the proportionate number of commuters. Lumping Sooke in with West Shore doesn't work. Lumping the JdF EA in with West Shore is also a bad idea.

I don't know how to rate this category. Your survey needs a "don't know" category. People move to areas in the CRD based on affordability of housing, proximity to supports, and work and education opportunities. People change jobs. Kids grow up. Most couples are two income families. Not everyone lives near their job or, if they do, the job can change. More realistically the goal needs to be transit and bike lanes that allow for easy travel from region to region.

I have answered this already!

I have no idea.

I would have to understand your rationale...How could you generate jobs closer to houses?

I would rather see quality not quantity so I am not in favour of population (smarth) growth no matter how "planned nor managed" it is Growth is growth no matter how you try and mitigate or compensate for it. Victoria used to be 100,000, an ideal size, little air pollution, no traffic congestion etc. At that time we had enough hospitals, schools, university and jobs. Some planners say you only need a city of 40,000 to pay for hospitals, schools etc.

I'm in favour of a guaranteed annual income so people can be rewarded for "work" that is creative and constructive, rather than merely slaving for someone else.

I'm not well-informed enough to give a meaningful response.

Increase density in the core area.

Jobs can't be designed because they require a mix of opportunities, options, economies and personal choices.

Jobs need to be planned hand-in-hand with residential development, water and food production planning, etc.

Jobs/population targets are unlikely to result in change. Better to focus on where people can enjoy their social time, shop, get groceries, etc. near home.

More jobs are needed, When there is work people come.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 167

NO GROWTH. PUT THEM BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

No opinion here.

Not sure but it's a worthy goal. The living units must be really desirable in order to counter the natural tendency of richer people to want to move to larger lots.

Not sure...sounds like a lot of population on the peninsula which is where a lot of the farmland is.

Not sure how jobs and housing can be connected to reduce travel needs. Would like to see more workforce housing available in existing employment areas as a good idea but think local planning is required to see this applied.

People now live in the West Shore and we want them to be close to their work so we want to have more jobs out where the people live.

People should be able to live away from commercialism. Mixed use not healthy.

Same as above.

Seems not equal to where growth is in the West ... Peninsula has airport and Sidney ... This does not seem clear ...

Sorry I can't see what that would mean in real life.

Sorry, these numbers don't mean anything to me.

The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore are fine The City of Victoria could show considerable additional density.

These numbers are difficult to comment on without a better explanation as to what they mean and the context. and, I have a master’s degree and am having difficulty being able to provide meaningful feedback with numbers that have little context or explanation attached to them... this would be difficult to comment on if I had a lower literacy/education rate.

This should not be part of the plan.

Too high, again, we must make the cores a good residential place with no pollution from Noise and emission, Industries and agriculture should move to cheaper real estate and we should have proper transit links to them and the airport as well.

Too low in the core area.

When did we become the Soviet Socialist Republic of Greater Victoria? What, you're going to tell people they're not allowed to move to or take a job in certain areas because you've reached predetermined targets? This is not freedom.

Yes population should be correlated with jobs, of course.

You don't create jobs you create an environment for business to create jobs.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 168

2.3 Growth Management Target

a) What do you think about the following growth management target?

Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area



Too high 81 12.3%

Too low 154 23.4%

TOTAL 659 100.0%


About right ...could even be 93%.

About right Yes, yes and yes. But if you go high or tall buildings place them somewhere where they are not an eye sore, blocking the natural light or the views of our coast lines.

About right 10% outside of the GCA seems appropriate.

About right 90% should be the minimum, however exceptions will have to be made for particular uses such as public projects and certain types of economic activity.

About right 90-100%.

About right A higher percentage needs to be in areas close to shopping, transit, etc.

About right According to the map, the GCA seems to have too large a footprint. It would be more effective to draw its boundary more tightly around the Victoria core.

About right Additional dwelling units have the potential to increase the vibrancy and economic success of the area in which they are built. However, this will succeed ONLY if the supporting infrastructure grows to keep pace.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 169

About right Again ... DENSIFY closer to urban centres to reduce vehicle emissions and traffic; but add COMMUNITY enhancements like bicycle lanes/rec centres/parks.

About right Again, this is an adequate target but could be set higher if our goal is GHG abatement.

About right Ambitious target but I agree. Need to specify implementation measures more.

About right As a resident of Central Saanich for over 30 years and hopefully another 30 years, I do not want to see the area along Keating Cross Rd between West Saanich Rd and the Gravel Pit to be a Future Growth Area for either residential or industrial development.

About right As stated earlier, I don't subscribe to the "unlimited growth" principle, i.e. we don't have to house the entire world in the greater Victoria area.

About right Because I happen to live in Saanich, I especially hope that new RUCSPA follows older UCB and the boundary is fairly "chiseled in stone".

About right Both local and regional governments have trouble following plans, when faced with attractive pitches from developers. Allowing a 10% non-plan latitude might help to contain the problem.

About right But that 10% makes me nervous.

About right But, this principle ought not to be used to constrain others who want to develop their land if it is outside the boundary. The market will prevail. If there are fewer services outside, most will choose to locate inside the area. Provide the services - then watch the dwellings follow.

About right Containing urban sprawl and thinking longterm with our urban and suburban planning is extremely important when creating healthy communities and environments.

About right Containment and concentration of growth is preferable to sprawl.

About right Difference between 2.1 and 2.3 is unclear.


About right Essential to preserving farm space and rural character of the region.

About right Figure 2.1 in Part C does not do a very good job of highlighting what parts of the CRD are "growth-containment areas". And since there are more than one, I have used the plural.

About right

From a business perspective, don't you want to provide service for growth? If growth isn't sustainable from a business-model perspective, then have people voluntary use alternative services. I do favor the idea of limiting the service area if that is a current challenge but then again, I'm not certain this metric is actually meaningful.

About right Governing structure must change – amalgamation.

About right Growth Containment Areas need to be maintained.

About right Gulf Islands?

About right Housing Housing Housing - have you heard? Please allow for this.

About right How does this differ from the 30% target above? The language in these sections isn't accessible...

About right I agree with holding a tight rein on growth.

About right I agree with this number, but a green economy may mean a greater amount of people growing food locally. That should be actively encouraged in every possible way. Many of the current urban jobs are going to disappear. We have to find other ways to employ people.

About right I believe GCA still permits too much sprawl and greenfield development.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 170

About right

I can't resist commenting on Oak Bay Village, as it appears to be a "growth centre". In situations where charming low heritage buildings could be demolished in fulfilment of growth targets, provision should be made for preservation of character storefronts with well-designed setbacks for added storeys. Oak Bay is described as a "mature, built-out community", and has chosen slow growth. We have enough posh housing, and almost 30% of our housing stock is multi-family, but hardly affordable. Developers here and throughout the CRD who request variances should be required to build a percentage of affordable housing units whether rentals or condos. Ideally they should be located near public transit and needed services. In some cases, lowered development and utility fees and modest taxes can provide incentives to develop affordable housing.

About right I think containing our expansion of population to the Growth Containment Area makes sense.

About right

I think it is great that you are trying to get 90% of the growth to stay within the growth containment area, but that area includes some currently low density areas currently, which would be quite damaged if they become higher density. Also, 90% of what anticipated growth? We have no idea what forces might occur which could lead to a massive movement of people into the CRD. Changes in immigration policies, environmental refugees, global famine or war, economic refugees, need for low salaried service workers, major earthquake damage in the lower mainland, and so on could cause this area to become a popular area for influx of new people, so the question is 90% of how many?

About right I think that we should be very strict about limiting growth within the Growth Containment Area. Otherwise we will be encroaching on productive farmland and natural spaces, which will provide the whole community with greater services in the future.

About right I think the Growth Containment Area is too large and includes many areas that should be strictly for food production. Golf courses should be prohibited in the areas that could accommodate food production (80% non-animal based food production).

About right I worry about the number of new dwelling units (and people) proposed, given the points I made above.

About right

Ideally, urban growth could be completely contained. although I acknowledge that space does run out. I feel that less suburban communities with identical houses and expensive price tags are needed, especially considering it is these pop up communities that you see taking up forested land (particularly as you travel up-island). These communities are only available for a small segment of the population that can afford to both purchase an expensive home and drive, all while contributing to urban sprawl. This is not exactly catering to or helping the vast majority of our community.

About right IF the GCA is not expanded.

About right If this increase livability & will protect farmland & green space it is a good goal.

About right If we are to do this, we need to allow sufficient opportunities for small-lot homes and townhomes within the Growth Containment Area so we can continue to provide a variety of homes for people with different preferences and life situations.

About right In the 10% allowed outside the GCA their needs to be strict guidelines and polices for what development may occur based on the various sustainable regional values found in each area.

About right In the Targets summary, the Growth Containment Area map includes the entire CRD. So a goal of 90% would imply that 10% of growth occurs outside the CRD: on the Gulf Islands and on Native Reserves? I find this confusing, so I expect others will too.

About right

Increasing density in existing settled areas only has benefits if it truly diverts development away from less developed areas. Historically we have had the worst of all worlds, densifying settled areas to damage their amenities PLUS pell-mell development of suburban and exurban locations within the region.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 171

About right It could even go to 100% as far I am concerned--Huge burgeoning problem right now.

About right Like I said before, we need to reduce our dependence on cars.

About right Looks good.


About right No to urban sprawl- contain virtually all growth to leave room for farms and green space and un-disturbable land.

About right Please tie food production to growth. I believe that the province suggest each person requires half a hectare to feed themselves for a year.

About right Promote more efficient housing, More insulation and placed in a village situation, Keep the Rich housing out i.e. one large fancy house on 20 acres.

About right Realistic.

About right Redevelop existing areas vs. developing new

About right Right on.

About right Safe target given the size of the growth containment area. Of course the CRD is not the legislated authority when it comes to local rezoning or growth in the region.

About right Same as above.

About right See above 2.2.

About right See comments above.

About right See earlier infill comment.

About right Seems like a no brainer.

About right Since CRD doesn't control local zoning, I don't know how this can be achieved.

About right Smaller homes on collectively owned land.

About right Some further consolidation may be required.

About right Sounds like you still have 10% growth where you don't want growth. Year after year.

About right Stated in previous comments.

About right The 90% target seems laudable, but an aiming point of 95% or even higher might be more appropriate.

About right The current CRD sprawl has some filling in to do.

About right The media is talking about vacant commercial properties. If true, this should be taken into consideration.

About right The urban limit line has worked well for Portland OR and the 90% target allows for a limited spill over outside the line.

About right

This area is already quite large by area and dominated by low density sub-urban housing. Hopefully higher density could result if development is somehow contained. Again this will depend on allowing developers to build larger low rise flats that are desirable when compared to owning your own house and yard. It will also depend on overcoming resistance to such developments from the masses of people who may agree in principle with higher density but don't want it near their low density city neighborhood.

About right This is a very important policy. I hope all the municipalities are willing and able to comply.

About right This is essential.

About right This seems ambitious, but I like it.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 172

About right

This seems to me to be a no brainer. We have plenty of space in our city for new building projects. There seems to me to be little or no need to develop untouched land for further development. This should be an ideal adopted by both politicians and developers as we move forward.

About right This target seems about right!

About right

This will mean a huge amount of infill, serious changes / challenges to neighbourhood ambiance, considerable loss of heritage structures / buildings, re-thinking of natural parks to include structured playgrounds and recreational sports, etc. I agree the focus is not able denying clean, reliable water supply to rural areas (as long as they pay for it), but to limit sewer connections. Interesting issue with the undeveloped First Nations lands within the urban containment boundary. Will those residents continue to have taxation with no regional representation...OR representation with no regional taxation. Everyone pays for services at the going rate.

About right

This would be excellent. It would be nice to include provisions to penalize development in previous undeveloped sites, especially those with good native vegetation and habitat. The rate at which this is still occurring, with no restriction or provision for retaining mature native trees is disheartening. (This is part of my work, so I am seeing it daily.)

About right We really need to control sprawl. See previous slag at Langford - there's nothing green or sustainable about creating housing by blowing the top off a mountain.

About right Why else would you have a containment area?...

About right Will have to be very vigilant about future developments in such areas as between Sooke & Port Renfrew.

About right Would need creative, but realistic housing styles and sizes. A continuing need to sell the value of increased housing density may be easier given a more urban sensibility of people in their 20's and 30's.

About right Yes - stop sprawl and the loss of green space. See previous comment about Langford.

About right Yes!

About right Yes, makes sense.

About right Yes, stop the urban sprawl!

About right Yes. A policy such as this - particularly if backed up with prescriptive bylaws - would go a long way towards preventing sprawl which would ultimately harm future generations.

Too high "Development potential is to be capped to that in place in local Official Community Plans in place at the time of adoption of the Regional Sustainability Strategy." Oak Bay's new OCP calls for just 0.5% growth per year - and that is well above the average growth rate.

Too high Again if we are too reduce carbon drastically so we survive, reducing building is necessary. And this goes against our economy's ability to thrive through increasing growth. A dilemma!

Too high

Again, this is of limited help unless we address the total population to which we can grow. At this stage we should at least be exploring the acceptable rate of growth - and then project that forward so that residents can better understand the implications. For example: In the Saanich Peninsula the rate of growth averaged over the last 20 years has been XX% per year. If we continue at this rate, by 2030 the population will have grown from its present value of YY to ZZ. What do you consider a reasonable population for the peninsula by 2030?

Too high Always trying to put humans in dehumanizing high density areas only please those who wish to maintain control over their fellow man.

Too high By saying sewer services & the lime won't be available outside GCA and creating more homes within a set area is not a realistic plan to prevent urban sprawl. The map is unrealistic.

Too high Don't cram people together...they need space.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 173

Too high Draconian rules.

Too high

First, get rid of the "Growth is good" mantra and do some fresh thinking. If we must have it, and God knows why we must, of course it should be contained and managed. But we don't need housing starts as much as we need repair and renovation. This questionnaire should be about wisdom, happiness and defining goals.

Too high Focus on tax incentives, not growth targets.

Too high For all the reasons mentioned above.

Too high High density doesn't = livability.

Too high High density should be close or in the core areas.

Too high I certainly haven't seen the new apartments built at Uptown yet? Why? You've certainly made a mess of the traffic but I haven't seen many people biking home with their groceries or new TV's.

Too high

I definitely think that there is a lot of wasted space within the city limits. There is definitely room for growth and innovative ways of creating neighborhoods that take into account livability, privacy and green spaces. I also think the target may be too high as there will continue to be growth within the greater areas of Victoria such as Langford, Colwood, Saanich etc. Many people do not want to live in an heavily concentrated urban area. I think this is where having a functional public transportation system is key.

Too high I think the GCA needs to be expanded somewhat, especially up into the Peninsula.

Too high I think you need to provide more context around what this growth will look like.

Too high I WISH YOU PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE CITY! Try to think of the retired people ,and acreage dwellers that want to enjoy their property ,heaven knows we pay enough taxes for that privilege!

Too high If I read the map correctly you are including Sidney in the area - tell me where there is room for expansion, re housing, in this area?

Too high If you can't figure out a way to: Stop flushing raw human waste into the PACIFIC OCEAN!!!!!

Too high

If you want high rises they should be downtown not in Saanich. You seem to add density without road improvements. NOT everyone walks or buses. Buses are not timely for chores. They great for people going to and from work; or too and from University but not for the regular population.

Too high

I'm not sure that the growth containment area is large enough to contain many more years of growth in such a desirable place as southern Van Isle. Obviously not all areas in BC want to see fast paces of growth and some areas might even see decline but we have to accept that some areas like ours are going to continue to see fast growth and that is just that way it is. (So I am not sure that the CRD will be able to continue stuffing dwelling units into the existing growth containment area even at the current 80% rate.)

Too high Individual freedom.

Too high It seems like an unrealistic goal and beyond the scope of the CRD.

Too high It’s like you want people to live like Sardines.

Too high Keep open mind to growth related projects instead of fixating on overall plans that restrict.

Too high Let people live where they want to live.

Too high Maybe a bit high but a goal to aim for. People seem to be realizing that this is a good way to live, thus the rental suites closer to where things are happening.

Too high More diversification of building location is needed than that provided within the Growth Containment Area.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 174

Too high OMG talk about Agenda 21. What a disgrace you are.

Too high Once again your plan is social engineering let the people we vote in plan there direction You picking Saanich over Langford.

Too high People are not sheep in a pen. Why crown people into a small area when there is lots of space for regulated development.

Too high Perhaps the target is unrealistic because homes are more difficult to purchase; owning your own home might doesn't appear to be an aspiration of the next generation.

Too high Population growth can't be legislated in our society.

Too high Reduce the growth area for Sooke to exclude Saseenos and areas east of the Kaltassin Industrial Area and Saseenos school. Sooke's growth area is too large.



Too high Should established neighbourhoods be transformed into high density living areas at the cost of people who wish to own large tacks of land.

Too high Some munis are landlocked and this seems too restrictive . I fill in west shore/Saanich must be considered.

Too high The CRD has no control over this issue. Trying to assume one will only drive prices higher.

Too high The growth containment area excludes Colwood, Royal Bay and Langford.

Too high

The growth containment area itself isn't based on an effective carbon-based integration of the nature of growth nor a carbon-based effective spatial allocation of structures. That needs to be the overarching objective to reach carbon-neutral work-live communities within the existing built environment.

Too high

The map is too general for the question. There should be more growth in commercial areas, but not in residential areas unless multifamily / mixed use, and those areas should be identified in order to answer the question properly. A broad acceptance has the potential to destroy, not sustain, many areas within the containment area.

Too high

This is not the new up to date Development Industry strategy - The new focus to build out and have much better transit to core areas - hence the new transit tax. European Cities are also following this trend as there is no plan "C" when cities and services become choked and dysfunctional. Speculation drives up housing costs exponentially and space becomes a premium.

Too high Too draconian.

Too high Too idealistic! Where is the land space for these dwelling units?

Too high Too many numbers, let people decide where they want to live, not gov.

Too high With Saanich (especially from Uptown to Mckenzie) the new hub of the CRD, you have to totally rethink your "old think" strategy.

Too high You can't tell people where to live.

Too low 95%.

Too low 95%.

Too low 95%.

Too low 98%.

Too low 99.90%.

Too low 100%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 175

Too low 100%.

Too low 100%.

Too low 100% except opportunities for agriculture producers.

Too low 100% of new dwelling units should be in the Growth Containment Area.

Too low 100% of new dwelling units within the growth containment area. Make building outside the growth containment area an extraordinary exception, not the rule.

Too low 100% should be within GCA, and even then protect the existing nature spaces we have left, create new ones, plant trees, build up not out.

Too low 100% within the Growth Containment Area unless exceptional circumstances would apply. And why would they?

Too low 100% within urban centres is best. No urban sprawl please.

Too low 95% is a better goal.

Too low

99.5% within the Growth Containment Area. Urban sprawl onto the Rural Settlement Lands, the ALR, and the "Juan de Fuca Wilderness" needs to be stopped. It is a matter of incrementalism. Today we allow someone with 20 acres to subdivide to two 10 acre parcels and then several years from now they are allowed to subdivide to two 5 acre parcels, and before you know it, there are suburban subdivisions on what used to be considered rural land. Urban sprawl cannot be managed; it has to be stopped. Growth should only be allowed on existing urban areas. If people are coming to this region they and we have to accept higher density in the existing urban areas. This means higher-density, multi-unit buildings.

Too low Again, depends what you build and where you build.

Too low All (or 95%) of new dwelling unites should be within the GCA.

Too low All development should occur where it already has so as to not further damage ecosystems and ecosystem functions. There should be less emphasis on development and more emphasis on restoration.

Too low All growth should be in currently serviced urban areas.

Too low All growth should be in the containment area.

Too low All growth should be the growth area.

Too low

All new housing should be within the Growth Containment Area unless it is a new house being built on a farm to replace a house that is no longer livable and cannot be renovated to suit the farming family's needs. For example, an old, falling down house being replaced by a sustainable house.

Too low All quite slack.

Too low All should be in GCA.

Too low Almost all new dwelling units should be there.

Too low Also reduce the size of the growth containment areas for better walkability and less sundering of our available lands for other purposes.

Too low Any growth outside the containment areas makes it all the harder to attain your other goals. Unless those growth areas can be made very dense and supplied with transit - which will be very difficult to achieve.

Too low Anything we can do to encourage more compact development and preserve open space helps achieve our economic, social and environmental goals.

Too low Appendix one shows significant percentages of growth in the outlying areas, which will necessarily increase GHG. We write about sustainability, but until we take the step of moving from growth management to growth restrictions, we're headed in the same direction.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 176

Too low As consistently repeated in my responses above, densification and compact, comprehensive communities like West Hills will allow the target o be increased to 95%. In the RGS, the outcome was more than 90% allowing for an increase to 95% in the RSS.

Too low As explained in my previous paragraph.

Too low

At a minimum we should be thinking at least 90% but I would suggest higher. By saying 90% you are willing to allow 5,080 dwellings outside of the growth containment area by 2038. Given that the District of Sooke and City of Langford used their municipal boundaries as their growth containment, that means all of these dwellings would go to rural areas which doesn't seem sustainable.

Too low Considering the continued urban sprawl under the 80% target, a 100 % target seems more desirable.

Too low CONTAINMENT IS THE PRIORITY.

Too low Could be 95% to achieve best results.

Too low Encourage developers to build more basic low rise (3-6) story townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Try 95%.

Too low Establish a growth containment area within a green belt and protect the green belt from being built on at all.

Too low Everything reasonably possible should be done to reduce sprawl.

Too low Far too low. Should be no less than 95%, and preferably more like 98%.

Too low Growth in other areas should be the exception.

Too low Green space and farmlands are needed by all residents of the region. It seems wrong to allow the uber-wealthy to build on what is de facto public land. No amount of taxes or increased expense can compensate for the loss of open space.

Too low Growth management in Core Area should be higher (as opposed to rural North Saanich) as a way to better manage GHG emissions and provide affordable housing.

Too low Have to firm on this, 99%.

Too low High need to protect undeveloped land for future generations.

Too low How about ALL new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area? Otherwise how does it CONTAIN growth? The term is useless.

Too low

I agree with the concept of a Growth Containment Area but would also like to consider tighter boundaries. For example, I don't understand why Happy Valley (good farmland) is being covered with houses when there are vacant lots all over Bear Mountain. The "Boundary" should be revisited and made more precise, so that to the greatest extent possible no new land is 'gobbled up' for tract houses.

Too low I like this target, but still worry about the long-term implications of in any way expanding sprawl.

Too low I think it should be closer to 100%. If we have a growth containment boundary why would we permit not containing growth within it? I understand that some growth will occur outside but we should be striving to more like 98%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 177

Too low

I think that 100% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area? This way new housing will be situated in in existing service areas compact and complete communities, *to ensure that there are general principles in place that will prevent urban sprawl, megabusinesses container box stores the detriment of socially equitable and environmentally sound community development , and to labour rights *When there is infilling housing in established neighbourhoods. Innovative ways of preventing the potential loss of vegetation and tree canopy should be encouraged Development ought to be confined as much as possible to existing footprints in order to conserve precious greenspace. *To conserve biodiversity, our urban forest should flourish and a stronger tree bylaw be implemented. When ageing apartment buildings and condos are replaced, in exchange for the granting of variances, as a community benefit there needs to be a percentage of units categorized as affordable housing. Parking must be addressed in situations where duplexes, triplexes, laneway housing and garden or in-house suites are concerned. Permeable paving ought to be incorporated on some sites, and where adequate parking space does not exist, enforceable covenants precluding vehicle ownership must be signed. On the local level, a home share/home care programme ought to be introduced. A registry can be established of community-minded homeowners, particularly seniors seeking assistance, to offer low rent in exchange for helpwith specific needs such as errands, cooking and gardening. Interests and abilities should be coordinated, and references required from all parties. As deteriorating apartment buildings and condos are replaced, a percentage of units should be become affordable housing.

Too low

I think the CRD needs to look at drawing very clear lines between urban and rural municipalities. For example: NS should not have any higher densities -- growth needs to go to Sidney. This is also for practical purposes: urban municipalities can "do urban" better than rural ones. Their councilors and staff can get comfortable with a particular vision, and do it well. To ask rural municipalities to "do some urban" puts their community in conflict -- how to balance these. Those of us who lived through the last 3 years in NS know the strife and division that can be caused by this. Better to make clear lines: put density where the infrastructure is, and allow rural municipalities to provide the important rural and agricultural values that all CRD residents can enjoy.

Too low I think this target could be higher.

Too low I would like to see 95%.

Too low If it is an effective growth containment area that at least 95% of new dwelling units should be located within it.

Too low If there is a growth containment area, why is there any building outside of it? That seems to me to provide a precedent that can lead to further erosion of the containment areas. Why 10% exceptions?

Too low If we are already at 80%, then we should be aiming for at least 95%.

Too low

If we define a Growth Containment Area and plan accordingly why are we not saying 100% of the growth should be in the Growth Containment Area? If we must aim realistically lower, let us aim higher, 95-98% of the growth should be contained where planned. This 90% target is too low. The CRD and member municipalities exceeded that target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled,urban fringe locations. We suggest a growth management target of at least 95%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 178

Too low If you're going to regulate work and living patterns in a socialist manner, then put 'em all in a growth containment area.

Too low It does not seem appropriate in a sustainability strategy to have all of Langford classified as part of a growth containment area as there are significant rural and forested areas.

Too low It seems to me the growth containment area has not been well adhered to. We need a real growth containment boundary and we need to stick to it.

Too low Keep all housing within growth containment area.

Too low Keep rural rural and let’s make a walkable city.

Too low Locate 100% of new dwellings in growth containment area.

Too low Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area* Locate 30% of new growth in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities how do you resolve these two statements??

Too low Locate the majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns.

Too low Make it 100% and 150 % in those districts that have chosen to have no containment.

Too low More than 90 % of new dwelling units should be in the Growth Containment Area.

Too low More urban containment, please!

Too low Needs to be 100% to stop development creep for real.

Too low New development outside of planned growth areas should only be possible in extraordinary circumstances and should pay the full long term costs such spread out development generates.

Too low Nix sprawl.

Too low No further residential or commercial development of rural areas to centralize services and minimize commuting.

Too low No new development would be nice. Raise the ferries fares, double them.

Too low Once again, not ambitious enough. Understanding that 100% is unrealistic perhaps, 95% or 98% of growth needs to occur within the Growth Containment Area.

Too low Same answer as above.

Too low See above. Virtually all new growth should be within growth containment area.

Too low See previous arguments.

Too low Should be 100%!

Too low Should be about 95% in order to reduce pressure on ALR lands and infrastructure costs outside the Growth Containment Area.

Too low Should be higher - 95% - the goal is to contain urban sprawl - not maintain the status quo.

Too low Should be very close to 100%.

Too low Shouldn't this be 100% if there is a growth containment area?

Too low

Sprawl is killing us with commuting, development / infrastructure / service costs, etc. We need to really push for human-scale living once again. If we are going to continue with population growth, it must be through density or our footsteps will end up trampling the garden that feeds us. And for goodness sake - we must stop the housing developments on prime arable lands. The ALC seems to allow a lot of land-swapping with big developers - we need local government empowerment to protect ALR and non-ALR lands that are prime for food production.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 179

Too low Stop playing Sim City.

Too low Target should be 95 - 100% with exceptions for hardship.

Too low Target should be higher.

Too low Target should be higher.

Too low That means we have to take away 10% from the agricultural land ? No , we should aim not to touch those areas.

Too low

The CRD and member municipalities exceeded that target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations. We suggest a growth management target of 95%.

Too low The growth containment area is just that- where growth is contained. Almost no growth should take place outside of it.

Too low The growth containment area is too large.

Too low

The Growth Containment Area seems meaningless if it does not contain growth. Throughout Europe for centuries, development outside city boundaries has been sharply limited. The result are some of the finest, most appealing and envied urban environments. We should have followed suit before, but can now get back on track. All or substantially all development, dwellings and commercial should be carefully contained in the GCA.

Too low

The Growth Containment Area seems meaningless if it does not contain growth. Throughout Europe for centuries, development outside city boundaries has been sharply limited. The result are some of the finest, most appealing and envied urban environments. We should have followed suit before, but can now get back on track. All or substantially all development, dwellings and commercial should be carefully contained in the GCA.

Too low The only way is up.

Too low The target is too low. I suggest a growth management target of 95%. See consortium submission.

Too low

The target should be at least 95%. The CRD and member municipalities exceeded the 90% target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 180

Too low

The target should be at least 95%. The CRD and member municipalities exceeded the 90% target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations.

Too low There is room for more housing in current Growth containment areas. More should developed be done along transit routes and near existing services.

Too low There remains capacity in existing serviced areas in compact walkable communities. This is the existing target and has been exceeded in some years.

Too low

There should be at least 98% of new dwellings located in the Growth Containment area to reduce rural sprawl. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low- rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations.

Too low

There should be little or no exploitation of areas outside the urban containment boundaries. In my own interest, I might add that there should be no expansion of urban development in the Keating West Saanich area. Those larger properties provide small-scale agricultural possibilities and buffer the larger agricultural lands to the east and the west. Many of the smaller properties are acre per acre more productive than the larger agricultural operations. The fire hall should never have been placed there and the dense town-housing that is currently under construction is going to cause problems down-stream.

Too low

This "target" is ridiculously low -- indeed, it doesn't seem to provide for any significant increase in densification. Using the CRD forecasts, It would see more than 400 DU's per year outside the Growth Containment area!! Ridiculous. I'd like to see 99% in the CCA, but 96% should be acceptable.

Too low This "target" is ridiculously low -- indeed, it doesn't seem to provide for any significant increase in densification. Using the CRD forecasts, it implies more than 400 DU's per year outside the Growth Containment area! I'd like to see 99% in the CCA, but 96% should be acceptable.

Too low

This leaves 10% outside the GCA and as population increases through 2038, each year, the 10% increases in absolute terms each year. This is a recipe for the slow, gradual elimination of agricultural, natural and other lands outside the GCA. There is lots of room for development within the GCA. The target for new dwelling units (not including replacements) inside the GCA should be 99%. In order to achieve targets for sustainability, reduction of GHG emissions, food security and others it is imperative that the physical boundaries of urban expansion be restricted and that this restriction be rigidly applied.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 181

Too low

This number could be 99% and it would still allow for someone to build a single family dwelling on private piece of property without allowing developers to buy a piece of forest land, clear cut it, and build a "new community". Overall, this is not as important as raising the Dwelling Unit Growth Target to 50% or greater.

Too low This should be 100%. There is a strong need for affordable housing near employment centres to reduce the need for automobile use.

Too low This should be 95% coupled with restraints by CRD on development in Juan de Fuca Electoral area.

Too low

This target is too low. The CRD and member municipalities exceeded that target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations. We suggest a growth management target of 95%.

Too low

This target should be 95%. Further, the Growth Containment Area should be shrunk in the Colwood and Langford to show the true areas of growth, not the whole municipality. Sooke's Growth Area should be shrunk, as nearly all Sooke residents drive to work and are likely to do so in the near future.

Too low Too low, This is on the right track but could be improved by mandating that no new permanent residential buildings be build outside the growth containment area. ( Farms should be allowed to have dormitory style buildings to house farm workers.

Too low We don't need to be cutting into any more of our agricultural land or wild spaces. Even if a lot is vacant and looks as though nothing is happening in it, it's full of life. We need to keep these small wild spaces as they enrich our community in a myriad of ways.

Too low

We need to locate the vast majority of new developments in existing service areas in compact, walkable, bikeable complete communities which is one of the best way to address affordable housing concerns. Developers should be encouraged to build more high density apartment buildings, townhouses, duplexes, etc. in containment areas along major roads and in urban areas such as Colwood, Langford, Sooke and Victoria.

Too low We need to put a stop to sprawl. No new suburban single family dwelling centered development.

Too low What is a containment area if 10% of the growth is not contained? This should be at least 95% if not 100%.

Too low Why do we need growth?

Too low Why have a 'growth containment area' if we're not going to contain growth there?

Too low Why not aim for 100%? We can always alter our plan if attempting to rely 100% on current GCA proves unwanted.

Too low Why only 90%? To obtain buy-in from pro-growth rural areas?

Too low Worth it.

A waste of time, it will grow where people want to live!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 182

Achieve a jobs/population ratio of: * 0.61 in Core Area * 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula * 0.36 in West Shore The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore are fine. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable Sample Response: RSS Feedback January 30 2015, Consortium on Regional Sustainability additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target. We suggest 0.70.

Another "don't know" category. When you make a 25 year plan, how do you know the future of employment? Better to plan for a livable city where, no matter what part of the CRD people live in, it's desirable and sustainable. Discourage the community from spreading further out....unless to do so makes sense. Flexibility and adaptability is key.

Caveat to this is that lands already "available" to developers that are in agricultural areas need to have special vetting of proposals for development (i.e. make sure there is an active plan for agricultural space within the development).

Containment Area? This is sounding very Gulag like.

Could not keep the targets backgrounder open, but generally I would agree that growth should be contained as much as possible. We should grow close and up, rather than spread out.

Development needs to be limited, it's out of control in my area (Happy Valley - Luxton, in Langford) which is within the growth containment area. This doesn't mean that developers should be able to bulldoze over the old communities with their over-priced boxes that pass as "dwellings" these days. Development should be concentrated in the core, and no area/ community/neighbourhood should have to get over-run with development. New parks within the GCA should be created before, and in the areas that, development occurs or plans to occur.

Higher density in existing downtown and commercial districts to be encouraged. BUT NOT to locate new dwelling units in existing built up single family residential areas.

I don't have the knowledge to comment on this.

I don't like growth containment areas, as it binds the hands of locally elected Councils. There is no flexibility when the Councils have to come before an unelected CRD board to ask permission to expand.

I don't understand the map.

I have answered this already!

I really don't know - how can you do this without having a lot of high rises? Or taking up park space? Unless you demolish some of what's already here and replace it with high rises.

I would again have to inform myself as to what this would look like.

If sewer service is only provided to these proposed growth centers, is it the policy that those outside these areas rely on septic fields? These cause environmental problems especially when they're old or not well maintained. Is it possible to encourage onsite sewage treatment for these properties instead, as they are developed? High level treatment would not only separate solids for safe collection and transport for disposal, but it would more importantly, treat the liquids in order to reduce contaminants and nutrient overload. The water could be re-used for toilet flushing or released into an onsite wetland area to filter naturally.

I'm also concerned about the over population of the planet.

I'm not clear about what is intended for the large section of the map that appears west of Colwood/Langford and north of Sooke. It looks to me as if it includes some of the former forestry Crown lands that were handed over to private developers by minister Rich Coleman. Am I mistaken? Whatever is done with development, we need full, honest, non-conflicted environmental reviews before any changes are made. An example, I feel, of the results of NOT having such a review is the presence of refugee populations of deer in Victoria and Oak Bay, with cries of outrage from gardeners who too rarely ask "why now?". This became an issue only after the Bear Mountain development began.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 183

I'm still not sure how sprawl is going to be prevented by these measures. Nor am I sure how the integrity of the existing neighbourhoods in the "Growth Containment Areas" is going to be maintained. My fear is that we're going to allow soul-destroying densification in our neighbourhoods and Langford is still going to permit massive houses to encroach on Garry oak meadows.

IT’S EXTREMELY NOISY DOWNTOWN.

Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area* how is this different from 2.1?? Locate 30% of new growth in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities.

No idea what you are trying to tell me here. Can't comment.

Not conversant with this; will take your figures.

Put the dwellings in non-farm areas.... Obvo closer to core areas, but with farmland protection in mind. It might be nice if farms were allowed to have more than one dwelling on larger parcels so that rental could help support the farm and cost of paying for/owning acreage.

Stop destroying green space.

The jobs/population ratios for the Saanich Peninsula and West Shore are fine. The ratio in the Core Area should be higher. Downtown is still the regional commercial hub, and the City of Victoria has committed to supporting this hub with considerable additional density in and around downtown. There is significant room to increase this target. We suggest 0.70. 2.3 What do you think about the following growth management target? Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area? This target is too low. The CRD and member municipalities exceededthat target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations. We suggest a growth management target of 95%.

The purpose of a growth containment area is to contain growth within it, I do not believe that a growth containment is practical because people need freedom to move. A better strategy is to protect surrounding areas from development rather than contain people. Surround us with parks and wilderness and non-timber forestry production lands rather than "containing" us.

This is a meaningless target. We should limit growth altogether.

This target is too low. The CRD and member municipalities exceeded that target in some years of the past decade. Locating the vast majority of new development in existing serviced areas in compact, walkable complete communities is the most direct way to address GHG reduction and affordable housing concerns. As the regional growth management program matures it makes sense to improve on past performance, especially as there is still a lot of capacity for member municipalities to improve the development of more compact, complete communities and housing affordability. This can be achieved by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more basic, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Servicing such development with infrastructure and public services is less costly than siting new dwelling in urban fringe locations. They should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than in sprawled, urban fringe locations. I suggest a growth management target of 98%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 184

Where are you going to put families - 2 parents, 2 children, and a dog or cat, that doesn't cost a fortune in Victoria.

Why try to contain growth?

You keep asking me the same questions more than once.

3.0 MOBILITY

3.1 Active Transportation and Transit Target

a) What do you think about the transportation mode shift target?

Achieve a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, cycling, and transit.



Too high 82 12.2%

Too low 323 48.2%

TOTAL 670 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 185


About right 42% is a big increase. To achieve it there will be a great need to push for higher densities and building up rather than out. Successful public transit means high density. There should be more active support for rail but the CRD needs to foster high density development at rail stops.

About right 42% is a meaningless figure without some idea of how many trips that might be. Also, the order of alternatives should be changed to reflect the options which will deliver the greater part of those trips, which is transit. So it should read 'by transit, cycling, and walking'.

About right A light rail train system for western communities to get to the core.

About right A lot of money is going to have to put into infrastructure to lure people out of their cars. Transit should be free. That would help.

About right A major key would be E&N rail service from Western Communities to Dockyard, Canadian Forces Base and downtown. Trains are much more comfortable to attract riders than narrow crowded buses.

About right Again seniors...is this realistic. My wife and I will need to drive to various medical support areas. Transit is not realistic.

About right Aggressive, but worth shooting for.

About right Also need incentives to get people to do this.

About right

Although I agree with this target, I recognize that North Americans are forever tied to their cars as a convenient means of transportation. Therefore, we also need to recognize that efficient transportation corridors and parking areas are provided to enable the use of automobiles. Remember too, that not everyone is young and active. There are many seniors in our communities who rely on their cars for doctors’ appointments, shopping, visiting friends etc.

About right Ambitious and achievable if densification targets a maintained and achieved.

About right Ambitious but achievable.

About right And this will be easier to achieve by exceeding the growth/density recommendations.

About right As a commuter cyclist, I would like to see more infrastructure for cycling, as per the CRD Pedestrian/Cycling master plan. There is lots of room for improvement in transit in the CRD, but we need to convince more people that it's better than driving their cars.

About right

As a target it sounds do-able. We can't keep crowding the present highway system here. The more people sit in long lines the more they will (perhaps) decide to move closer to work. I thank the gods that I no longer commute so perhaps leave the highway as is as a disincentive to commute. Again, I like the mix that Langford has aimed for.

About right

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this goal as being ambitious, but achievable (especially if densification targets are achieved), and appropriate to the situation. The information about the Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target. It is vitally important to continue to develop separated bicycle infrastructure to and within the urban centres. Copenhagen achieves a rate of 42% trips by bicycle alone, but this was not achieved without significant alteration of the streetscape. Also, consider designing for electric assist commuter bikes that erase hills and extra-long distances. This is what is coming.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 186

About right

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this goal as being ambitious, but achievable (especially if Densification targets are achieved), and appropriate to the situation. The information about the Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target. It is vitally important to continue to develop separated bicycle infrastructure to and within the urban centres. Copenhagen achieves a rate of 42% trips by bicycle alone, but this was not achieved without significant alteration of the streetscape. Also, consider designing for electric assist commuter bikes that erase hills and extra-long distances. This is what is coming.

About right

By planning future growth in compact self-reliant communities the need for transportation is decreased and with the higher density tax base present to support building of good transit and other corridors and linkages making transit and other options like cycling and walking more appealing to people so I see this target as achievable. The information about Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target.

About right

By what time period is this target established for? By the way, would love to see more 'safe' bike infrastructure. And why aren't all bike-related trails managed by the CRD (e.g. Interurban rail trail)? That way similar quality product could be used for base on trails. Parts of interurban rail trail are horrible for bikes, while other parts are nice. Make it consistent.

About right Do include all rural areas in public transportation; consider a bike path for Hwy 14 Include the potential of tourists using public transit for day visits to e.g. French Beach Prov. Park, and CRD parks.

About right

Does not say by when this target should be achieved but the longer the time scale the higher the number should be. It is using cars for commuting that it is the major issue. Use of cars for recreation or even shopping is tiny compared with usage for commuting (mostly by just a single occupant!!).

About right Extremely ambitious given the state of cycling and transit in the GVA. Such numbers will only be attained if transit is made to be a superior alternative to cars and bicycles are given safe protected routes to the major centers in the area.

About right Getting people out of their cars will require some kind of force.

About right Good.

About right Great - very ambitious. We've got a long way to go.

About right Great goal. I would love to see more conversation about rapid transit - a train connecting the BC ferries/Sidney to Victoria, as well as the West shore to down town. This would provide a huge cut in personal vehicle reliance.

About right Greater incentives to use smaller, electric-powered vehicles need to be applied.

About right Highly optimistic, but go for it anyways.

About right However, it must be acknowledge that our current transit system is very weak. You shouldn't ask people to use transit more without improving transit more.

About right I agree that this is where it should be but given the current level I think this may be an overly ambitious goal rather than an achievable one - especially when compared with the planned ratio for workplaces near homes.

About right I agree, but the region needs to get on with new innovative commuter options such as light rail and passenger-only ferry service between Sooke & the West Shore and downtown- what is the delay!!!????


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 187

About right

I am quite sure that most CRD residents can do a much better job at reducing the trips made in their personal vehicle. I suspect that most trips made by personal vehicle are done because we can afford to drive our own car and we North Americans like our independence so we like to be able to come and go when we please, but we could all change this attitude if we had to. So I don't think it would be a big hardship for most of us to adjust our lives to significantly reduce using our personal vehicle as long as the additional transit options were in place, However we also could do well to allow for what could soon be a significant increase in use of electric or solar powered cars. Furthermore we could also do better in promoting carpooling including extra "bonus" of some sort (like maybe half price parking fees?) for folks who car pool with three people in the car and maybe even bigger bonus for folks with four people in the car. So these other two ideas I suggest here help reduce greenhouse gases but don't 'fit' into this target in the way you have it worded above.

About right I guess? How does this correlate to GHGs?

About right I have no idea if it is even remotely possible. If it is - great!

About right I like this target, given the Langford sprawl and Colwood Crawl.

About right I love this vision!

About right I prefer to walk, our climate is perfect for that.

About right I said about right, because you did not allow for 'That Depends". We are in a time of technological change that may produce cleaner power sources and much cleaner automobiles. But as things stand the numbers seem reasonable.

About right I see that this is ambitious given past trend since 2001.

About right I think it could be higher actually, but 42% for now is good. It should be increased as soon as possible.

About right I think this could be higher within the core of the CRD (downtown Victoria and immediate area), but including the other areas of the region makes this target appropriate. Is it possible to have a focus on downtown core with higher targets?

About right I think this may be correct, though the distances to go to work will need to be considerably shortened.

About right

I think this target is about right in terms of how realistic it is, but it is much too low to achieve the GHG reduction targets that have been set. I anticipate that if the CRD were to model it's GHG reduction target, it would find that to meet a 61% reduction in GHG emissions by 2038, it will need to target approximately 90% of trips by alternative modes, with an emphasis on walking and cycling.

About right

I would wish this to be higher, but this is probably a difficult enough target to achieve. You can start by increasing the tax rate on properties in the CRD to cover the cost of the transit system and then giving everyone in the CRD a free annual bus pass. If people have a "free" pass, they will use it. However, this will mean that service will have to be further improved (it is now pretty good for the current low level of use it receives). And yes, more off road bike/walking trails will encourage non-vehicle use - it is far too dangerous to ride a bike in traffic on roads with no shoulder (like West Saanich Road).

About right I'd like to see higher, but realistically, many trips will still be made by auto. But encouraging more ride-share and carpooling options could help.

About right If the median age goes up, cycling and walking may be difficult to increase?

About right If we build it they will come. It is cheaper to build it sooner than later.

About right If we can manage that it would be amazing, transit is not an easy sell to our car oriented society.

About right If we move to electric cars and buses this is OK.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 188

About right

Implementation of this target would mean no new roads, and a reduction in road maintenance that does not address the "complete streets" concept. The CRD should host a three-year, intensive and collaborative project to guide municipalities in constructing bicycling infrastructure. This would include pursuing provincial and federal funding on behalf of all local governments. The CRD should also work with volunteer groups (e.g., the GVCC) to develop a mobile cycling infrastructure pilot "kit." This kit would help municipalities and EAs test locations for cycle tracks.

About right Improved transit in rural areas.

About right

In order for this to happen it will take the actual development of not just bike lanes, but streets dedicated to bikes. As well, for transit riding to see a rise it will take better accountability on the part of BC Transit, with significantly better emphasis put on providing buses during peak hours, amongst many other issues that need to be addressed.

About right It gives transit an easy pass when lumped in with cycling and walking. Transit should have its own objective.

About right It may be more difficult to get people out of their cars when they are commuting to the city core or other major industrial regions - a really effective rail, rapid transit or water traffic... have to make these systems affordable, efficient and usable.

About right It would be good to see movement on this vision via policy and action!

About right

Just a note to encourage return of affordable train travel on Vancouver Island. That my ancestors, never wealthy, could take the train two hundred miles return several times a year in 1890 makes me wonder who stops that from happening today. The cost of public transit travel to the traveller should in some way reflect at least the easy ability of people of average income to pay. Publicly owned, tax-supported, with the profit motive herded back into its cave would be a good beginning.

About right Just numbers...don't mean a thing...just build something sustainable...

About right Love the free trolley in Langford--now if there were more jobs here probably a lot more residents would use it.

About right LRT included.

About right

Maybe even just shoot for a round 50%. I think this is definitely a realistic and achievable goal and one that will make a substantial impact on GHG emissions. Getting comprehensive bike-sharing programs like those in European cities would be an awesome model, as well as improving infrastructure for bikes, like covered bike lanes, that have been studied and proven to increase biking traffic while simultaneously maintaining the flow of car traffic, thus reducing idling and traffic crawl.

About right Maybe explicitly add e-bikes/scooters to this category to encourage their use.

About right Maybe?

About right Modal shift has been far too slow so far-we need a pioneer project (maybe Shelbourne Valley?) which can show a positive model.

About right

More people in the outlying areas would cycle if it were safe. We need roads built with // paths for cyclists It needs work both at the local, provincial and federal level to recognize non-motorized travel as legitimate and needing the same or greater level of infrastructure support as motorized. This is critical from both a greenhouse gas, climate change item and as a matter of public health.

About right Need to ensure that individual municipalities buy in to the plan. as the success will centre on revisions to OCP's to permit higher density at the transportation nodes to permit and facilitate higher volumes of transit use and lower car dependency.

About right Need to ensure that zoning and local area plans support this throughout the region.

About right Need to identify impacts of autonomous cars. But right to encourage active travel, good for health. Need a 2018 target - what will this Board achieve?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 189

About right

Often only one person drives to work and back, which would add to traffic overload on our streets and increased air pollution - in addition parking is a growing problem. If there would be a possibility using a light rail transit this may help to reduce the traffic, especially between Langford, Colwood and downtown Victoria.

About right OK.

About right Provided the ZEV target is achieved.

About right

Rural areas are unable to attain this level without changes to our infrastructure. We have limited, and in some areas no public transit. We don't have sidewalks: our narrow roadways - often without shoulders, have to also serve cyclists, walkers and others. Unfortunately, using a car or truck is often the only available, safe and reliable way to get around. Give us better transit, roads with safe shoulders, community trails and then we might have a chance to help achieve the goal.

About right See comment earlier on Light rail transit.

About right Seems right. Great if we can achieve it. Good and healthy for everybody.

About right Sounds good but better, faster bus services needed.

About right Sounds good, but better public transportation needed.

About right That seems achievable in the short term.

About right That would be transformational and fit well with SHIFT.

About right The backgrounder shows NO IMPROVEMENT in the existing ratio of about 23% in the last decade. This means "something has to change." That something is increased density, and actively discouraging more dwelling units outside the GCA. This might achieve the target.

About right

The E&N Railway is an invaluable commuter line and will need higher subsidies to be viable. It should be incorporated into the sustainability plan. A station in the historic old rail yard ought to be possible, with adequate parking for motorists and cyclists, as the new bridge does not accommodate rail. Douglas Street, long a transportation battleground ought to be more public transit friendly.

About right The increasing support of cycling in the Core Area is terrific. There is potential for increased pedestrian support as well, including closing some streets to vehicles. Shared transportation to the outlying areas is costly, but efficient and well-scheduled routes will increase ridership.

About right This is an important shift that is necessary for the region.

About right

This is a commendable goal. However, to do this you need to make transit affordable. It is currently almost cheaper for me to drive (even with gas prices) than it is for me to purchase a monthly bus pass. Furthermore, transit routes will have to be increased. For example, I work in Saanichton, on the west side of Mt. Newton X road. Getting there by bus from downtown takes 3 separate buses and 1.5 hours one way. This is just not feasible to do every day.

About right This is a doubling of the current context and seems about right.

About right

This is a fine target but likely unachievable. If you are trying to go between municipalities, the transit system often is not workable and takes three times longer than driving. Plus the buses are often overcrowded during rush hour - how do you get people onto transit when the ride is not comfortable? I choose to take the bus for financial reasons but would much rather drive. Cycling is fine, but Greater Victoria is very hilly for novice cyclists and there is no way around that.

About right This is a reasonable target--I'd prefer higher, but....

About right This is achievable with serious commitments by developed municipalities.

About right

This is challenging given there are many families, elderly, disabled, professionals, tradespeople who require a vehicle for their daily commute / workday. It is certainly important to teach the benefits of alternative transportation to our children, as well as offer housing choices with more services and workplaces within walking distance. Effectively achieving urban grown goals should help immensely with this goal, but success will ultimately depend on having residents who want that lifestyle. Zero-emission vehicles will keep demand high for road capacity.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 190

About right This is dreaming big, but it's important we do so.

About right This is not attainable with the current transit system, lack of cycling infrastructure for more casual cyclists (those spandex clad morons scare me off), and copious amounts of rain. Perhaps free umbrellas and gumboots would increase the number of pedestrians. Ha.

About right

This is ok as long as it is combined with targets to get people into low or zero-emission vehicles and the transit system is also zero-emission. It should also be adjusted for short -long journeys. Within the CRD it is eminently possible that more than 42% of short journeys could be by walking, cycling or transit. The target for these journeys, and the target for journeys ending at a transit hub such as downtown Victoria should be much higher.

About right This is the best city to access without a car. I use the Galloping Goose every day and will celebrate any more accessible trails and roads for bikes and pedestrians.

About right This seems like a realistic yet ambitious target. We need to be aware of changing technologies - from lower emission vehicles to self-driving cars to electrical-assist bicycles.

About right

This target is key -- I'd like to see it higher, but think this target is realistic. I'd like to see real priority given to improving cycling infrastructure, so that people feel safe on bikes. Also, I would hope that a transit tax could be added to gasoline purchases, and that we could improve our public transit system. Note that presently there is no bus service in most parts of Fairfield on weekends ... unbelievable!!

About right

This target is refreshingly ambitious but achievable, especially if densification targets are achieved. The information about Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target.

About right

This target is refreshingly ambitious but achievable, especially if densification targets are achieved. The information about Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target.

About right This target is very achievable if residential neighbourhoods are planned as working, living, learning hubs.

About right This works in Core Area but not necessarily realistic for rural North Saanich.

About right This would help.

About right

Time now to institute the necessary funding structures beyond the bus fare box, and property taxes. Increase the gas tax and get 0.5% PST. Get the regional transit authority in place, with the authority to act. Incorporate the 'rail' transportation corridors into transportation, not parks "trails". Widen the Galloping Goose and Lockside in 3 stages to current standards to address liability, conflict and increase peace of mind, courtesy and safety. Who knows, 2038 standards might be 5 m wide multi-use corridors (notice I didn't say 'trails'). ALL regional groups (including First Nations) must coordinate. cooperate, communicate so there are no unreasonable, hazardous road blocks. No one is an island. Safety is paramount. E&N... if there is massive subsidy with $7 one-way tickets, 4x a day is a huge disservice. Please do an objective feasibility for paving the corridor to Langford, utilizing latest technologies for buses and emergency vehicles.

About right Transit includes investment in rail.

About right Transit needs to include a skytrain type addition to the highway to the West shore, Sooke & the Saanich Peninsula.

About right Unless you spend money on a train service from the westshore this is unattainable stop trying to put more buses on the road and get people off of the road all together. IT works everywhere else in the world.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 191

About right Very important.

About right

We also need to transition people out of airplanes. One average air-flight = driving for one year. I understand that whether people fly or not is NOT within any jurisdiction, but I still think we need to have this conversation. The atmosphere doesn't care whether some GHG's are within our jurisdiction or not. I think only a carbon tax can start to address this.

About right We have a large number of elderly people in our community. We need to make sure they are included in our community.

About right We must increase bus service - the waits are too long where I live. I try to walk as often as I can, but end up driving if I have a medical appointment. I don't trust our public transit. Would also love to see a fast, easy way out to the West shore.

About right We NEED an LRT. Get to work on this.

About right We need RTS to the Western Communities. It's a nightmare the way it is. Well a daytime horror anyway.

About right What about a date for this target. Should be phased?

About right Will be ambitious, absent much more effective channelling of units and transport into denser areas.

About right Would be nice but what about seniors who are faced with a challenge for walking or biking, and on a fixed income cannot afford transit.

About right Would you consider adding electric vehicles (zero emission vehicles) including motorized scooters for seniors and people with disabilities to the list of how trips can be made and then increase the %of trips made.

Too high Again a little ambitious - could perhaps do it if new communities are built along the lines of Sidney, I suppose.

Too high Aging population: need to think of newer modes of transportation. How much do we need to move around anyway? Should we stay in place more often?

Too high Am concerned about the number of older people who do not live in places that would make this possible.

Too high As I said before...with the love of the car and the distances within the CRD I don't see this as achievable.

Too high Build suitable roads 1st, a lot of services and people require cars or trucks to do their job.

Too high Buses are only good for people going to and from work. Not for people who are buying groceries; going to the doctor, etc.

Too high By WHEN? How?

Too high Canadians have much land, small population. Why do you feel European approaches to density are necessary?

Too high Cars are not going away. Efficient highways systems are also needed beside transit. Cyclist are not licensed, policed and are, frankly, a danger to themselves and others.

Too high Don't tell me what to do.

Too high Dream on.

Too high

Electric cars would be disadvantaged and they are part of the solution. Already concessions to transit and bicycles in the city extend commutes, increase energy use, increase smog and carbon production. There is the potential in today's technology to phase out gasoline vehicles without changing transit and road policy and making the sustainable gains everyone is looking for.

Too high Far too high. Shut up already about getting everyone out of their cars. Just shut the hell up already you Agenda 21, New World Order implementing losers.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 192

Too high Get real, cars of the future will not pollute and in the CRD only 6% cycle.

Too high

Given the public perception of transit in the area, that is only for the sick, old and poor, I see little hope of increasing the percentage of people of people using it. There has to be a shift in mindset first. In many cities the public realizes that transit is the most efficient and cheapest way to get to and from work, and it is not seen as something only for the sick and poor to use.

Too high Good luck. Right now transportation options outside the core is pretty useless. It would need to increase considerably with transit buses or other options coming by with a frequency such that missing one bus wouldn't make me an hour late for work.

Too high I agree but only about 7% shift from cars to public transit around the world I have always considered Victoria a leader in walking and cycling examples.

Too high

I am concerned that under the transportation section, there may be a move to replace car capacity on the roads with dedicated bus lanes, cycle lanes and sidewalk enhancements. As we have seen in parts of the CRD, and in Vancouver, this can have the effect of making traffic significantly worse while altering people’s transportation choices only marginally.

Too high I don't know if this is attainable. It's important that goods and people move efficiently. I wish our politicians would remember that we all aren't spandex-clad athletes who are capable of cycling everywhere.

Too high Ideally there would be fewer cars, but I am not sure this is very viable. People with health issues, location, stuff to haul etc. etc. We are an aging population...

Too high In an aging population this is pure folly.

Too high

In order to meet the targets set in the draft report, there will need to be many infrastructure changes in the CRD. The Westshore has great distances between much of the residential and work areas. I continually see cars and trucks with only one person in them. I see people going to their office work in large pickup trucks. I see poor and illogical mass transit systems that takes way too much time to get from point A to B, and I see retailers who are not accessible by transit, walking or biking at all, which means both their workers and their clients need to drive by car. The only way they will become “cosmopolitan” is if the spaces between all fill up with homes or other businesses, highly increasing the density of what are now sparsely populated areas. The weather in the CRD is wonderful during about half the year, although it rains throughout the majority of the months of the year, and it is cold and damp 4-6 months. That is not easy walking or biking weather, and it is no fun. For three years, I attempted to make mass transit work for me. I mainly work at home so it was a rare need, a few times a month, mainly for special errands. It was totally frustrating and unworkable, and after that period I bought a car. Several times during the winter, routes were cancelled with no notice and I had to hitch hike in. Drivers left from wrong bays at the exchanges, and I was stranded, the schedule changed without notice, or full busses passed downtown and left me returning home after the last bus in the Westshore, and I had to call to be picked up. No wonder people drive with one person in the car. I do not believe, without major infrastructure, particularly in the mass transit and biking path areas, that major decreases can occur in car ridership. Perhaps more shared rides, or other methods of cars on the road, but buses have to become much more efficient and productive (wi-fi on board, better seating, less crowded, better scheduling) or it will not work. Perhaps free or very low cost subsidized transport might help.

Too high In the future, electric vehicles will be used more. It's too hard to get people to give up their personal vehicles, but trying is also a good idea.

Too high

Increased cost/services for busing has seen no corresponding results. Could buy everyone a smart car for transportation budget and would probably have better environmental impact. Narrowing of roads and social engineering just result in longer commutes and fewer people wanting to live/work in city. I personally never drive to downtown businesses unless I have to because of bad traffic caused by narrowed roads etc.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 193

Too high

Increasing sidewalks, bike lanes or dedicated bus lanes at the expense of car capacity will not encourage people out of their cars. It will only make traffic worse and greatly reduce the quality of life for residents. Those who choose cycling commuting OVER using their cars have already done so. Increasing bike lanes by a certain % will not necessarily see a similar increase in bike usage. The same would be true of increased transit priorities over car traffic, those who use transit INSTEAD of their cars have already made such a choice. I do not support reducing car capacity to increase transit, bike or walking traffic. I do support greater density around transportation hubs, commercial hubs etc. to increase non-car transportation.

Too high Let people decide, Let transit make $ sense, don't expand for the sake of expanding.

Too high Most of the roads are too narrow for safe cycling. In Europe they design roadways to include bike paths. If people are going to walk, they need sidewalks. Transit should include a bus that runs to and from the airport every 20-30 minutes... and another that goes to the ferry.

Too high

My experience is this has become the focus in this region and it is an unreasonable target without shifting the opportunities for employment to the areas where the growth is occurring. Maintaining the existing job/population ratio for this region will not increase the opportunities for people to walk or cycle to their place of employment. I would think then the focus becomes on increasing public transportation opportunities. A very expensive and unsustainable option when it comes to funding. Taxpayer fatigue is going to be an issue in this region. Sewage treatment is going to take away a large amount of the ability to pay for a large number of local residents. Someone at the CRD Board level need to recognize this.

Too high Nice goal. Not going to happen without a high speed bus route along the E&N rail right of way.

Too high Not as relevant in a small city.

Too high

Not likely to happen the way things are headed now. Transit in our area and particularly out into the Westshore, are not frequent enough or convenient enough for more people to take transit, it is highly unlikely that people are going to walk from A to B in places like the West shore that are spread out, and cycling is only going to work for those who are able bodied enough to do so. Do you expect people in Metchosin to walk to Westshore centre? Not going to happen. Do you expect folks to bus from Metchosin to Westshore centre. Lousy service every 4 hours. That leaves cycling.....I am a senior with bad knees, so that is not going to happen. That leaves me with driving.

Too high Not practical.

Too high Not realistic if your transit plan is bus based.

Too high Not socially or economically attainable or acceptable.

Too high Not unless you're going to improve the roads, bike lanes and improve public transit with something like an LRT. Otherwise this is ridiculous.

Too high Once again too idealistic! The fastest growing population at this present time are those 65 and over. For the frail elderly bus transport is dangerous and for those who use hand/DART it can be very frustrating!!

Too high Only if there is enough work available.

Too high

Other than voluntary efforts by residents, how will you force them to walk/cycle/take the bus? You'd have to eliminate all the barriers that exist (hills, rain, distance). Core areas will be conductive to this target especially if local governments are persuaded to close certain streets to vehicular traffic (except transit). In Europe, cars, buses and bicycles co-exist in big cities where population is far greater than here....

Too high People with families do not wish to live in the city. As I mentioned earlier, biking is only for the brave until you completely take the bike paths off the road and make them separate. - roadway, parking, bike path (not lanes) and sidewalk, reading from centre of road - left to right.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 194

Too high Public Transportation Systems will not be flexible enough to achieve 42%. Walking and cycling not conducive to large section of the population.

Too high

Recent studies show car use is increasing everywhere (includes CRD) - A recent Vancouver study found all the alternative transportation initiatives of the past several decades have had no impact on car use - the current system and our weather has made car dependency a necessity. There are many reasons people (and Politicians and CRD Board members) are dependent on car use however, I do not see them referred to much.

Too high Ridiculously high, is the CRD going to ban cars? There will not be enough buses, nor a wasteful lrt system, pie in the sky and far too expensive for small town Victoria, unless we have massive cuts in the number of government workers.

Too high The city is not big enough for a comprehensive system that will deter cars. This is getting ahead of ourselves, we are not Vancouver.

Too high

The costs will be prohibitive - already 10's of millions $ have been spent on cycling paths and trails, even under the mask of "traffic calming". There has not been any substantive change in the number of people cycling to work. The Cycling Coalition insisted on removing the rail bridge so they could have 3 dedicated bike lanes on the new bridge - which effectively ensured the rail system will never become a possibility for mass transit. Removing traffic lanes and dedicating to the bus system hasn't helped Vancouver's transit system so I can't see any likelihood it will do any better here.

Too high The CRD cannot control this.

Too high

The CRD has not shown a great grasp of the realities of transit or cycling improvements recently. (Pandora bike lane - not at all a safe route for bikes, would have made much more impact built beyond the marked parking spaces like in many other bike friendly cities.) The only reason I vote this as too high is because I don't believe current planning has the chops to do the work. Would require looking out to other resources to move more single car drivers to bus / bike / etc.

Too high

The goal is heading in the right direction but the proposed policies and services will not be enough to increase walking cycling and transit to 42% when so much money is pumped into roads, cars, fuel. There needs to be a drastic change from fossil fuels to renewable energy along with a huge push and decentives to get people out of their cars.

Too high

The transit system would have to be vastly improved. Our bus service in East Sooke will probably be discontinued due to lack of use. Not enough people to sustain it and with an almost 'no growth' policy it isn't surprising. The majority of the population of the area is an ageing one so cycling and walking are really not an option.

Too high

These targets are way out of line with the reality for many people in the region. Transit is not and will not be an effective option for all but a few trips, and "active" transportation is seriously biased towards the young and the fit. Many many people in our region have mobility or other health challenges that make riding a bicycle or walking painful or impossible, and yet these peoples are otherwise vibrant individuals able to make a meaningful contribution to our social, economic and cultural life. Taking away their ability to use a car is now only cruel to them as an individual, but damages and deprives our collective well-being as a region. As such, it represents tyranny of the special interests of quite a small minority of our population to the significant detriment of us all.

Too high This area is seeing a larger population of seniors who are reluctant to let go if their vehicles - for mobility reason. To simply create more walking paths when we have the rain fall we have will see unused space. 42% is unrealistic.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 195

Too high

This is a lazy target which tempts us to dream our way to GHG targets. The likelihood is very small that we will jump from our current percentages of biking, for instance, from 3% to 15%. The ONLY North American city with 15% now is Davis, California. Davis is flat, hot, dry and young. Victoria is no Davis, even with millions in future biking infrastructure improvements. Langford will never be closer to Downtown Victoria. Likewise for the walking and transit goals. Since the RSS's ZEV targets used these high estimates for percentage of biking, walking and transit, the urgency of meeting the EV targets is only greater because these other areas will likely fall short. The only viable means to reduce emissions remaining in transportation is even more EVs. Every EV represents a family which has slashed over half their GHGs. If it rains, if you are old, if you drive kids to school the RSS cannot rely on your becoming a climate action champion to meet its goals. We need the masses, not just the zealots to change their emissions patterns. Give the masses the tools by putting out the welcome mat for Evs.

Too high This is difficult to achieve for rural areas, maybe OK for the core but not that good for rural.

Too high This number is an insane pipe dream.

Too high

Transit is paid for by car commuter and taxes, who going to cover the expense if 40 percent of people are on transit, what the cost to business that cars support cycling true welfare people of transportation high demand no means to collect revenue your plan is spend good portion of tax money supporting 1910 system of transportation.... Money could go towards supporting the homeless example new designated lane for buses and bikes in Victoria saves people five minutes a day what could the money have done for the homeless.

Too high Unrealistic (walking? carrying...? for an aging population?). Demonizes the car, which we will continue to need. Too much intrusive social engineering.

Too high Unrealistic given most good employment in the area is some kind of public sector job and most of those are in the core area. Most growth is occurring outside the core.

Too high

Unrealistic, few drivers, car/vehicle owners will co-operate as the price of gas is reduced. Most are fed-up with the continual hit on their pocket for more and more money for transportation. If you want the service, then the user should pay. Or, make the complete transportation system FREE and then have everyone pay the share, a percentage based on the population from the census.

Too high

Unrealistic. Unless the CRD is able to assist weaning the population off the car via - certain cash incentives - lower speed limits - restrict travel by certain cars to certain days (as is done in some cities primarily for pollution reasons) - Encourage some of the big box stores, such as Costco, to build closer to where people live. - Encourage and support cost effective delivery service. – etc.

Too high Very high given the number of people that will require a car. no overall strategy to service some key corridors whether transit of by bike lanes.

Too high

Victoria is mainly a retirement city. Although some seniors like to walk or cycle for pleasure they are not doing it to get to doctor's appointment, grocery shopping, or other household shopping. Transit only works if you're going to and from work or university and even then you're left behind on the busy routes.

Too high Walking, cycling, and transit are all slower than driving. This doesn't seem practical.

Too high Where is the funding to come from ? How can you be so precise at 42%? Seems more like a board game score!

Too high Will the CRD consider light rapid transit as a viable option in support of reaching its transit target? If not, the transportation mode shift target is too high for the CRD.

Too high You would first off have to explain the rules of the Road to the Cyclists But that would take too long.

Too low 50%.

Too low 50%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 196

Too low 60%.

Too low 75%.

Too low This is a modest target in a region that is flat, compact and snow-free - As a point of comparison, Copenhagen has 44% mode share JUST for bikes - We need more action not just long range targets.

Too low I hope the choice selected was taken in the correct sense.) Item 3.1: The statement, “transit produces few." is hardly correct, we would venture to say. We have followed buses and have seen the clouds of black smoke emanating from the exhaust pipe.

Too low Get on with light rail to Saanich, Westshore and over the Malahat. WE DO NOT NEED AN INTERCHANGE AT MACKENZIE AND PAT BAY. That will NOT solve the commuter traffic problem.

Too low 3/4 of all trips should be by walking, cycling and transit, with a substantial share by walking or cycling for improved community health.

Too low 42 percent or better would be acceptable - allow for unforeseen improvements in the future which make the 42 percent seem low or restrictive.

Too low 42% is a good start, but we need to change more drastically if we are going to keep up with the internationally recommended targets for decreasing our carbon footprint.

Too low 42% use of public transportation is too low for the dramatic ghg emission drop targets that are listed.

Too low 50% of all trips should be made by alternative transportation.

Too low

50% would be a better target, but how this can be achieved when new developments are constantly occurring outside the core is beyond me. When you develop densely populated subdivisions in areas outside the core, people will use cars to get from A to B. It doesn't matter if there is a community bus or express bus that comes here and there, people don't use them to commute into town unless they have to because you can expect anywhere between 1 to 2 hour commute (one way).

Too low 58% of trips by car is too high and not necessary.

Too low A bold and courageous target. Good luck!

Too low Add a percentage for zero emission vehicle driving.

Too low Again, aim higher 75. If the other targets are to mean anything - they should lead to a reduction of car usage.

Too low

Again, funding needs to come from other levels of government for major infrastructure projects like transit, but I think this could be more ambitious, especially in relation to lower hanging fruit like cycling and walking goals. Also, a series of interim targets would make this seem more like a goal we want to achieve, tracking progress as we go, and adjusting our policies as we get data back.

Too low

Again, I do not have the expertise to know what the mode share target ought to be, but more is better. Appropriate land use policies and programs should be implemented to re-allocate public space from private automobiles to other modes or uses. Those wishing to use private automobiles should bear the cost of that choice and not be given priority parking, drop off, etc. areas relative to other modes. For example, bus passengers could have sheltered pick up and drop off locations at main entrances rather than out in the rain, beside a busy road after walking through a parking lot.

Too low Again, I think we could do better.

Too low Again, we have to be aggressive. Reward the pedestrian, reward the transit users.

Too low Again, will need to be higher to reach GHG targets.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 197

Too low Again: sustainable traffic is key to a sustainable region. I think more effort should be put in 'active traffic'

Too low AIM HIGH - 75% (Dream big; Start Small; Begin NOW).

Too low Aim high - we need a massive shift.

Too low Aim higher and see what happens. the growth will exceed what you plan for too quickly. don't want to be playing catch up all the time.

Too low Aim higher, promote more opportunities.

Too low Although I require a car for my work, most people don't and could be using transit, cycling, walking. This would need a better transit system.

Too low As a society we are far too car dependent.

Too low As far as I am concerned but perhaps more realistic than I would hope the transit shift factor might be.

Too low As long as people view cars as an item to show off, including piece of pride and ownership, people will choose to use them over walking or other transit.

Too low As per previous answer to Part 1 it's necessary to immediately lower GHG emissions to keep within a 2 degree C. rise in global temperature.

Too low

As stated earlier, if the GHG and other sustainability targets are to be meaningful, and quality of life improved, mode share for sustainable transport options needs to be much, much higher. 70% of all rips made by walking, cycling and transit would be a good target. And realistically, given demographic trends and goals for complete, compact, walkable communities, such a target shouldn't be out of reach over 25 years.

Too low As transportation is the largest contributor towards GHG emissions in the CRD, we need to aggressively move to walking , cycling and transit. Suggested target of 70%.

Too low Be innovative like Metajjin Columbia, we could have gondolas and escalators to move people around, we are stuck in the same paradigms of discussion and need to be more imaginative from our partners around the globe.

Too low Be more specific about targets. Theoretically one can walk or bike anywhere. The issue should be framed to address transit or making the region more walking or biking friendly.

Too low

Bicycles are great and the more people use them rather than cars the more enjoyable it is for everyone. They have the capability to make people happier, more physically fit and less stressed, but only with proper infrastructure and education. Not to go on and on about them but bicycles really do have one of the biggest potentials to transform urban environments for the better. The more encouraged they are the better.

Too low

But, without a major overhaul to the transit system to the outlying areas, there is no way that I think even this target is achievable. Living on the peninsula - if I choose to go into town during the middle of the day, it would take me about an hour on my bike and at least an hour to walk and take transit to downtown.

Too low By 2038?

Too low By when?

Too low Car sharing should be mentioned as a strategy.

Too low

Cars are killing the planet. This target is too low. Victoria's climate and topography are ideal for bikes and pedestrians, and with a strong and unwavering commitment to contain urban growth within the growth containment area, well-serviced by bus and light rapid rail (including, for God's sake, a rail line over Fortin's Folly Bridge), we can increase the number of trips to well above 42%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 198

Too low Climate change is too pressing not to strive for a higher percentage of people choosing low emission options.

Too low Considering that I think the GHG targets are too low I think this target would have to be in excess of 50%.

Too low Creating supplementary transit Smaller vehicles, more frequently, could provide more jobs, use less fuel and give us up to 50% of our target.

Too low Dream ON.

Too low Encourage more awareness of transit, walking, cycling use.

Too low Far too low for reaching aggressive ghg targets when transportation is where most of our emissions come from. This target says "in 23 years we will still be a car based region". Is that what we want?

Too low For a 25 year target this is too low. We should also have targets for increasing multi-mode transport e.g. to aim for 80% of trips out of Metchosin to involve transit/bike as well as car.

Too low Get people out of the green house cars.

Too low Given our population growth, the percentage should be higher.

Too low Given that you have a quarter of a century to achieve this, I think the target should be at least 50% with the emphasis on an effective public transportation system.

Too low Given the proportion of seniors relative to other age groups, a 58% drive mode share is still too high.

Too low

Hey, targets mean we can afford to be bold - we may not meet the targets, but at least we're challenging ourselves. Let's get this target up into the 90%, and envision retro-fitting our current sprawl within the urban containment boundary to achieve dense, high quality settlement pattern that are attractive to walk, live and play in.

Too low

I agree with the following proposal: Work with municipalities and the province to provide facilities, services and programs that encourage a greater share of trips within and to Growth Centres and General Employment Lands, to be made by walking, cycling, transit, and low-to-zero-emissions and multiple- occupancy vehicles. Establish land use mixes and density thresholds that support a greater share of trips to Growth Centres and General Employment Lands to be made by walking, cycling, and transit, and low/zero emissions and multi-occupancy vehicles. Invest in transportation infrastructure and facilities that support the following travel choices to and within Growth Centres and General Employment Lands: â€¢ Walking â€¢ Cycling â€¢ Transit â€¢ Low/zero-emissions vehicles Will lead to the reducing GHG emissions; minimizing energy use for travel; reducing travel costs; supporting healthy lifestyles; supporting fair access to jobs, goods, services and amenities; and supporting the creation of accessible, Highest density mixed-use development within 400 m radius from future rapid transit station Locate over 60% of new growth (dwelling units) in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space. *Revitalization E&N railway *Separation, where possible between street and the sidewalk and between bicycle paths and the street *Re-introduction of the streetcar in Victoria *Car-Free Days so citizens of all ages can experience the community without cars. 3.1 What do you think about the transportation mode shift target? I agree with the following: BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) and BC Transit. The CRD and MoTI have worked collaboratively to prepare a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which defines the Regional Multi-Modal Network (RMN) and sets out directions to improve mobility, expand the range of accessible and affordable transportation choices, and support regional sustainability. The RSS incorporates the RMN as the backbone of the region’s transportation system and supports it with strong land use policy to focus growth along the RMN at mobility hubs I support RMN because it leads to an integration of roads with freight, transit, bicycles and pedestrians and to an evolution of liveable and vibrant communities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 199

Too low I appreciate the movement towards more sustainable transportation!

Too low I believe the greatest benefit will come from growing transit services to make them more accessible both in price and geography.

Too low I believe this needs to be a priority to achieve a higher number through enhanced infrastructure development, especially for cycling.

Too low I could not find a target date for the 42%.

Too low

I have a prosthetic leg, and have difficulty accessing the current transit system. Moreover, the only bus stops near me require me to climb a steep hill to get home. As a result a use taxis and automobiles more than I should. There might be a place for a flexible system that would allow me to access public transit at informal stops.

Too low I indicate "too low" because I'm a dreamer, and I'm not the only one :-)

Too low I live in an area where I can do all of my day to day activities independent of motor vehicles.

Too low I think a monorail system would be great for this city. Also, I am not sure why we got rid of the train up island.

Too low I think aiming for 75% isn't unreasonable.

Too low I think it’s a good target but I wonder what it would take to make it 60%. Habits don't change fast unless there is something really compelling, I wonder what that would be?

Too low I think with an aging population the focus will have to be on safe and useable transit.

Too low I want this region to be a leader in sustainable transportation. I want a higher targets within a shorter timeframe. A goal by 2038 is not going to encourage any real change.

Too low

I would be inclined to set a higher target. It would seem fitting to not expand services outward if we can accommodate more population in ward. I would also suggest that the 400 metre distance used for high density be expanded to 600 metres to aid in increasing the accommodated higher density.

Too low I would like to see light rail from the Westshore, to the ferries and from Vic West.

Too low I would like to see this higher.

Too low I would love to see a target of above 50% of all trips being made through alternative transportation.

Too low I would love to see the entire city with save, serviceable bike routes.

Too low

I'd like to see 70% of all trips made by walking, cycling and transit. I think it's achievable by creating a streamlined transportation network including busses and LRT, toll roadways and bridges, and creating legislation to limit the use of private motor vehicles. I also think creating stronger safety regulations for those who own and operate motor vehicles will also force some to choose other forms of transportation by taking old, outdated vehicles that omit higher carbon emissions off the road.

Too low I'd like to see something like 75%.

Too low I'd like to see transit increased/improved so that more than 50% of all trips be made by walking, cycling, and transit.

Too low Ideally we would use our cars to get out of town. The weather around here is ideal for having the best transportation system and the best conditions for walking and biking.

Too low If necessary put in free mass transit subsidized entirely by fuel surcharges.

Too low If population growth is partnered with job location then then a higher target for transportation could be met.

Too low If the majority of commuters use public transit, we can have a really good transit system that will benefit everyone.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 200

Too low If we are serious about this lowering of emissions we need to park our cars at least 80 % of the time.

Too low If we imagine more options and people living, working and playing in their neighbourhoods, then there is no reason why this figure isn't over 50%.

Too low

If we look to other parts of the world, we might see that a much higher percentage is not only possible, but is also desirable. I must emphasize here that citizens of this city, especially young people, would cycle and use public transport a whole lot more if the infrastructure and accessibility was there. As in, if you build more bike lanes, they WILL be utilized. I believe that a comprehensive plan for new growth to occur in walkable areas will also allow for a much higher target to be reached.

Too low If you made transit free for everyone it would increase the number of folks using it. Institute a small tax to pay for it.

Too low

I'm getting a sense of the unreality of all targets set so far. I don't think planners have a clear vision of what we must be about. We are facing a crisis that tells us we need to make very big changes if we intend to survive. Little compromises won't bring about the changes coming generations are going to need. The science must be done to persuade dreamers that we must get serious.

Too low

I'm glad this goal is included and I think it should be a central focus during implementation. Getting people out of their cars requires a critical mass of people cycling, walking, and riding transit. 42% might not be enough and is very low in comparison with many other cities internationally--if we want to be truly "bold", we should aim higher.

Too low I'm thinking the domino effect: put more into it, and get more people using it. This requires a consciousness shift, and a lot more focus on safety.

Too low Improve transit, more buses, bus lanes better connections so it is faster to take transit than drive.

Too low Improving walking, cycling and public transit helps achieve economic, social and environmental goals. Achieving these targets will require a combination of walking, cycling and public transit improvements; more efficient pricing (such as parking unbundling) and smart growth policies.

Too low

In order to meet the GHG reduction goal, the amount of trips made by active or public transport will need to be at least double of the 2001 and 2011 numbers (which seems pretty daunting given there's been little change over that 10 year period). The population using active or public transport has probably been maxed out for our current system, meaning that infrastructure will need significant upgrades. I recognize this may be politically difficult, but is necessary to achieve the emission reduction targets set out earlier.

Too low Increase the target to a minimum of 50% in the mid term and to 80 % in the long term.

Too low Increase with priorities put on more walking; more cycling and then more transit in that order. In other words spend more on walkability, then cyclability then transit.

Too low Initiate asap E&N railway between Westshore and city with regular daily trips for commuters and tourists.

Too low It should be so easy to get around without cars, and so expensive to use cars, that the percentage is well over 50%

Too low

It’s appealing and should be higher, given concerns about public health and carbon emissions. It’s hard to see it being achievable without major changes in zoning and increases in density, especially if the population continues to get older on average I'm also not optimistic that this is achievable if we don't get a significant number of "Colwood Crawl" commuters out of cars and onto high capacity transit. That may require serious movement on commuter / light rail and not wasting money on Highway 1 interchanges which enable 1 person per car commuters. So, I think the target would be higher, ideally, but am pessimistic we'll achieve it!

Too low Let's get our transit system workable and affordable.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 201

Too low Let's push this - create powerful incentives and disincentives, along with social marketing.

Too low Let’s set the national standard!!!!

Too low

Let's set the targets higher here and make the transit possibilities heavily advertised and accessible right away. We are going to have to subsidize early on the transit option and make it desirable as an option - before it becomes an option that people will naturally choose. Right now I want to take it more often but it is not convenient enough.

Too low Let's target 75%, go high or suffer the consequences. Strive for what you really want to see more and more people biking, walking or using transit!

Too low Light rail costs like a third of a sewage plant.

Too low Like to see at least 60%.

Too low LRT and / or people ferries from the West Shore plus more population density in the City core/ Saanich area should allow this % to be higher.

Too low Make it easier and safer to bike and walk - bike lanes, closer communities.

Too low Make transit free!!! We could lead the way!

Too low Man, I don't want to sound like a nag, but we really can do better. Improving our targets in one area will make achieving targets in another area easier.

Too low More - better - transit.

Too low More aggressive targets needed particularly in public transit.

Too low More and better bike lanes are needed! The CRD should look to Europe for ideas on how this can be achieved.

Too low More people need shorter commutes ideally by Bike or foot.

Too low

More public transport (rail plus bus lanes) is needed to encourage people to get out of cars if the population is going to be more concentrated...especially in an area that is so spread out and that has such beautiful natural features which must be respected. Less paving, blasting and cutting down trees would benefit the environment too.

Too low More restrictions for drivers. Promote flexibility of transit system (and back it up with a flexible transit system). Incentives for NOT driving. Other countries do it. Other countries with way worse weather do it.

Too low More restrictions on personal car usage. Make it more expensive.

Too low More transit please :)

Too low

More walking, cycling, and transit! Especially supporting people to do this to/from schools and college/universities, so that it becomes entrenched in their daily lives as they grow older. Help elderly people do this to, have places that people can walk to and do something (so that the whole purpose isn't just a walk/bike for exercise, but walking/biking is the most reasonable/natural way to do something).

Too low Most of today's Vehicles are the most wasteful method of getting anywhere.

Too low Much more than 42% of all trips should be made by walking, cycling, and transit. The target should be at least 75 %.

Too low Much of this would also depend on how much of the personal vehicle transport is with zero emissions vehicles.

Too low

Need to examine how to achieve a flexible pedestrian, cycling and public transit can be adapted to meet the expectations of folks who find a vehicle a better choice. e.g. convenience ... as a driver I can travel when and where I want without undue consideration for adverse weather conditions; easily travel with companions; carry packages, etc.

Too low Needs to be higher - the future in oil is no future worth living.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 202

Too low

Nothing but a dream since the automobile lobby is still extremely strong and businesses owners are afraid of losing business if people cannot drive cars into downtown Victoria (see current debate about closing a few blocks of Government Street to traffic during summer weekends). I'd love to see more pedestrian zones, more bike lanes (and safer bike lanes) more buses and less cars. Some European Cities are well ahead in the game of banning cars from inner cities and make the cities more enjoyable for the general public.

Too low Once again, it will take high targets to address necessary changes.

Too low Our regional transportation system needs improvement. Many areas have no transit service whatsoever. Would love to see the number of people walking increased.

Too low Perhaps the train option could be looked at for people that commute from Duncan etc.

Too low Please get that rapid transit going! Enough talking and studying has been done already.

Too low Please see other comments. In the Netherlands, thanks to excellent cycling infrastructure, 40% of all trips are made by bicycle alone. Add in walking and transit, and far more could be made by sustainable transportation options.

Too low Predicated on personal EVs rather than banning personal vehicles and providing free bus transit.

Too low Provide a more comprehensive transit system and the public will respond.

Too low Public transportation is current not available every day of holiday and evening so not a practicable recommendation.

Too low Public transportation needs to be very accessible to encourage people To use it, for instant there is no bus that goes directly to the airport.

Too low Rail connection to the western communities needs to be a priority. The line already exists. Transit in the lower mainland gets much more provincial support.

Too low Rail transit shows itself to be attractive to drivers. The service must be fast and frequent. The network must be comprehensive.

Too low Ramp up transit and introduce a free bikes system.

Too low See comments elsewhere. (I don't know if I'm using your Feedback Form as intended but it does seem very repetitive, if I am)

Too low See comments made earlier.

Too low See earlier comments.

Too low

See my comments and apps that can be used by companies to co-locate employees living closer together, according to where they live, i.e. closer to workplace 80% should be the goal, thanks to co-location, cycling, walking, and good transit system, not just bus system. Buses are very ancient forms of transit.

Too low Set the bar higher and let's see if we can do better than 42%.

Too low Set the target for the 60% range and then if you fall short by 10% or so you are still ahead of current targets....

Too low Should aim for a much higher goal than that. With efficient public transportation it is possible.

Too low Should aim for over 50%.

Too low Should be at least 50%. Possible with increased integration of these modes. Busses have major room for improvement in terms of expanding routes and increasing capacity for bicycles.

Too low Should be at least 50+%.

Too low Should be more than half!

Too low Substitute "Victoria" for "LA": http://www.thestrategycenter.org/sites/www.thestrategycenter.org/ files/imagecache/promo_image/promo/lcscwebsite1.jpg Substitute "100" for "1000": http://www.thestrategycenter.org/campaign/1000-more-buses-1000-less-police

Too low Surely the goal is a far larger percentage using public transport - what about reduced fare for all people taking the bus to and from work?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 203

Too low

Target seems low given the will of the CRD inhabitants demanding (radical) changes. What is stopping us from becoming a national or international leader in sustainable growth? Except for leadership, communication, and will? We have the technology, money, the people, and the land. Now we need policy to match those criteria!

Too low Target should be higher - min. 50%.

Too low

Target should be higher and rather than only improving walking and cycling, transit should be prioritized and vastly improved. Auto driving should be actively DIScouraged, made socially unacceptable except for people with mobility challenges. This is especially true for single passenger vehicles - make those the SLOWEST lanes possible and prioritize every other mode of transport.

Too low The best indication of future behaviour...is past behaviour. The CRD and local governments are opposed to this in practice. I don't see this changing.

Too low The easier it is to walk/bike/bus the more of us will do it. We've got to cut car trips in half in the next four or five years.

Too low The goose is an embarrassment that it stands alone.

Too low The higher the better. The greater the shift the greater the impact

Too low

The more a population gets away from single occupancy vehicles & uses other transportation option the healthier the population becomes. Decreasing the need for increased health care spending. Although not the CRD budged, but never the less comes out of everybody's pockets as taxes. less single occupancy vehicles increases the quality of life of a community.

Too low

The omission of an integrated and sustainable transportation network is surely missing in this statement. One of the reasons for the lack of improvement in the past decade is the lack of a rail based transportation network. Currently there is very limited & attractive mode choice to offer alternatives to the automobile. A 60% target is achievable.

Too low The routes to the airport and ferry docks should be scaled up to 60% of all person trips by public transit (direct routes and possibly some sort of electric light rail/ guided rubber tired train transit corridor in the median of the Pat Bay Highway.

Too low The target should be higher, although that may not be realistic.

Too low The target should exceed 50% of transportation requirements of projected population/jobs in 2038.

Too low The value of Rail Transit appears not to have been considered. The statement, "transit produces few." is hardly correct, we would venture to say. We have followed buses and have seen the clouds of black smoke emanating from the exhaust pipe.

Too low

There are many other types of sustainable transit in use in other places--we can develop more for the elderly. There is such a thing as a bike-bus! We should get creative so that getting to work/shop is convenient and social as well as clean to motivate and build it into a healthy, community building lifestyle.

Too low There could easily be a higher target for a 30 year vision.

Too low

There is little need on a daily, commuting basis to not take a form of transit or active transportation in a system where those options are made accessible and effective. The transit system must be developed to take Single Occupancy Vehicles off the roads and into buses and trains. Or better, biking/walking/other active.

Too low This figure makes sense if it involves transporting children or elderly people. Victoria core is so bikeable, I think that figure can be higher.

Too low This is an interesting metric because there's a great business opportunity to meet many of the desired outcomes expressed in the vision through this.

Too low This needs to be directly tied to GHG reductions, and should be the highest number possible. I would suggest that if we were smart in how we think through and implement our transit systems, achieving targets closer to 90% should be possible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 204

Too low This requires a major culture shift. Aim high!

Too low This should be a stretch target accompanied with a plan to get us there.

Too low This should be how the majority of trips are made. The target has to be above 50%.

Too low This should be way higher. The goal should be allow people to get through the daily lives without gas-powered cars (so huge investments should be made in transit and concentrated development in urban centres).

Too low

This target is simultaneously too low and too high. It is too low because it should be 50% at a minimum, but also should be more nuanced to capture that in some areas, this is already being achieved. I would recommend it be at least 75% for trips to and from the Centres, and 50% for all other trips.

Too low This will have to be higher if the region truly wants to reduce GHG emissions.

Too low This would be a good achievement, but we need more!

Too low

To achieve 100% GHG reduction, we need separate goals for walking, cycling and transit. Copenhagen is achieving 41% for cycling alone, for work and school trips. Holland is achieving 30% overall for all personal trips. Yes, it's flat, but electric bicycles eliminate the reality of hills. The RSS as a whole needs more oomph when it comes to pushing the limits for more walking, cycling, and use of transit, with more actions and detail.

Too low Too low I think.

Too low

Too low. For walking; 1 change zoning laws to encourage higher densities. 2 change zoning laws to allow more mixed use buildings (e.g.. light industrial) 3 change zoning laws to allow fewer car parking spots For cycling; 1 get rid of bike lanes where the bike lane is located outside parallel parked cars. 2 add more cycling lanes on streets 3 have more bicycle police , enforcing bicycling laws 4 encourage a bicycle sharing service company (like Montreal’s Bixi) For public transit; 1 build rail lines linking urban containment areas, industrial areas, hospitals, universities, ferry terminals and airports. 2 have busses servicing rail lines.

Too low Transit and parking for transit need to be improved in the rural areas so that the line of cars leaving and returning from work in the core is reduced.

Too low Transit needs major upgrading so it isn't the painful experience it is today instead of the present philosophy of making driving worse to the point that people give up on their cars.

Too low Try for 60%.

Too low

Unfortunately this and other such goal questions don't specify a timeline. This is too low for the longer timeframes because it means 58% are taking private autos. Relating this to the next question, zero emission private cars help but don't address the issue of required too much road space. There are more negatives to private autos than just emissions. They require an expensive road infrastructure. They very negatively impacts areas through which they pass (can't walk across busy streets), the generated noise impacts well beyond the street boundaries. Also there is very significant pollution on the streets that washes into our water ways. Note that the pollution of Puget Sound is from street runoff, not from sewer water!

Too low Victoria has the best year round weather in the country, there's no reason this shouldn't be higher.

Too low

Way, WAY, WAY too low!! Oh please make this much higher. Look at all the examples around the world where they have taken drastic measures and made it work. Please see my comments in the first question box "what do you think it the most important task for the CRD". As show in your GHG Emissions Sources graph, transportation is a HUGE contributor. There is less that can be done about existing building infrastructure, aside from retrofitting. And slow replacement with new infrastructure will take a long time. Transportation is the place that we can make our biggest improvement, along with the payoff of VASTLY VASTLY reducing costs to policing, medical care from collisions and unhealthy lifestyles, and road repair.

Too low We desperately need more public transit, especially from the outlying regions. And, of course, to fix the situation at MacKensie etc. Light rail? Water buses? Shared bikes? Trikes? Electric vehicle paths?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 205

Too low

We have BARELY improved since 2001 in vehicle transport - Bus use has gone DOWN as you have added more buses, what does that tell you? That we can do so much better! We need lite rail to the ferries and maybe the westshore if they insist on trying to be a community. We need separated bike lanes, we need the goose trail to be lit up at night, we need cops to be patrolling to assist people not give them tickets. Slow down traffic with more bikes. Give out free bikes, helmets, anything! Park and bike stations (instead of park and rides) so people can bike in to town part way if they want.

Too low We have the climate - and the will - to support a much higher % - 80%. Not only will this reduce fossil fuel use, it will attract young people.

Too low We have to get people out of their cars.

Too low

We have to set the bar higher on this one and ensure that we get there. We should be aiming for levels as high as the Netherlands is currently and set in place infrastructure to make that happen. Diminish all infrastructure based on cars and trucks and replace it with infrastructure that encourages walking, cycling and transit, including electrified rail.

Too low We live in one of the most mild climates in Canada, this can be higher.

Too low We need efficient transit systems that are frequent and affordable and we need to increase our bike path systems and our sidewalks.

Too low We need to aim higher, make quicker decisions & invest sooner in expanded public transit & light rail. We have been talking for decades but cannot afford to talk for another 10 years with no real action.

Too low We need to be much more assertive about this. Perhaps we use our private vehicles one or two days a week, otherwise public transit or walking/biking. That translates to approximately 30%.

Too low We need to do better.

Too low We need to focus more on on-line purchasing so as to reduce transportation needs and the complexities of retail commerce. The extra "steps" in getting goods to consumers cause most of our personal travel "needs".

Too low We need to get away from reliance on single person trips.

Too low We need to overcome our dependence on the car for short distance travel. No need to drive to the corner store etc.

Too low We need to push transit beyond the tipping point where it is the most reliable, fastest, and cheapest way to get to work, school, or appointments. Current transit system fails on the first two points.

Too low We need to see a reduction of 86 per cent reduction in trips made by single occupancy vehicles. There is no date on this promise, it's too vague.

Too low While I would like higher than 42%, I would be THRILLED if you could get to 42%. Although stats seem to show walking is up (but I’m not so sure), it is so frustrating to see lack of progress or backsliding at bicycle and transit. You folks try hard (bravo!) but we all need to try harder.

Too low Why not aim for more? It needs to happen and if the goals are high, more can be achieved.

Too low With better, safer infrastructure, many more people would choose to walk, bike, bus, ride their skateboards, roller blades, automated chairs, electric scooters, etc.

Too low

With good public transit, I bet we could hit 60%. It would need to be fast, frequent, reliable and connect with supportive options. Example: A water taxi from the Metchosin end of the Western Communities to downtown Victoria that connects with a good transit system that makes it possible for working people or students to get where they need to go without undue delay.

Too low With transportation at 50% GHG contribution, have better transit options.

Too low

Within the city, the only reason for taking a private vehicle is for the time saving due to poor schedules, awkward connections using transit. I live a bit out of the core area, and have poor bus service later in the evening, and none thru the night (after 10 or so). If I choose to visit on the other side of town, I am stuck there for the night, or need to taxi ($$), with the added inconvenience of long waits for transfer(s).

Too low Would like to see this higher, through increased densification and improved/increased transit.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 206

Too low

You are not future thinking. The future of secondary transport in the CRD is in electric bicycles and electric motorcycles. Battery technology just leaped forward. Soon most commuter bicycles will have electric hubs. Other countries already have electric motorcycles powerful enough for two passengers and for 65kph speed limits and 90 kph speeds. These are not being imported to Canada because of the gas-motorcycle lobby which is styming the import, licensing and insurance of electric motorcycles that go faster than 30kph.

Too low You don't give a date for this, so it's hard to comment, but I would say 50% would be a better aspiration goal.

Achieve a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, cycling, and transit. This target is refreshingly ambitious but achievable, especially if densification targets are achieved. The information about Active Transportation and Transit Target could include more detail. It could reference “complete streets” policies, development of more bus rapid transit services on major travel corridors, transportation demand management, parking management, and smart growth development policies as ways to achieve the target.

Again not your job. Too much social engineering and too little individual freedom. These are make work projects for a burgeoning and over-paid civil service.

Always a positive vision...but we just ride of our EN rail line...Would be interested in seeing what you mean by this... Ambitious but hopefully achievable, sooner than 2038.

Commuter cycling should be discouraged, except on designated bike trails. It is too dangerous when mixed with vehicular traffic.

I do not see this as being possible for a very long time. The region has been developed with a very car - centric development strategy. But by having work and home being close together you do reduce the length of time a person is in a car.

I have lived in this region for 17 years and the infrastructure for walking, cycling and transit has not changed much, it will take a lot of improved infrastructure to get to that target.

I have no idea how this relates to Sooke and communities to the West of Sooke. Here populations are sparse, distances are large. The profile is completely different than those of Langford, Colwood and towards Victoria. I rode my bike to work or walked to the end of the block for years. Saved me a lot of money.

I would love to make more trips by cycling or walking. Unfortunately these aren't safe modes of travel in many areas. In any one street, the sidewalks switch sides, start and stop or aren't there. Bike paths which consist of lines painted on the roads aren't safe, especially when they too start and stop, switch sides are disappear. Drainage grates which are lower than the road level, and sometimes in unavoidable places, can be dangerous to cyclists (especially children) who may not see them in time. Rather than separate targets, I'd like to see a sensible overall plan for how to a) link up existing trails to existing separated cyclist roadways (the Goose for example) b) how to link existing bike paths so they're safer and continual, c) to emphasize and widely advertise safe routes to schools to encourage more children/parents to walk or cycle and d) to concentrate walk/cycle infrastructure at shopping centers outward, so as to provide safe routes for shopping to/from home.

More elaboration of how we will meet this ambitious target is needed.

Need to make sure public transit remains viable and supports our school, working and seniors populations.

Probably OK for trips made entirely by W, C, or T, but should really try to cut way back on trips made entirely by car, and convert many of them to mixed-mode (car-transit or bike-transit). Should also encourage and give credit to trips made by low emission vehicles, whether electric, or simply very fuel efficient (e.g. replace your SUV with a Vespa).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 207

Rubbish. This is not Europe. We have large distances to cover in Canada. We need cars. We have a car culture that won't be broken by governments trying hard to make it inconvenient for the public. We don't have governments to make our lives inconvenient. Try going camping on a bus. Try going to all the untouched areas you plan on precluding from development - on a bus.

Stop the war on the car. Instead of building a useless sewage treatment plant, spend the money on a Skytrain from Victoria to Langford.

The backgrounder does not say when this target would be achieved (or aspired to); it should be time bounded. If it's way out into the future then it's too low.

This means close to half of trips are made by green means. Good.

We won't improve our air quality and reduce congestion unless we commit to bold initiatives.

3.2 Zero Emission Vehicles Target

a) What do you think about the zero emission vehicles target?

Achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles



Too high 107 16.3%

Too low 166 25.3%

TOTAL 655 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 208


About right 72% of how many vehicles?

About right About time!

About right Again - very ambitious but it would be wonderful to see.

About right Again requires serious commitment by all communities.

About right Again, by what timing?

About right Again, have a 2018 target, combined with a purchasing policy. Some vehicles not available as EV - yet - but will happen soonish.

About right Aggressive targets are required.

About right Also needs to address better public transit system which is easier to access and efficient.

About right Also work out how to just plain old drive less.

About right Although everyone’s 2nd vehicles for local errands will be electric (because range/recharge is not an issue) most families will keep a low emission diesel as a 1st for longer trips and trips with infants and soccer teams.

About right

Ambitious but able to be achieved by compact self-reliant communities. I do not see 72% of the population of the CRD switching to individually owned zero emission vehicles, as they will remain out of reach price-wise for many who would desire one but traditional vehicles will be cheaper and attainable. However, communities that band together to buy co-op vehicles and businesses could certainly move towards these zero emission vehicles and if the communities are well planned, the phased out individual use of a vehicle (many of which would not be zero emission vehicles) I think is what makes this achievable.

About right Ambitious given so many market variables. Necessary though.

About right Ambitious. I look forward to seeing a fleet of electric dump trucks!

About right Anagin, needs to be linked to budget considerations. I'd love to switch to an electric car, but cannot afford the price, so I'm stuck with finding a fuel efficient gas car. This is a good target but must be met within current existing budget limits.

About right As above.

About right As long as municipality fleet vehicles aren't replaced ahead of schedule/need - purchasing bleeding edge technology isn't cost effective, better to wait 3-4 years until prices come down (leaving more money for other priorities).

About right As long as our taxes don't go up to achieve it.

About right As the city becomes denser and public transportation increases this target will be met.

About right Be careful chasing 'zero emissions' you must look at the full cycle from wellhead to wheel. Often a seemingly green idea has many externalized environmental costs. A zero emission vehicle can be less efficient than a hydrocarbon one when the emissions are made at a coal plant.

About right

But let's go further and encourage personal zero emission vehicles. Make pedal-electric vehicles such as the Twike or Elf legal to use on the roads. Lower speed limits to accommodate these slightly slower vehicles safely. A lower speed limit will discourage urban sprawl by increasing commute times and further increase transit ridership if you allow a faster speed limit for buses. It will also reduce accidents, injuries and deaths and reduce insurance rates.

About right But not sure of the target date?

About right Buying "new" vehicles is not always the greenest solution even if they are zero emission.

About right By 2038?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 209

About right By the timeline limit we just might have the technology as it is improving all the time. Possibly by then the 'autonomous 'auto will be available and it will be electric.

About right By when? No when no target.

About right Clean power must be used to generate electricity. Avoid sprawl.

About right Consider property tax incentives to encourage ZEV ownership.

About right Cool.

About right Detailed interim goals will be necessary to meet this target.

About right Does this mean for government vehicles? Totally doable.

About right Electric cars are coming.

About right

Excellent Idea. All public vehicles should be ZEV if possible, purchased or leased through a fleet contract to assure savings for the taxpayer.. Incentives (or disincentives) need to be offered to residents to consider switching to ZEV as well, but this may be beyond the scope of the CRD to enact.

About right Excellent. But how? And will the electricity be from environmentally sound sources?

About right Expand that program by developing ZEV for community member lease/purchase opportunities with an aim of 100% ZEV use in core areas and eventually in the entire CRD region...

About right Fine for the CRD fleet, but incentives also needed for private vehicle owners.

About right Good.

About right Good luck though! Will the technology be developed to provide that high number of vehicles by 2038?

About right Good luck with this.

About right Great idea. Great target.

About right Hard to do unless vehicles manufacturers work to same goals.

About right Higher would be better - but 72 % could be realistic.

About right Highly ambitious. Let’s hope that clean power is used to generate the electricity. Above all, let’s avoid the fantasy that technological fixes will counteract the adverse consequences of avoidable sprawl (including demand for excessive transport).

About right

I applaud this, as long as it is not seen as the being equal in importance to actually reducing reliance on cars. A close friend has tried a ZEV (Leaf) as their new car and is having trouble finding enough stations (that aren't already full) in a timely manner. So increased infrastructure for this would be extremely important. (But not as important as improving public transit and cycling and walking!)

About right

I appreciate that this may be our best option for the time being, but in terms of environmental impact, electric vehicles come with their own cost. I support this target, but would love to see investment (from all levels of government) in scientific exploration of other, more sustainable forms of transportation.

About right

I do not feel that this is as important as encouraging active transport and public transit. Electric vehicles are not a viable choice for many people because of high purchase price (and few used vehicles on the market) and limited range. They are also not zero emissions, they require energy to run, they just shift the emissions elsewhere.

About right I don't feel I know enough about the full cost accounting of electric vehicles at this point. Depends on the source of electricity and BC has aging infrastructure there too.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 210

About right

I fully support the goal to achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% or MORE zero emission vehicles and to invest in supportive transportation infrastructure and facilities for ZEVs. This type of progressive, long-term thinking is needed to support a reduction in greenhouse gasses in our area. Please show positive leadership and follow through with this proposal.

About right I hope that this doesn't take the place of investing in active transportation and transit.

About right I look forward to emerging entrepreneurial opportunities in the transportation sector as part of economic development.

About right I personally don't think we should be allowed to make high emission cars when there is an alternative. Of course our communities should be moving in the right direction when it comes to its fleet.

About right

I see this possible if mandated for commercial car, van and small truck fleets operating in an urban area. Does it extend to industrial and commercial trucks too? Rural areas will have a problem with the cost of this if larger delivery and transport trucks are financially penalized as we rely on them more than a urban area.

About right I think 72% zero emission vehicles is achievable. The number of people investing in hybrid and electric vehicles is increasing exponentially.

About right I think this is a good target because it doesn't make sense to get rid of cars that are still in good working order just to get new cars that don't pollute, as the energy needed to create a new car is more.

About right I want the CRD to set an example and have bikes (including e-bikes) as part of their fleet.

About right I was able to download the Targets Backgrounder ok with this link - not sure why I couldn't on the earlier two screens of the survey... You don't define GHG in the Targets Backgrounder - does everyone know it's Green House Gas (I assume).

About right I would like to see more disincentives for vehicle driving for the public.

About right If BC hydro study proves true in the event of an earthquake, then without the Jordan River dam supplying electricity, another source needs to be implemented first if the bulk of the fleet is electric vehicles aside from hybrids.

About right If we have fewer vehicles on the roads, then this might be o.k.

About right I'm less concerned about this as many of the other negative externalities associated with an auto-centric transportation infrastructure plan would remain regardless of the emissions.

About right I'm not sure what a community vehicle fleet is. In this area there should be an emphasis on supporting these vehicles with charging stations and appropriate speed limit bylaws.

About right Incentives to purchase electric vehicles have been hugely successful.

About right Install EV chargers in accessible community locations, available to the public.

About right It is window dressing for CRD to have zero emission vehicles if the rest of society cannot.

About right Love the idea of increasing zero emissions vehicles--but wish they were more affordable for the average person!

About right LOVE THIS IDEA!

About right Lower energy cost vehicles enable energy-intensive land use and development patterns. E-bikes and cars are NOT the answer.

About right Lowering speed limits to allow nZEV's will help achieve these goals.

About right Maybe you can catch up with the many cities and areas who already have 100% of their municipal, civic and community vehicles running on alternative and zero emission vehicles.

About right More encouragement from higher levels of government would help. People in Victoria often hang on to vehicles for a very long time due to our climate not being so hard on them.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 211

About right My husband and I own one car and it's zero emission. Let's push hard on this. We'd also seriously consider an EV if a charging station was installed in our condo or close by (on Kimta Rd., Victoria waterfront).

About right No comment.

About right Not likely to be achieved, correct?

About right Not really sure.

About right Of course, always moving toward zero emissions is the goal - and for everyone - not just municipal fleets.

About right

Once again, technology is going to be a major cause/effect in this issue. New types of vehicles using minimal or no fossil fuels, new forms of energy, driverless autonomous cars, mass transit infrastructure, etc. Perhaps telecommuting and drone delivery will be the norm, or maybe we will have teleportation like Star Trek. However, in the short term it is obvious that electric or other energy method vehicles have not yet caught on here yet in a big way. For me, the major consideration is price and occasionally, range. If the prices of the vehicles drops, or subsidies were to make them comparable with similar vehicles, I would definitely consider one. However, the type of vehicle may be less critical than the amount of travel each person requires to do what is necessary. Reducing distances to get to services, work, etc., or use of internet or other technologies could lessen energy requirements. One question is if a large percentage of car users go with electric where will that additional power come from?

About right Only if Feds regulate this will it happen.

About right Only if you are doing competitive bidding process and the cost is reasonably comparable to gasoline-fueled vehicles. While the environment is a worthy cause, government has a responsibility to tax payers to be frugal with tax dollars.

About right Our society is perfectly capable of creating modes of transport that run on electricity or biodiesel so I think there ought to be a law passed that says that all new cars built MUST have zero emissions.

About right Provided the Active Transportation and Transit target is achieved.

About right See previous comments and look into cars/vehicles that use old dirty oil from restaurants in cars!

About right

See previous. Exhaust emission is only one of many problems with private vehicles. Also, thus far, it is not clear that battery vehicles are overall good for the environment due to battery construction and end of life. Also, high percentages of electric vehicles might have significant impact on our electrical grid.

About right So what!? CRD is 72% zero emission....what about the rest of the Island?

About right Something that can definitely happen since the CRD can choose what to buy with its budget. It would be a nice example.

About right Sounds aggressive now, but technology may help make this realistic in your timeframe.

About right Sounds good, but how to make this achievable.

About right Sounds good, but how to make this achievable?

About right Sounds progressive.

About right Sure whatever an electric lite rail doesn't used fossil fuel so problem solved.

About right Tesla rules! Fingers crossed this number will be much higher.

About right That would be amazing!

About right That would be incredible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 212

About right

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter understands this target as applying to municipal, private and commercial vehicles operating in the CRD area and to be a target to be achieved by 2038, on the way to possible further reductions. We support this target. It is ambitious, but achievable, and it is highly appropriate to the current situation of global climate change and the urgent need to reduce GHGs. The ultimate target should be a community vehicle fleet that has entirely or almost entirely zero emission vehicles.

About right The higher the better.

About right The Province could support this initiative with legislation like California's Zero Emission Vehicle Program. Electric cars may reduce GHG emissions, but they do nothing to address sprawl or the impacts of over-reliance on automobiles.

About right

The target is great, but the policies as proposed within the RSS will not move the region anywhere towards the zero emissions vehicle target. To achieve the target, the region would need to establish a zero emissions vehicle service that works at developing zero emissions vehicle infrastructure (e.g. electric charging stations) region wide, and incentivizing the purchase of ZEVs.

About right There are too many large and very large pick-up trucks, they are not all really necessary; they often take 2 parking places, burn 2 to 3 times the fuel. CRD and/or Cities should tax them.

About right There is a crying need for bike trails, and sidewalks in our rural area.... This will keep us healthier by facilitating increased exercise.

About right There is no date associated with this target, so it is meaningless.

About right

There is no date on this one. Money will be a big issue. I wonder what the plan is for the vehicles you give up? The problem with electric vehicles is that they don't go very far and they don't work in a power cut. I'd need more information to understand how you are going to do this and be always ready for business.

About right This is a catch 22. The batteries in these 0 emission/hybrid vehicles are highly damaging for the environment. There does need to be a requirement for acquiring sustainable vehicles.

About right This is about correct, with electrified rail cars serving the region, and electric busses serving those rail lines this should be easily achieved.

About right This is amazing.

About right This is dependent on the availability and cost of such vehicles which is difficult to predict.

About right This is going to rely on the auto makers producing vehicles that are not too expensive.

About right

This will be challenging of course. With the right campaign and incentives to force consumer decisions that support this, it will be possible. Looking forward to seeing the end target for this one. One thing I will add is: if the transit system is more effective and gets people to where they need to go, will as many people need cars, and therefore will it matter as much if such a large percentage of community vehicles 0 emission?

About right Thrillingly optimistic, but keep it.

About right Unrealistic, but good to try.

About right Utilize renewable resources for the power requirements.

About right Very challenging, but probably necessary for reducing emissions and addressing climate change.

About right

We need to get working on this right away. I would love to see Victoria Regional Transit transitioning to a fleet of electric busses within the next few years. I'm sure that by 2038, all transit busses will be rechargeable electric, but we can't afford to wait until the 2030s to start phasing out diesel fleet, we need to do it sooner than later.

About right We're headed in the right direction.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 213

About right While it is good to support zero-emissions vehicles with the right infrastructure and leadership in our public vehicle fleets, it seems to me we will realistically follow nationwide trends in this area as technology changes.

About right Would be nice, but a lot of viable transportation must be developed i.e. bike trails, LRT, etc.

About right Would love to see this realized.

About right

Yes - this is a good target - higher might be better. In accordance with this, policies might also consider community infrastructure to contribute towards local power generation in order to help achieve this target. (example: community solar farm where local government or cooperatives of individuals contribute towards the purchase of solar panels which then feed back into the grid to help power our GHG reduction initiatives by way of facilitating zero emission vehicles). I am not specifically tied to the idea of community solar farms - I'm simply trying to point out that if we are to create targets related to zero emission vehicles, we need to be mindful of front-end generation of power to facilitate use of those vehicles. Otherwise, we may be creating additional problems.

About right You should look to Norway for the incentives it offers its citizens for electric vehicles.

About right Your comments in the backgrounder are spot on - partnership with (and leadership from) other levels of government is critical to achieve this target.

Too high Where is the electrical power coming from - the green fringe is trying to block Site C? You might get 25% - which would be huge, for folks that only want to stay in the core area.

Too high

A nice fluffy target not based on a financially supportable model. The zero emission wave appears to have come and gone as people tried this option and then the reality of the limitations of these vehicles became obvious. I would also add that the current climate of low cost fuel would not help one bit to encourage people to shift to a vehicle that has much higher purchase costs to start and the issue of battery replacement down the road.

Too high Again, dream on. most of today politicians in the region will be dead or in care homes and unaccountable for this inflated voting buying ventures.

Too high As long as my taxes don't go up to pay for these expensive zero emission vehicles it's okay but I don't think it's realistic.

Too high Because of use of rare metals and/or gas fired turbines to generate electricity these vehicles may not be any more sustainable and environmental friendly than a well-tuned combustion engine.

Too high

Car manufacturers have emission regulations already. But not for older vehicles. Is CRD going to tell me what kind of car I can drive? I don't think so. And if the 13 municipalities think they are going to achieve this target by refitting or replacing municipal vehicles, who is going to pay for this? You guessed it, taxpayer. Does not exactly fall into reduce poverty component of the plan.

Too high Constant upgrading of vehicles to meet standards is financially irresponsible. Fine if no extra costs.

Too high Cost and desire of consumers to move this way will not support these goals.

Too high Cost is a big factor here. Zero emissions vehicles are more costly to run and own, taking all factors into the balance sheet.

Too high Cost to taxpayer isn't explained each target need a projected cost to AVERAGE TAXPAYER Blue bridge ask yourself if Victoria put forward the true cost would the taxpayer allowed the bridge project don't hide the cost.

Too high Discourage single occupancy vehicles of all types. They ruin the street for pedestrians.

Too high Do it if it is cost effective on its own. Don't legislate higher costs for the CRD. GHG is global problem. The solution should be global (at least federal) and should make it cost effective to reduce GHG.

Too high Does this make sense with respect to cost effectiveness?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 214

Too high Don’t think Nat. gas & electric cars & trucks will be able to do it all.

Too high Electric cars are far too expensive and impractical, a VERY POOR USE OF MONEY. Plus, electric cars cause far more pollution and produce dangerous byproducts during manufacture, but since that happens in China, that makes it okay for our local leftwing governments, right?

Too high Even an electric car requires energy. If that energy is produced by a coal fired plant, it actually produces more carbon than a gas powered vehicle.

Too high Get in touch with reality. Unless there are major breakthroughs in battery technology accompanied by cheaper ownership costs not going to happen. Where is this power coming from? Site C? Not if the special interest groups have their way.

Too high Good luck.

Too high How are people going to afford the brand new vehicles to achieve this??

Too high I already commented on this previously. Ridiculous. The regional district transportation system needs significant improvements before this conversation can begin. There isn't enough money in family households to make this change.

Too high I do not believe this is possible,, in addition the goal does not explain where the energy for the ZEVs is to come from, are we in CRD to be more sustainable at cost of power generation elsewhere?

Too high I do not perceive the CRD as a major vehicular emission source. Again, this smacks of trendiness, not practicality. In addition, regular vehicles are becoming progressively more fuel efficient and less emissive.

Too high

I resist this goal because I don't want to encourage a "solution" by replacing gasoline private vehicles with ZEVs. I don't want the environ/social cost to build all those ZEVs or the road paving costs to operate them. I don't want the social isolation from driving them. ZEVs for public transit and for commercial/govt fleet vehicles are good. slow changeover of private vehicles is good. but the better answer is environment with less incentive for private vehicles however they are fueled.

Too high I suggest 50%.

Too high I think reduced emissions and hybrids are just fine. If transit is improved there will be fewer cars anyways. Should just happen naturally.

Too high I think that you are aiming too high - very hard for people who have low income.

Too high

If I am reading this correctly, the CRD is looking to have the city's population be driving zero emission vehicles. In the Targets Backgrounder it states, "Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government." To place the target as high as 72%, while there are boundless factors that are outside of the municipal government's control, this goal seems near impossible, and unnecessarily high.

Too high

I'm not convinced this target is possible or sensible. If these would be mostly electric cars can BC Hydro support this additional power requirements assuming CRD and other regional districts would significantly increase use of electric cars. Maybe I could be convinced but first strongly support a variety of ways for people to reduce the number of trips they make (like buying everything you need the first time you go out each week and job swapping and strongly increase use of transit/cycling as promoted above and strongly increase carpooling.

Too high I'm skeptical that the electric car technology will develop fast enough. Put some of the effort into 'fuel efficient' rather than 'zero emission'.

Too high

In general, I support the objective. However, as noted in the main document, most factors are beyond local government control. I would support the change to ZEV for the CRD fleet, and investments in the infrastructure to support consumer car choice, but believe a lower target ensures we match expenditures in infrastructure with the changes in consumer behaviour.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 215

Too high

Is this for private vehicles or municipally owned? I already have an electric cycle, but cannot consider an electric auto because of the high cost, and I suspect many people feel the same. There is also the consideration that most people need their only vehicle to fill many roles, including long distance travel, which few currently available electrics can conveniently handle. Municipal vehicle could all go clean; they are usually limited to short daily drives, and could be charged easily, perhaps multiple times each day when they return to base. Units like garbage trucks could be equipped with engines running on natural gas to reduce particulate emissions (dump gas??).

Too high

It is unrealistic to expect the community to make major capital investments in order to hit the CRDs emission targets. There is also the embedded environmental impact of existing vehicles. Shifting targets to put excessive pressure on citizens with an RSS is unreasonable. Unless carbon neutral fuel switching is an option and can be incentivized by some level of government.

Too high Just get brand new electric cars that use Hydro to get power. Very environment you hypocrite clowns.

Too high Many people won't be willing to give up their gas and diesel powered cars, I think.

Too high Maybe 50% the cost of zero emission vehicles is still high and their usage is suitable for only certain functions.

Too high Most zero emission vehicles available are not trucks, maintenance vehicles, which should make up the majority of a community fleet.


Too high Must have a date to know if this is reasonable.

Too high Need to educate 'adults' who equate freedom and success with ability to drive their cars anywhere, anytime.

Too high Never going to happen. You have to be open to new generations of hybrid, diesel, high efficiency vehicles.

Too high Not costwise attainable without big tax increases to support the higher total operating cost and faster depreciation of these vehicles.

Too high Not everyone can afford to be clean/green Unless there are substantial government incentives to do so...Electric car purchase is a great example. Make it easy for people to transition to electric despite cheaper options (such as gasoline).

Too high Once again, economics come into play. There are many lifestyles out there that would not be able to conform to these targets.

Too high

Over the period of this strategy, the aim should be 100%. Acknowledge technological advances that may make this higher objective possible. A significant increase in charging stations will be required. Investment in other infrastructure will be needed as well. Make the inclusion of charging stations in parking lots mandatory.

Too high Place less stress on decreasing the emphasis on cars/vehicles and increase the emphasis on making trips either unnecessary, or transit-enabled through land-use and transit improvements.

Too high

Recent UN studies and a Canadian study found an exceptionally high % of car pollution emissions were ingested when sitting at traffic control devices - The CRD population targets are suggesting much more of these lethal pollution bottlenecks. Much of Victoria and other CRD municipalities are one lane, each way road systems - this must be changed "First" prior to these densification objectives.

Too high Reliant on technology improvements for this one. Do we know technology is going to improve enough to change the market this much?

Too high Replace as needed don't get rid of functioning vehicles to fit your utopia.

Too high See comments above - stop all the flying around the country/globe and staying in expensive hotels, meal allowances etc. - that would decrease greenhouse gases faster than buying expensive zero emission vehicles.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 216

Too high See my previous comment about zero emission vehicles. Might be better to do a study about pedestrians going on the ‘don't walk’ forcing cars to take longer to turn left or right at a controlled intersection. Must add up over time.

Too high So much of the ability to meet this target is outside of the control of the CRD, it doesn't seem to be reasonable to expect to achieve this target. If the target is achievable (because the other factors line up) then an even higher target could likely also be met.

Too high The cost of zero emissions would increase the cost to users. Unless you charge the drivers by taxing parking spots it costs too much.


Too high The CRD has no control over this issue.

Too high The key will be having appropriate incentives in place for consumers in switching to zero-emission vehicles; otherwise, this target is too high.

Too high

The vision of having everyone turn to using ZEVs is a rather lofty one. The goal would seem to say that people *must* change over to ZEVs; far better to offer the carrot of Zero Emission rail transit and, yes, electric trolley buses, too. Exhibit A.7 is a rather dismal report on transit use. It also shows that people are not tending to use BC Transit's buses. The CRD should be looking at the success of electric rail transit and discovering that *rail* transit actually will attract non-transit users; i.e., automobile drivers. This also seems to anticipate that more people will 'move over' to walking and cycling. People who are incapacitated in some way, or are elderly and simply not able to walk or cycle, need more and better transit available.

Too high

There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Even a solar powered vehicle would need a huge array of solar cells whose manufacture would have contributed significantly to atmospheric CO2. With electric vehicles the electricity has to be generated somewhere. The Site C dam? BC is somewhat lucky in this regard, although there are environmental and atmospheric pollution concerns associated with the construction and operation of such a huge project. In Alberta if you had an electric car you would essentially be running it on coal.

Too high This high of a target will make it difficult for some municipalities to afford a complete change over.

Too high This is a red herring. I'm all for sustainability, but don't waste extra time and focus on drops in the bucket like the government vehicle fleet.

Too high

This is a ridiculous, "feel good" measure that shows what happens when politicians get to spend Other People's Money without regard for fiscal responsibility. Example: Nissan Leaf sells for around $35,000. A close equivalent is the Nissan Versa, which sells for around $18,000. Add in a few thousand for the charger, and the Leaf is a $20,000 premium. Unless someone can prove that the NPV of that $20,000 is positive over the life of the vehicle, which I doubt, it's a foolish investment - see comment above about Other People's Money. Besides, electric vehicles don't eliminate carbon emissions - they DISPLACE them. Given that climate change may result in shortages of snowpack for Hydro power, the charging power may well come from fossil fuel plants.

Too high This is just stupid.

Too high

Too high, unless - The vision of having everyone turn to using ZEVs is a rather lofty one and is likely to be seen as "big brother telling us what to do". The goal would seem to say that people *must* change over to ZEVs. It would be far better to offer the carrot of Zero Emission rail transit and, yes, electric trolley buses, too. Exhibit A.7 is a rather dismal report on transit use. It also shows that people are not tending to use BC Transit's buses. The CRD should be looking at the success of electric rail transit and discovering that *rail* transit actually will attract non-transit users; i.e., automobile drivers. This also seems to anticipate that more people will 'move over' to walking and cycling. People who are incapacitated in some way, or are elderly and simply not able to walk or cycle, need more and better transit available.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 217

Too high Too idealistic!! Zero emission cars are very expensive thus limiting those who cannot afford one or shame them because of it.

Too high Too many targets, none of them will be met so why make them.

Too high Too soon...too costly.

Too high Unless you are going to buy us all new cars. I drive a hybrid and I paid way more for it. On hind sight not the best option to conserve funds.

Too high Unrealistic for a regional government to set a target for zero emission vehicles. Focus on things you can change.

Too high We could first move to low emission cars through tax incentives that would help a lot. This would be much faster to implement. Again progressive change is much easier to implement.

Too high What is 'community'? How much?

Too high Where did you find that arbitrary number?

Too high Where does the energy to "fuel" zero emissions vehicles come from? Not from the local area but from projects like the site C dam. It has been over 50 years since Victoria's electrical needs were satisfied by generating plants like Jordan River.

Too high

Whilst we support this lofty goal we fear it is not feasible. At present EV owners experience 'range anxiety' (the loss of battery power with no ability to recharge). A fundamental shift in the market will not occur until there is adequate region wide infrastructure in place to support broader use of EV's. This infrastructure must include 600volt rapid chargers as people do not want to be tied to a 4 or 8 hour down time whilst a vehicle re-charges.

Too high Will not happen.

Too high Will there be CRD grants to purchase these vehicles? They are totally out with most people's budgets.

Too high You are depending on the car manufacturers to come up with a reasonable priced vehicle and I am sure that is not in the books in the next 25 years.

Too high 'Zero emission' is a fallacy. Current electric vehicles require exotic metals & electricity that remove the pollution to the back yards of others.

Too high Zero emission is an illusion of conservation until the technology improves and the price drops - how can 72% of people afford such vehicles?

Too high

Zero emission vehicles are an expensive and environmentally destructive boondoggle. We should focus our efforts on the goals, which are reduction of emissions related to transportation, and not on the particular technological means of achieving those goals. In a cradle to grave life cycle analysis of environmental impact, "zero emission vehicles" in fact score poorly, their low local emissions being at the expense of higher emissions elsewhere, toxic materials, reduced recycling opportunities, and imposition of severe negative externalities on other places in the world.

Too high Zero emissions are not a practical goal. Air pollution is not a relevant factor in this area.

Too low

100% of course. However, take sober notice of Ozzie Zehner's observation that an emphasis on ZEVs deceptively distracts us from ending a "productionist" ethic. The amount of carbon saved by individualized ZEVs is insignificant compared to what a free publicly run, dramatically improved bus based (not rail - too expensive) transit system provides. See "GREEN ILLUSIONS" and electric vehicles: HYDROPOWER, HYBRIDS, AND OTHER HYDRAS www.greenillusions.org/chapter-7/

Too low 100% please buy my car and give me an EV instead.

Too low 100% zero-emission vehicles.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 218

Too low 72% by 2025 would be more appropriate.

Too low 75% with a goal of 100% if possible by 2050.

Too low 80% would help to push the envelope. Targets are things you strive for - let's be bold!

Too low A date needs to be identified with the % figure. Our family now has an electric car. Within 2 years we will be 100% electric. It's easy and needs to be incentivized. the target is too low and the timeframe needs to be very short.

Too low Again, let's make our targets high enough to be viable and inspiring!

Too low Again, time lines are missing, but this should be eventually 100%.

Too low Aim higher.

Too low All community fleet vehicles should set an example of zero emissions.

Too low All new vehicles should be zero emission (though if an environmental impact analysis shows keeping old vehicles has a lesser impact than replacing them with zero emission, and that results in the 72% figure mentioned, then that's about right).

Too low all vehicles, whether zero emission or not, require infrastructure. we need to shift the priority of infrastructure growth away from vehicles, and towards public transit and cycling.

Too low Are you taking into account the emissions caused by building and disposing of these vehicles too?

Too low As noted, cars are killing the planet. This has to stop.

Too low Awesome. This is a great goal.

Too low Better to say 100% of all new vehicle purchases will be zero emission vehicles.

Too low By 2038 it should be very easy to reach a much higher (85%?) composition of zero-emission vehicles.

Too low By 2038 the technology should be such that we can achieve 100%.

Too low By 2038, this HAS to be closer to 100%. 92% would make it feasible that we reach 100% by 2040, which is our only hope of survival.

Too low

By 2038? We should reasonably be able to achieve, if not surpass this goal. London is doing really cool things with underground charging stations for their city buses that would be an awesome model to look into. Electric engines and battery storage are only getting better, and will continue to do so and drop in price over the next 25 years. We could easily shoot for 80% or higher and achieve that goal. Think of how many buses/cop cars/municipal vehicles that have been replaced since 1990...

Too low By that time, most vehicles should be zero emission, including diesel engines.

Too low Can't we do better?

Too low Change "...72% zero emission vehicles" to "...72% or better zero emission vehicles".

Too low CRD vehicles should be greenhouse free within 5 years maximum, we need leadership on this issue.

Too low For cars and light trucks, we should be aiming for 100% by 2038 (2040). Heavy duty trucks are outside the region's ability to control; likewise ferries, shipping and flying. There are NO zero-carbon solutions for these yet, So the target needs breaking down into categories.

Too low For communities the only option should be E V s Last longer, lower operating costs. With P V panel/wind turbines we make our own fuel. K I S S keep it simple.

Too low Given 23 years I would hope the CRD can transition all its vehicles to zero emission!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 219

Too low

Given that the date line is 2038 and that there is a commitment to reduce the use of fossil fuels, I think the target should be much higher I assume that a zero-emission community vehicle would be some form of public transit, and that the source of electricity would be ecologically sound renewable energy. I hope the target will also be moving away from car dependency. Roads, garages, parking lots and sprawl will increase until public transit is prioritized over the expansion of private car ownership, no matter the energy source that runs them.

Too low Go bigger!

Too low Good luck.

Too low Great target, but why not go for higher? 90%? 100%? We have the opportunity to be a role model community.

Too low Have a sooner target date provide supports for the fleet.

Too low Higher!

Too low How about 100%?

Too low How many vehicles are there? Use various taxes on the emissions to pay for 100% ZEVs.

Too low I am certainly hoping that in 25 years all or the vast majority of vehicles will have transitioned to zero emissions.

Too low I don't know many people who need community vehicles for extreme purposes that can be higher.

Too low I drive an electric car. Get with the program people. You are either part of the solution or YOU are a part of the problem.

Too low I won't complain if you do it, but the more the merrier!

Too low

I would like to see all communities / municipalities have linked connected roadways that accommodate the NZEV, so that there is the minimal ability (at least) to connect to food production or RMN hubs where a different form of transportation can be taken. CRD has a draft bylaw for NZEV - I would like a regional agreement on routes designated to allowing these by 2016. This would possible require a downgraded speed limit on these corridors to 40kmh. Connectivity is key. The additional benefit of lower speed corridors for NZEV is that it can also accommodate bike lanes more safely, and perhaps roadside trails can be designed in such a manner that they do not require the same protection measures that would be required for trails on a 60 kmh route.

Too low I'd like to think that we would have more zero emission vehicles on the road in 25 years.

Too low If we all drove electric vehicles - even trucks etc., that would be even better.

Too low

In the core of the city ICE vehicles should need a special permit, including contractor vehicles, police, (except fire and ambulance) to cross into the inner urban zone, 6 blocks by 6 blocks where only EVs, and human power should be allowed. Paid ICE parking at the perimeter could fund the transition, or motorists could get on an electric light transit at a free parking station outside the city.

Too low It would be great to up this a bit!

Too low Lead by example even if it costs.

Too low Let's aim big here--this conversation has been around for years with very little movement. Anything above 75% would be in order.

Too low Lobby the government to reinstate the rebate on electric cars. Also provide financial incentives for photovoltaic installations.

Too low LRT should be the focus, not buses and government cars.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 220

Too low Need 100%.

Too low

Need to get ahead of the crowd by working with the auto industry with regard to fuel-cell powered vehicles. About the only thing holding back the auto manufacturers is the distribution of hydrogen fuel centres. Same issue with home heating. Interestingly, a Canadian fuel cell company has been part of Japan's fuel-cell home heating experiment. Essentially, hydrogen is just like having a battery-electricity storage system, except no nasty emissions. BC Hydro and the oil companies will fight this as it will eat into their current investments with dirty and costly fossil-based energy.

Too low No date given to reach goal.

Too low No Practicable, increase working areas into neighbourhoods-offices businesses & light industrial zones. Crazy to be driving for long periods of time in our day.

Too low Regardless of my limited knowledge of availability of limited emission vehicles, I believe a target in the 90 percentile is best.

Too low Set the example by aiming for at least a 95% zero emissions vehicles target.

Too low Since I don't see a timeline for this one, why not 100% as the end goal? Or 72% by 2016?

Too low Still waiting for something?...

Too low The CRD ought to set an example by having a goal of as close to 100% of its vehicles to be "zero emissions" as is practical.

Too low The goal should be 100%. However 72% is a good start.

Too low The travel of cars is one aspect of emissions, the building and disposal of them is another high contributor to emissions. We need to have much, much less dependence on personal transportation modules, rather using walking, biking, shared transportation.

Too low The zero emissions vehicles target should be higher. With any luck, hydrocarbons will be all but obsolete by 2038. If more than a quarter of vehicles are still burning hydrocarbons, we'll probably be in big trouble.

Too low

The ZEV target attempted an objective mathematical analysis using more favorable data which indicated a drop in emissions from 2007 to 2014. However, at the recent RSS stakeholder meeting, it was stated that emissions since 2007 have actually been flat or slowly increasing. Further, the ZEV target uses overly optimistic estimated increases in the proportions of people biking, walking and using transit. If these fall short, the transportation sector will fail to meet its share of the goals unless even more vehicles are shifted to electricity.

Too low There is no such thing as zero emissions. You mean like the useless buses that Gordon C bought for the Olympics.

Too low This is a good start but encourages the continued use of the automobile mode - the automobile got us into the sprawl that we have now and this will not change if we continue to use it the same way. On the other hand, TOD along with zero emission rail & community buses can change this.

Too low This is a laudable goal.

Too low

This is a meaningless goal. Although zero emissions vehicles do not emit at the tail-pipe, they still emit elsewhere, as well as they are still vehicles that can kill or injure people riding and biking, require huge areas for parking and generally degrade the urban fabric. I would suggest removing this goal.

Too low

This target feels bogus. How can we say what future emissions should be without knowing what vehicles will be used in years to come, such as hydrogen-powered? Why shouldn't our community vehicle fleet aim for 95 percent zero emissions? And why focus only on vehicles? How about energy conservation retrofits to our public buildings?

Too low Try to aim for 100%.

Too low Until 2038? Really? Should be 100%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 221

Too low We are ready to "suffer" a transition time to a better transportation system, everywhere.

Too low We can do more in 23 years.

Too low We don't need a survey to get governments to move to higher efficiency fleets.

Too low We must eliminate internal combustion engine vehicles asap and more municipal charging stations would encourage this transition to zero-emission vehicles.

Too low We need to aim at 100%. This is the only level that is truly sustainable. All lower levels are a form of kidding ourselves.

Too low We need to aim for 100% EV. Any other goal is not good enough and creates loop-holes that will be exploited.

Too low We need to put pressure on companies to change the way the operate.

Too low We should be aiming for higher.

Too low We should be pushing hard on reducing emissions for many reasons.

Too low We should strive to increase the number to 100%.

Too low We've all got to aim at zero emissions in all that we do. Anything else is dangerous dreaming. Do the science; we cannot afford to be mistaken on this and we can't afford to listen to Pollyannas either.

Too low What is a "community" fleet? Sum of all vehicles in the Capital Region? One proposed policy to meet the goal refers to the CRD Corporate fleet, which seems utterly trivial, compared to all vehicles in the Capital Region.

Too low What is target year?

Too low When the break-through in battery technology occurs, the changes it will effect in the electric car industry will be immediate, and the switch to zero-emission vehicles will be a stampede.

Too low Why can't it be 90% or higher.....it's ZERO emissions! Should be 100%.

Too low

Why isn't the CRD promoting the use of electric scooters and bikes along bike paths United throughout the region. Also, why aren't solar panels, geothermal heating, tidal energy production, and energy recovery from sewage being implemented in the operation of civic buildings and recreational facilities. Stop wasting money by watering our parks and school yards with CRD treated drinking water.

Too low Why not 100%.

Too low Why not 100%.

Too low Why not 100%? Possibly unachievable but again, why not aim for it?

Too low Why not 100%? This is our future and our environment that we're talking about!

Too low Why not all zero emissions?

Too low Why not aspire to a fleet that, at some point, comprises 100% ze vehicles?

Too low Why stop at two thirds?????

Too low

With the almost 120% import tax on EV's and over 200 models to choose from overseas markets. Vehicles with price tags as low as 5500 before import tax that have a range of two thousand kilometers. The solution is already here. We just need the right people in government to promote electric vehicles.

Too low

With today's output of EVs, this percentage can be much higher at a reasonable cost as well as re-charging cost (i.e. PV panels, community panels, etc.) Also, reduce the fuel vehicle to a size that is more appropriate for its use; often they are way too big, F150 for a small job, can be done like in Europe with smaller vehicles smaller footprint.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 222

"Community vehicle fleet"? I don't know enough about the technology.

A waste of time and money, who really gives a damn.

Achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles This target is about right, although very ambitious.

Again, with a 25 year window for planning, who knows what will be realistic? This is why timelines for achieving goals is so important. What should we aim for by 2020?

Don't know enough to comment on this. Need to know what it would cost to achieve different percentages.

DREAM ON.

I don't think this is a wise idea. Diversification is best, as zero emission vehicles tend to cause more carbon pollution than diesel or gasoline powered vehicles. This is due to the way the electricity is produced as well as the power required to produce battery packs for the car. Hydrogen creation also takes a heck of a lot of power to produce. Please research this topic more to figure out how much energy is used to produce and over the life of the vehicle, use and maintain, a gas, diesel, and zero emissions passenger vehicle to compare what may be best for carbon reduction and general sustainability.

I don't think this should be a target at all - it could be listed as a potential scenario to achieve emissions targets, but the car is a poor choice in a region built for walking/cycling/transit - the focus, I believe, should be on designing the region to make the car obsolete. there can also be a push for zero emission vehicles to lower emissions in the near term, but this shouldn't be a long term strategy.

I think the strategy should be to replace any outdated or worn out vehicles with zero emission vehicles whenever it makes sense. Spending 3 times the cost on a zero emission Venice may not be prudent at this time but they are viable options out there now for zero or low emission vehicles.

If it is financially feasible, (not solely technologically feasible,) the market will transition that way of its own accord. Get rid of government interference in the market.

I'm concerned about this metric because I've read that many of the zero emission vehicles today cause more net pollution on the environment than the gas ones based on how they are built. This may not be applicable in BCs case but this may not be a good metric.

It's pretty high, actually, but I think we need to figure out how to do it. In so doing, let us focus on embodied energy as well as emissions and fuel efficiency.

Only if the vehicle is reliable and isn't going to cost a fortune in maintenance... or a huge bill to replace the batteries....

Perhaps the executive, management and Directors of CRD could lead by example by taking the bus to work, cycling, walking or ride sharing, as well as encourage (through funding and fun events) employees to follow their lead.

Primary transportation for most people should be electric powered transit. Too much land is consumed by the personal vehicle. What matters is not ownership of fossil fuel powered vehicles, but how much they are used.

Sure, great, though with all the CRD-works trucks I see idling around, I'd imagine you could achieve the same reductions by having them turn off their engines on their lunch break.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter understands this target as applying to municipal, private and commercial vehicles operating in the CRD area and to be a target to be achieved by 2038, on the way to possible further reductions. We support this target. It is ambitious, but achievable, and it is highly appropriate to the current situation of global climate change and the urgent need to reduce GHGs. The ultimate target should be a community vehicle fleet that has entirely or almost entirely zero emission vehicles.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 223

This has to be joke. There is no such thing if you're taking manufacturing and end of life cycles into account. And as a taxpayer, I'm not willing to spend $40K on a vehicle when you could buy two or more highly fuel efficient small vehicles for the same price. There is no global warming crisis and such vehicles are simply social vanity.

This is a very prescriptive target given the nature of the strategy. I think that translating it into a metric that indicates the actual intent of the measure would be better â€“ namely the reduction of emissions resulting from personal vehicle travel (and then having increasing EV vehicles as a tactic towards this end within the RSS). I would think such an indicator could be extrapolated from the EV target data.

This is nonsense.

Those may be zero emission vehicles but their development and manufacture are not emission-free, neither is the installation and maintenance of the surfaces on which they are driven and parked. Likewise, the production and delivery of electricity to power these cars has a carbon cost as well an environmental cost to the rivers that are dammed. What a terrible dilemma!

Very difficult to attain.

Your survey is buggy and kicked the page back to the first comment after asking about water extension beyond the core.

Zero emission vehicles are expensive at the moment. The period under discussion may yield new technologies that make this target more possible but given the income levels of the majority of people I doubt it there will be a large number of zero emission vehicles without some sort of subsidy. If you mean by 'community vehicles' buses, the perhaps that will be possible, but again - more taxes to pay for them? High fares?

Zero emissions vehicles are not carbon neutral. The energy of the materials, construction, batteries, etc. needs to be taken into consideration. E.g. What fuel is used to produce them? What mode of transport and fuel brings them to the CRD region? Are they constructed in places where emissions controls are lacking and do they contribute to pollution and global warming in a place where we conveniently do not see it? If we're going to have zero emission vehicles, let's see if we can get these other issues dealt with, too.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 224

4.0 WELLBEING

4.1 Poverty Reduction Targets

a) What do you think about the poverty reduction target?

Reduce the poverty rate by 75%



Too high 78 13.1%

Too low 176 29.6%

TOTAL 594 100.0%


About right (Well-being has a hyphen. Check Canadian OED or Canadian Press spelling.)

About right 100% would be ideal- but may not be possible given the current poverty rate and the thinking processes that encourage this in "modern society".

About right A fair, equitable, just society ... amen.

About right A great target that could be achieved.

About right Absolutely necessary.

About right Achieve this by focusing on housing first.

About right Admirable and hopefully achievable.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 225

About right Affordable housing and transportation are extremely important. In the targets backgrounder it cites National Household Survey (NHS), this is not reliable data as it is a voluntary survey. This is a problem with credibility for RSS background data.

About right Again. would be nice, but with the minimum wages at what it is and many folks out of work goes outside of the mandate of the CRD. The Provincial Government MUST plan a HUGE role in reducing the poverty level.

About right Although not generally under municipal jurisdiction, municipalities can ensure that development permits favour sustainable, low cost housing. Municipalities should also allow and encourage urban farming on private property and public spaces.

About right Although there is no jurisdiction over the economy or social programs, so how is this to be achieved?

About right An ambitious target but I support it.

About right An excellent goal - but no meat on the bones - how are you going to achieve this?

About right Bold, but absolutely necessary. Will need robust, creative policy to achieve.

About right But need more affordable housing and transit accessibility.

About right

But what do you interpret as poverty? Are the classifications fair, correct, current to today's standard of living? Do they embrace waste reduction initiatives...To explain: are people poor because of the cost of living being too high, are people poor due to over spending and consumerism, are they poor due to health issues...?etc. etc.

About right By making walking cycling and public transit more approachable, for every car a family gets rid of approximately $12000.00 / year goes into their disposable income. Thus lowering poverty rates.

About right By real gains, not just be changing the definition or threshold of poverty, and include access to healthy food and natural spaces in the estimation of what constitutes poverty.

About right CRD can't do this on own.

About right Do it sooner than 2038.

About right Does the CRd have jurisdiction over social and economic issues?

About right Excellent plan.

About right For social equality, yes. Does CRD have enough power to impact?

About right Glad this is a part of the plan.

About right Good luck with that. As history tells us, there will always be poverty.

About right Good target, but local governments lack implementation powers / funds.

About right Having a high target is good, but it seems unlikely the CRD could hit such a target.

About right House people. It's less expensive than perpetually supporting them.

About right How will that be achieved? 75% DO IT.

About right How will the CRD do this....reword somehow to say how the CRD can contribute to reducing poverty.... I wish this could be done.

About right How will this be accomplished?

About right How will this be done?

About right I am not sure this is within the power of the CRD, but supplying homes would go a long way.

About right I am not sure what the CRD can do outside of housing to further this goal- this needs serious buy-in from Provincial and Federal Government which has not happened in a long, long time.

About right I believe this needs to be more targeted towards child poverty.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 226

About right I don't believe it is possible, but good luck on that.

About right I don't feel qualified to speak to this - though believe this is a very important issue.

About right I don't know how we can do this, without more cooperation from provincial and federal governments, but I think this is a great target.

About right I laud the sentiment but fear that much of the drivers of poverty are difficult for the regional government to affect.

About right

I personally do not think this is a feasible target - I suspect that changes we have seen worldwide dictate what is to come with regard to food security, structural economic changes and such. In the 40's when my grandparents lived in View Royal (5 generations View Royal) approximately 50% of the employment on the island was dedicated to some form of agriculture. I suspect that agriculture to meet our food resiliency will require more labour, and thus some additional requirements to house and employ more people on functioning farms. I did read about the importance of building low income housing on the main RMN to ensure low costs for those whom cannot afford it, but I suspect it may also be these people that may be working on the agriculture agenda.

About right I say "about right" because this may be the most ambitious possible. Besides housing, we can reduce meaningful poverty in other ways under CRD influence. For examples, low-cost public transit, agriculture policy to encourage affordable local production.

About right I support the CRD to do what is in its power to encourage the municipalities to look at a guaranteed minimum income, this could have a huge impact for the region.

About right I'd like to see the target even higher, given the modest number of beds needed to bring down the number to zero. Tie new construction to larger kickbacks in this regard.

About right If a regional government body such as the CRD can achieve that reduction target, given limited instruments to make that happen, I will be impressed.

About right I'm glad to see that this is a strong focus.

About right Is this really something that CRD can impact or is it a provincial role?

About right It is a complex subject in the south island.

About right It will not be easy because of the climate and homeless...

About right It would be nice, but it seems optimistic.

About right It's a good start. Bring in the Housing First program to Victoria area.

About right It's time to start reducing the concentration of power in the hands of a few. This can be done through progressive taxation of corporations and individuals, and by constraining monopolies, and oligopolies wherever they occur.

About right

Let's also do a better job of getting the senior bureaucrats to stop thinking of housing affordability as detached-house-ownership affordability. Detached house ownership is the measure of a another generation. We need to focus on more pragmatic definitions of poverty and housing - and working to normalizing rental culture in Canada.

About right Lots of factors that make it difficult to say this is an appropriate target. Who knows what will be the poverty threshold in 25 years?

About right Mostly out of the purview of CRD.

About right Need to look at working poor as well as ability of fixed incomes to support seniors.

About right Not sure how CRD can help with this.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 227

About right

Not sure how to define poverty. We work in developing countries and poverty means something totally different. There will always be people who wish to be where they are in their financial status and those are very difficult to assist. There are too many opportunities in this country. By continually assisting those in need we do not encourage self-reliance but dependency as has been very clearly document with the Aid that has been provided in Africa where poverty has increased despite our foreign aid.

About right Of course I would like to see elimination of poverty or complete eradication but...75% would be an excellent starting target.

About right

Of course it is "about right", but this would require a number of strategies from social support programs to higher wages and developing our economy to training to counseling. Many of these policy choices are beyond the control of the region, but at the same time we need to move forward and not blame our own inaction on real or perceived Provincial or Federal inaction.

About right Of course this would be wonderful. It would be great to provide citizens w more information about the various strategies that would help make this a reality. Many people would love to be able to participate in helping to alleviate local poverty.

About right OMG - of course. Perhaps adopting a more living wage like what's happening in other jurisdictions - at least $15 per hour.

About right On my theme of citizenship, recipients of aid who are physically and mentally capable, should provide sweat equity to feed from the public trough.

About right Once again, Canada and BC have to help with this. A guaranteed annual income is one of the better approaches, but beyond our jurisdiction.

About right Or maybe higher. We need to be lobbying the province for a non-poverty guaranteed minimum wage.

About right

Poverty is a label given to people living under a certain income level. For some people, this is a lifestyle choice. Living under the poverty level means that I pay less taxes and it also means that I don't work for pay as much as most other people do. For those who are impoverished due to illness, they need financial support. For people like me, we want to be free to keep living the way we do by behaving frugally, reusing and repairing things and making them last. Growing and bartering for what we need.

About right Poverty is closely tied to mental health, requiring an investment in this area.

About right Poverty is reduced by having a healthy economy including mental health & drug care.

About right

Poverty targets may be feasible, but poverty is a moving target as "poverty lines" creep upward with incomes and inflation. I recognize that there are other parameters included such as housing, mental health, etc. This will require major effort and an approach which integrates many policies and service providers. Good luck.

About right Prove it. Your track record is abysmal. Implementing Agenda 21 is about eradicating the middle class. If you do that, you will have no funds for helping the poor. Stupid commies.

About right Publicizing specific strategies for citizens to support would be a great way to make this goal seem more realistic.

About right Seems optimistic but why not aim high.

About right Should try for 100%. This maybe more of a federal issue, perhaps with a guaranteed minimum income for everyone over 16.

About right

Something has to be done as right now it is a bit of a disgrace. Take a bit out of taxes as it will eventually be cheaper than cleaning up the messes caused by lousy living conditions. Hard to get people interested in the environment if they are surviving on the streets. I note Comox area(?) asked people if they would accept a small increase in taxes to help provide housing but I never heard if it had passed during the last mun. election. I would hope so as we all benefit in many ways.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 228

About right Sounds great.

About right Target is good, but I don't see any policies or actions within the strategy that will achieve the target.

About right That would be nice. How are you planning on doing that?

About right

The CRD does not influence poverty and should not be wasting money on this. Poverty reduction is the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments and their legislation. The only way the CRD can influence poverty is to reduce taxes and government red tape to encourage businesses to grow here. Don't see that mentioned anywhere.

About right The future looks bright.

About right The poor need help. Density would help to permit carless households.

About right The poverty rate is directly influenced by mental health. The Greater Victoria region has a massive mental health problem. This goal seems overly ambitious.

About right

The three things that could be done to reduce poverty the most: A massive increase in the housing stock, enough to drive the price of housing down by more than 50% over the next ten years A 20 year property tax holiday for any new housing unit constructed that is restricted to being rental for a minimum of 100 years Some way to penalize any business that pays below twice the minimum wage to employees.

About right

There are way too many people ion grossly overpaid jobs and there are even more people in grossly underpaid jobs. There is no call for this. The high income earners need to be taxed harder and more money needs to end up going into housing and programs for those that are struggling. We need to look at Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and analyze their social systems, which work, and implement those same policies here.

About right This is definitely a reasonable goal.

About right This is difficult be essential. Homelessness inhibits vibrant urban growth. Solving poverty will raise all boats.

About right This is good - but there's no mention of it in the larger document, which I found strange - as if a file got displaced.

About right This is of paramount importance and will be difficult to achieve with the present Provincial and Feral governments?

About right This is very optimistic. There is a lack of a manufacturing base in this region making it difficult to provide full employment particularly for marginalized people.

About right This is where building the green economy is key.

About right This might be difficult to achieve. Poverty depends on many different factors which are ultimately beyond the control of CRD. It seems problematic to try to focus on this area if there are other problems that CRD can actually solve.

About right This needs the collaboration of provincial and federal governments....

About right This seems to be more a problem in the provincial government realm, than CRD.

About right This will achieve the most benefit.

About right This would be an admirable achievement, if it could be done.

About right This would be wonderful but how do you plan to achieve this??

About right This would save on other services as health and policing.

About right Though I know everyone would like to see this at 100%, I think that would require a lot more than may be achievable.

About right Try to encourage more real local businesses where the money stays in town to pay better wages and longer term jobs.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 229

About right

Unfortunately, there will always be poverty, addictions, mental health issues and homelessness problems. In a civil society, minimizing these issues as much as possible is an obligation that can never be entirely fulfilled, but to reduce the need by 3/4 is a good and worthy goal. Then we can reduce the remainder by 75%, and so on, and so on...

About right Unless the CRD can provide massive affordable housing or raise wages this will be very hard to attain. If it does these things that will be great.

About right Use local labour, local shops and in a village setting.

About right We could do better, but it cost money and the population is tax averse. Could we tie tax/fee hikes to specific benefits in a clearer way? Sales tax hike linked to an LRT to Langford, say?

About right We gotta share!

About right What authority does the CRD have to achieve this? Transit and affordable housing, surely, but other jurisdictions have more influence. It's good that it's in here as a target for collaboration.

About right What's the plan for making this happen?

About right Where is the money coming from, More local volunteers organization the only practicable solution.

About right Which government agencies are going to work on this problem? As it is, they all say they will reduce poverty but it appears that nothing much has been done about it so far.

About right While noble - how does the CRD reduce poverty?

About right Wish it could be higher but this is realistic under our current economic system.

About right Would be nice, but how do you propose to do this without expanding boundaries and creating more jobs?

About right Would love for capable low-income stay-at-home moms or dads to be given the opportunity of free child care courses/first aid courses so perhaps they could look after 1 or 2 other children in their home to add to their income as well as helping working parents find affordable day-care in the area.

About right

Wow! It is difficult to deal with social equity/social justice at the local level. Perhaps the only opportunity we have is the stimulation or encouragement of affordable housing. Maybe we can do something about food distribution at the local level. We can't do much about income distribution at the local level. It’s a good and noble target. I hope we can achieve it.

Too high 75% is not a realistic target. Wholesale change in society would be needed.

Too high

75% of what? How many people? These figures need to be in the target so that people don't have to keep going back and forth between the backgrounder and the feedback form. I'm not sure the CRD has control of enough of the factors contributing to poverty to set this high a target, laudable though it is. I'd rather see something like "To substantially reduce the number of people living in poverty by approaching them as a resource, and not as a burden."

Too high 75% seems awful ambitious. How will you achieve this?

Too high

A nice dream but that is all it is. We need rent controls. I have worked with the disenfranchised for years and many of these people are very needy, others and there are a lot of them milk the system, they go to every free place there is for free food, clothing, medical etc. We need better controls on how things are dispersed so the truly needy have enough.

Too high At what cost and to average taxpayer how can you put forward a dream without looking a cost as people move east to avoid your dream the cost of dream will only go up keep it up your will only turn BC into have not province.

Too high Because there is little primary industry on south Vancouver Island, there is little chance that poverty reduction can be achieved by a largely idle population concerned with service industry type jobs.

Too high Beware of aggressive targets. Canadians are breaking records for debt load.

Too high Does not propose any specific methods to achieve this arbitrary figure.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 230

Too high

Far too ambitious, and the costs to taxpayers and businesses will be significant. "Living wage" is way over the provincial min. wage. Unless this is a provincial standard, businesses will not be able to compete / survive OR the price of goods will be difficult. That raises the cost of living, which increases the poverty level.

Too high

First find out how many of the people currently living in "poverty" are actually feeling like they can't make ends meet. Many folks in this low income bracket might be doing just fine for a variety of reasons that are worth exploring. Secondly, seriously look into the effects of and then consider reducing the high income bracket first through, for example, promoting CRA to tax them more, and encouraging those high income folks to spend more at places that hire low wage staff and encourage them to give more to reputable agencies that help low income folks. Thirdly strongly promote everyone caring for one another and helping one another more in general especially those folks people know of who might really benefit from help. Then after several years of these three things then recheck the levels of "poverty" of those who feel they are living in poverty and furthermore consider their specific employability then work towards finding work for those remaining folks, if any, who are employable and who are still really in poverty. Furthermore you have to be careful not to simply base "poverty" as having an income below a certain Canadian or Provincial average threshold just after there has been a good economic period when lots of people have been earning unusually high incomes.

Too high

From what I see, a large portion of the poverty-stricken are people who are basically unemployable at any level, mostly due to mental health or substance abuse. I do not believe it is fair or indeed possible for the productive segment to bear the burden of caring for them all for an infinite period of time. I can suggest no solution, but I don't think never-ending handouts are the way to go.

Too high Good luck.

Too high

Good luck - you cannot bring in 250,000 immigrants each year - most of which either minimum wage earners or dependents - pack them into 6 Canadian cities, not have a housing strategy, not control housing price speculation (internal and external), not have Federal or Provincial Government (who have pretty much all the money) cooperation and support and think you have the ability to reduce poverty.

Too high Government is to stuck on its own wellbeing , to worry about helping the poor.

Too high High target and not sure this can be achieved. Poverty has a lot of social causes including poor parenting, poor education, poor habits (smoking, excessive drinking etc.) and mental and psychological disorders. Cannot see how all these can be tackled at once.

Too high How is this going to be done?

Too high How on earth will the CRD, with its record of screwing up [CREST, sewage treatment, ...] even begin to achieve this? Which planet do you guys live on?

Too high I am afraid that we will not reduce the poverty rate. It is unfortunate but I do not think it can be achieved.

Too high I am not in favour of artificially reducing poverty. If some do not have the resources to live here, they should be able to move to where they can afford to live.

Too high I just don't see that being a reasonable target. If you push too hard, you'll force others into poverty paying for it.

Too high I say too high only as it is unachievable without provincial and federal intervention. Unfortunately we've been going in the wrong direction with the poverty rate for several decades. Nice thought, but Is this really an achievable goal for the CRD?

Too high I think this is a very ambitious target and I am not quite sure how you will achieve it, especially as many factors affecting poverty are controlled at the federal and provincial level.

Too high I think this is a worthy but unrealistic goal. That being said, if it is felt that this is achievable, then I'm all for it.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 231

Too high I would prefer a focus on reducing inequality rather than poverty. But realistically this is beyond the scope of regional government - reducing the IMPACT of poverty would be a more realistic goal - that would seem to be something a regional government can address.

Too high If the poverty rate were based on a specific income, it would make more sense. AS it is, a percentage means that no matter what, there will always be poverty.

Too high It would be nice to see, but how are you going to get there by shipping a lot of our jobs overseas . Start by stopping the raw log export, we need good paying mill jobs.

Too high Look if you cannot afford to live here you must move to a location that you can afford, I would love to live in Pebble Beach, but I cannot afford to live there.

Too high Much, much too high. How does the CRD plan to reduce the poverty rate????????

Too high Not achievable by municipal govt.... just rhetoric.

Too high Not economically or socially attainable. Give your head a shake!!

Too high Not in your mandate.

Too high Not realistic. In any population there is always a stubborn portion that will not work. Government debt and liabilities cannot provide for free rides in the future. Nice idea though.

Too high Not sure it's realistic unless Province raises minimum wage and more mental health/housing options are made available for low-income residents.

Too high OK, and who pays for the subsidies to these people??

Too high Outcome will Just have people with higher income on poverty level.

Too high Overall poverty reduction is not a municipal responsibility and has way too many factors involved outside of municipal controls.

Too high Poverty in the first world is a symptom of social degradation, not government inaction. Unless, tax relief and a rejuvenated emphasis on individual responsibility is the major action, then poverty will always be present and increase.

Too high

Poverty is a social ill. Too many single mothers or too many children in low income families. To reduce poverty you need to revamp the welfare system and perhaps provide free birth control. Every increase in union wages increases the cost of living which in turn increases the number of families in poverty.

Too high Poverty is not controlled through CRD mechanisms, so talking about it is a waste of energy. Without meaningful help from province and Feds nothing will happen.

Too high Poverty rate is largely based on bell curve so will always remain about the same. Invest in drug/alcohol rehab and not enabling behaviors. Fix the problem not the symptoms.

Too high Poverty reduction is important and the CRD should lobby other levels of government to encourage economically sound policies that would guarantee this target to drop by 2038.

Too high Realistically, I think a 75% reduction may not be possible but is worth striving for and working toward.

Too high Reduction by 75% is very optimistic, we feel. The Capital Region, being virtually the warmest place in Canada, is an expensive place in which to live. The statement, that this is largely outside the control of local government, is seen as true.

Too high Reduction by 75% is very optimistic, we feel. The Capital Region, being virtually the warmest place in Canada, is an expensive place in which to live. The statement, that this is largely outside the control of local government, is seen as true.

Too high Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.



1214220002-015-R-Rev0 232

Too high

The CRD has little control over many of the factors influencing poverty so I see this as 'pie in the sky' to be abandoned when the reality comes crashing down on it. Whereas trying to really tackle this complex issue is a necessary and wonderful idea. The factors under the CRD's control that influence poverty should be what has targets. Affordable land, affordable housing, local business creating jobs, affordable accessible transportation. Many of the needed support services, like social assistance, medical and dental care, rehab, employment programs are beyond the scope of the CRD. Not having local bylaws that make it illegal to camp or tent if you are homeless, to make friendly benches, not unfriendly ones, to not outlaw dumpster diving and to create and support programs to move restaurant and grocery store food nearing stale or sell-by dates, and to move the less than sellable aesthetically unwanted food to those in need of the food quickly are within the powers of the CRD and should be part of our long term plan to 2038.

Too high The CRD has no control over this issue.

Too high The Homeless keep flocking here due to our climate. Do you think that it will stop.

Too high

The poverty rate is a sliding scale very dependent on the ambient cost of living and if the greater Victoria area becomes highly successful (economically) this may create a poverty level that is near impossible to manage. I am also well aware of the lessons from history that say we cannot 'push' change on a social segment (i.e. the impoverished) - that change must come from within and become a 'pull'.

Too high

This goal is nothing more than a pipe dream. While it is of course the ideal goal, it seems exceptionally lofty to say that poverty will be reduced by a whopping 75% by 2038, especially when noting once again what is listed in the Targets Backgrounder: "Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government."

Too high This is a very challenging topic that may take baby steps at first to see what kinds of solutions work. Then go for a higher number when a proven solution is found and is working.

Too high This is beyond the control of local government. Although some small measures can be taken, this is the purview of provincial and federal governments, and should be left to them. Local government must focus on those areas within its jurisdiction.

Too high This is not an area that is within the CRD mandate. Leave this to the levels of government that have the legislated authority and responsibility to deal with this.

Too high This survey gets more ridiculous by the question. Won't even dignify it with a response.

Too high

This target should be removed from the RSS and replaced with a target that is within the jurisdiction of the CRD and member municipalities. The CRD and member municipalities have no jurisdiction over the economy and social programs, and therefore cannot have any impact in this area. Additional social sustainability targets could include access to transit, number of affordable housing units built, and walkability (scores) for neighbourhoods across the region.

Too high This will never happen without industries, which the general population votes down every time, seeming to think people can survive looking at trees.

Too high Too high given that local government cannot effectively plan for this issue.

Too high Too idealistic!! If the cost of living continues to grow at the rate it is now our poverty rate will increase rather than decrease!!!

Too high Unrealistic. I was unaware the CRD was able to do anything in this area, other than assist with social, educational, and medical facilities - all important.

Too high

Until the rest of Canada enjoys are warmer climates, the disadvantaged, with health, both physical and mental, problems will continue to come to the Island. It is great to think that everyone will be paid, a minimum wage of $25.00 per hour - which one needs, to live with children, above the poverty line - it is a pipe dream. With wages like that nobody could afford to shop, etc. in the places that offer that minimum wage - I have no answer but don't waste our money on trying to achieve the impossible - be realistic.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 233

Too high Very difficult to reduce that much, as Victoria or CRD is a desired goal, due to its climate and better survival rates in view of the higher temperatures.

Too high

Without the financial support of Provincial and Federal governments, this target is unrealistic. Local/regional taxpayers can no longer bear the burden of supporting those in poverty, or we shall become those requiring support. Our tax burdens have increased intolerably over the years to the point where, we on fixed incomes, can no longer afford them any longer, let alone see them rise again to support others, especially those who have never worked diligently and paid their taxes as we have.

Too high You can’t fix stupid, you can’t fix the poor. They choose to be poor, by laziness, and drug abuse. You can’t legislate poverty away, but you can scare away wealth, by draconian and overzealous leftwing governance.

Too low

In a perfect world, especially in an affluent area like ours, by 2038, there should be NO poverty, but that is likely just a dream. We, as a society, should, of course, strive for 100% reduction of poverty. Is 75% realistic, or a reasonable vision? Well, it depends upon how we accomplish it. More than anything, it depends upon how much the CRD can influence that statistic. Right now, it appears this province is quite content with the awful statistics we have where nearly 20% of the children in this province are living in poverty. We have political leaders who lie to us about their desire to lower those numbers, while they get worse. They play with numbers to make things look better than they are. Our minimum wage does not come close to allowing a one worker family to live on it, if their children involved. Many people work part time, and work several jobs, with no benefits. Many businesses exploit people especially big box retailers. This community has a good deal of people with mental illness, from depression to self-medication leading to addiction due in part to poor mental health services, lack of halfway houses, lack of medical services, and all of this leads to people living in poverty. Poverty reduction may be the most difficult of all the goals in this survey, because the reasons for it are so complex and varied, and it requires that our whole capitalistic system to take a good look at itself and its responsibility to society and individuals. This one is going to be a BIG job, and involve much more than the CRD can deal with on its own.

Too low 100% - there is no excuse for hungry, homeless people surrounded by all the wealth in this country.

Too low 100% there's no reason for poverty in Victoria, BC or Canada. Tax the rich.

Too low 90% better.

Too low

90%. 10% if poverty is likely very very entrenched/difficult to deal with but most of it is really simple--raise income assistance rates, raise the earnings allowance for income assistance recipients, raise the minimum wage, have all govt bodies pay living wage, build more subsidized housing and co-ops... We can afford to do this--money to low income people gets spent as soon they get it so goes right back into the economy.

Too low A silly target. The concept of poverty needs to change, so it is not a function of GDP but rather about health and happiness, concepts that are far from dependent on one’s bank account.

Too low Adequate housing needs to be a human right. It is not acceptable that anybody does not have adequate housing in as resource rich country as Canada.

Too low Advocate for a Guaranteed Basic Income, eliminate poverty.

Too low Again you are limited by old-think. The state of Utah has just proven that providing the chronically homeless with housing had a bigger effect on poverty than your 75% target.

Too low Again, the best indication of future behaviour... Governments haven't addressed poverty in the last 25 years. Why should we believe they will start now?

Too low Aim for 100% reduction of poverty. Nothing less should be acceptable.

Too low All residents' needs for food and shelter should be met, i.e. zero tolerance of homelessness.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 234

Too low As is generally accepted these days that poverty is the source of most of our other expensive to solve social problems, I think this has to be a higher target to say reducing the overall poverty level to 1% or less.

Too low As much as I would love to see this, I don't think it is attainable.

Too low As the NHS was voluntary it cannot be taken as an entirely reliable estimate of poverty levels. It tends to be low income individuals who under report under the best of circumstances.

Too low As with previous answers, if we aim higher we may achieve something. Change is slow and nowhere is it slower than in Greater Victoria.

Too low Ask Jenni Kwan's ndp party to return $6 million misappropriated from the Portland Housing Society.

Too low Be more specific about ways and means to "encourage new jobs to locate....". (I'm assuming you mean encourage businesses rather than jobs.)

Too low

Big problem. Lots of high school graduates with a minimum wage job cannot afford to rent a place. A good place to live must achieve the balance where any job should be enough to allow one to live decently. And this doesn't even touch the homelessness problem. Our society has become too materialistic and unfortunately the provincial and federal governments are encouraging that more than anything else: growth at any price, economy trumping a healthy life, too much power given to big money.

Too low But then again aim high and then figure out who's going to pay for it. Noble cause, mom and apple pie issue.

Too low By 75% by 2020; 95% by 2025.

Too low By when.

Too low Cannot be done without assistance from senior levels of government.

Too low Children and seniors need to have a minimum income security.

Too low Cooperation needed between levels of government. Be vocal on this, especially during elections for Chrissake.

Too low Eliminate poverty completely. Establish living wage.

Too low Focus on reducing the poverty rate by 100%, anything less is a failure.

Too low Get rid of poverty should be the target. Why tolerate any?

Too low Given eh Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommends a provincial reduction of 75% within a decade, why is the CRD not mirroring that target and giving itself 23 years to achieve what is being recommended to be achieved in 10 years?

Too low

Given that a large percentage of those who live on low incomes, often in poverty, are children, 75% reduction is too low. We are way behind our promises to make this happen. Another group who often suffer poverty are those with mental health issues receiving little support. Many of them use drugs and alcohol to self-medicate. The supports in place are too little and many have little long-term management components. People can change their lives but most need support to do that.

Too low However I'm not sure how CRD can achieve this.

Too low

I agree that eradication of poverty is probably not possible and that the CRD has limited policy instruments for this. But as an aspirational statement, I would like the CRD to be a place where no one suffers as a result of low income. So we also need to look at the ways low income can be offset - with affordable housing, transit and jobs.

Too low

I am going to say closer to 100%. Increasing corporate taxes and changing the federal (I know that's not a CRD responsibility) income tax rates on high earners to at least match pre 1980 rates is one of the easiest ways to kickstart this. Why couldn't the CRD do what Seattle has done and, again being a trendsetter, institute a $15.00 minimum wage?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 235

Too low I believe that the key to reducing poverty is to reduce the costs of living by providing more affordable housing in walkable and transit-friendly neighborhoods, and providing more financial and community support for people with disabilities and other special needs.

Too low I think community groups like Our Place, PEERS, and others are doing a great job to facilitate this.

Too low I think that a minimum living income for every adult in Canada would be extremely cost effective. But... is this something that the CRD has any influence or jurisdiction over?

Too low I think the target should be 100%, though the CRD can't do it by itself. We need to at least target ending child poverty, since we committed to doing so as a country 25 years ago, and its impacts are lifelong.

Too low

Ideally we should reduce the poverty rate by as much as possible, not just a limited target at whatever level. Poverty involves a combination of factors, low income relative to high costs in simple terms. Many of the targets involve practices that will raise costs in our region without raising incomes, and perhaps even suppress incomes in many cases. These policies lead to the region being even more unaffordable for all but a privileged few. That is going in the wrong direction to reduce poverty. Rampant increases in CRD charges at rates vastly higher than general inflation, apparently undertaken to accomplish social engineering goals, are a significant factor in impoverishing people in this region.

Too low If it's not 100% we're not serious about ending the system that creates both climate change and poverty, trailer: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2014/08/watch-book-trailer-changes-everything-capitalism-vs-climate.

Too low If the distance between home and work is lessened and childcare spaces created, then more parents and others can get out to work. the target needs to be at least 80%.

Too low If the poverty rate can be reduced by 75%, why not 100%? Why do we need a 3% poverty rate? What demographic would be left in poverty?

Too low If you are not a sociopath, listen to your inner philosopher's guidance on this. 75% leaves 25% in poverty. Much too high!

Too low Impossible to achieve, but your goal should be none less than 100%. Achieving 75% reduction would be admirable. Explore opportunities for non-market housing to be included with large-scale developments.

Too low

In a country of such vast wealth, the idea that some would live in poverty is unconscionable, and is reflective of political choices made in favour of economic models which sustain poverty. Zero poverty, except for those who renounce all material possessions, ought to be the goal. It is a matter of social justice.

Too low In a Utopian world...we would have no poverty...In a real world...the more given as handouts to the poor...the more poor we will acquire...

Too low In this part of the world, this first world, where taxes have been driven down to accommodate further individual, private wellbeing, any poverty is unacceptable. We have a shared responsibility to the wellbeing of all citizens.

Too low

Indigenous people and communities are the most impoverished communities, with substandard housing, poor water resources and child hunger, poverty and mortality way above the national and provincial averages. It is important to level the playing field and to have a sustained conversation and ongoing assessment on how people are doing and respond to those assessment in a timely and concerted way. Buses don't even run where the reserves are and neither does garbage and basic services we all take for granted. This has to change and is a matter of Social justice.

Too low It is not the CRD's job to reduce poverty. That is federal/provincial responsibility. Stay out of it.

Too low It is really tough living on a fixed income - that is a seniors' issue - Victoria's demographic has a high seniors' population - provide more affordable housing.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 236

Too low

It would be great to see a target of 100% to reduce poverty. Although it may not be achieved or it may take a longer period of time, but we should work towards not having anyone live in poverty. Poverty also needs to have a definition because those of us not living in poverty have way more than we need or use or should have.

Too low Let's eliminate poverty.

Too low Let's try to eliminate poverty... I know this is difficult to achieve but if we are serious about it and want to try, how about 100% so that we are committed to addressing poverty. Or, increase the percentage of people on a living wage.

Too low Low income and marginalized people need compassionate and sustained manner for all.

Too low More incentives for developers to include affordable housing in their projects.

Too low No more volunteer work!!!!! Hurrah. I get paid a living wage for removing invasive species and a wage for my food growing business. I’m all for it.

Too low No one should be living in poverty.

Too low No one should have to live in poverty in our wealthy communities.

Too low Nobody should live in poverty in this day in age. Nobody.

Too low Optimally we would be planning for no one to live in poverty, non?

Too low Outrageous there is any poverty in our enormously rich province/region. It is an utter failure of economic/social policies.

Too low Pay a living wage. Provide affordable housing.

Too low Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I would like to see no poverty in the CRD at all. I know one of the biggest problems are those living on the streets, which may not be possible to solve, but more help for single parent families could be tackled, as an example.

Too low Poverty and sustainability linked...we need a more aggressive poverty reduction plan.

Too low Poverty can be easily eliminated - just do it.

Too low Poverty is a big problem. How can we achieve a living wage for working people? I think there needs to be more shift away from volunteerism to paid work.

Too low Poverty is endemic and scandalous.

Too low Poverty is never acceptable.

Too low Poverty makes people miserable and desperate...we know this. It is time to make some changes in the welfare rates and get more affordable housing.

Too low

Poverty should be eliminated, though within the scope of what the CRD can do I can't say this is achievable. Plus with the emerging youth unemployment crisis, how will the CRD deal with an entire generation of underemployed or unemployed citizens in one of the more expensive housing markets in Canada?

Too low Poverty, particularly among the young, is more expensive in the long term than a society as rich as ours can afford.

Too low Reduce poverty 100%! It is the right of people to live in a community & environment that they can thrive in, as well as allow their families to thrive in. This will involve lobbying and enabling our residents to lobby provincial and federal governments to write policy that reduces poverty.

Too low Reduce poverty by 80% as some due to mental health etc. will always be poor in a society that does not care for them. Reduce it to 100% or totally for children.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 237

Too low

Reduce the poverty rate by 100%. Deal with the problem. Invest in the people. Distribute the wealth. There are people in this city who could end poverty overnight for the entire homeless population. Bring justice to this city, value all people, and work first to make every person is accounted for as having opportunity, support and care by the system.

Too low

Should be zero. See my first comment. Need to look at how to control excess income and wealth disparity. Fine to look to the provincial &/or federal government, but best to start locally where results will be seen locally. Campaign --- who NEEDS more than an net annual income of more than $500,000 to live on? who NEEDS more than $5 million in wealth?

Too low Should strive for 100%.

Too low Stop the gap between rich and poor from further increase.

Too low Student loans make impoverished students which leads to stress and destructive behaviour. A loan does not allow a student to live in Victoria.

Too low Support local organizations who focus on street people and poverty reduction.

Too low Tax the Corporations @ 40% like the USA. eliminate poverty.

Too low TAX THE CORPORATIONS 40%.

Too low

That said, local governments have limited means to increase incomes, which must be a critical part of the solution. Pressures for higher minimum wage, living wage, and better income supports for the disadvantaged are all needed, and local governments should put pressure on Province and Feds to provide. At the local level, there needs to be a more serious approach to ensuring that inclusivity plays a larger role in any rezoning or building permit.

Too low The aim should be to eliminate poverty altogether. Mental illness and drug abuse must be recognized as prime factors and dealt with accordingly with more resources.

Too low The cost of poverty are both direct and indirect. The indirect ones include poor health (more costs and burden on health care), social (diminished quality of life for locations where poor are forced to live or exist), and economic (costs for policing, social services, etc.).

Too low The cure for poverty is work. Let licensing and home business and community entrepreneurship be easier. (fewer fees and licenses)

Too low

The definition of poverty may well be very different 25 years from now, that should be a factor. Also we should consider that we have a quarter century to address income inequality, which is currently recognized as a major issue in our society. It's hard to believe we can't make more progress on this within your timeframe.

Too low

The goal needs to be to assure adequate housing, food and opportunity for the entire population. We need timelines. Things to do immediately: increase of availability of transit passes for all low income people; work with the Provincial Ministry of Education to assure that every child has access to extracurricular activities; align housing construction planning with the needs of the population to aim for adequate housing for everyone; prioritize community centres that are within walking distance of the majority of CRD residents; create programs that combat social isolation, especially for seniors, the disabled and the poor.

Too low

The goal should be 100 %. The best way would be through the Annual Guaranteed Income. The senior governments should be approached with this recommendation and as has been mentioned below poverty is one of the greatest determinants of health problems More and more there is recognition of the social determinants of health, poverty, and poor nutrition and environmentally induced illnesses. The RSS must address these social determinants through implementation of plan with the emphasis being placed on prevention through nutrition and life style. The RSS could lead by calling upon the government of Canada to include the rights guaranteed in the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to be enshrined in the Constitution Article 11 General comment on its implementation 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family 2. Food,


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 238

clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. General comment on its implementation 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed: On the local level, a home share/home care programme ought to be introduced. A registry can be established of community-minded homeowners, particularly seniors seeking assistance, to offer low rent in exchange for help with specific needs such as errands, cooking and gardening. Interests and abilities should be coordinated, and references required from all parties. As deteriorating apartment buildings and condos are replaced, a percentage of units should be become affordable housing. Also together against poverty has indicated that rents are rising rather than affordability of housing increasing http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-instead-of-increasing-rent-increase-affordability-1.1686958 4.2 What do you think about the core housing need target? Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels. Could this be that, if this were done, the right to affordable housing would be guaranteed within a specific period of time? The target should be that by a certain date affordable housing would be guaranteed for all. If communities move more and more away from car dependency, including car ownership which considerably reduces the amount of space available for affordable housing, the availability of affordable housing would increase considerably. While the ability to achieve this target is within the control of local government, the need for a national housing strategy linked to socially equitable and ecologically sound energy and transportation should become a federal election issue: An innovative proposal that could help more seniors remain in their homes. Home Share/Home Care would be a Registry of seniors and others in need of some form of assistance at home. They would provide background information related to their needs and their interests. Companionable tenants with harmonizing interests could live in at an affordable rent. In exchange, they could help fulfill needs related to house and garden maintenance, meal preparation, errands, etc. An affordable Housing Organization could set up to explore and help implement such an initiative. to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, women’s rights civil and political rights, indigenous rights, social and cultural rights â€“ rights to food, rights to housing, rights to safe drinking water and sewage, rights to education and rights to a universally accessible, not for profit health care system. *Increase Cooperative housing and cooperative living *The Housing First Principles Housing First is made up of five interdependent principles that require simple yet profound, transformative shifts in thinking. Each principle is explained in one of the videos. The principles are: â€¢ Immediate access to housing with no readiness conditions â€¢ Consumer choice and self-determination â€¢ Recovery orientation â€¢ Individualized and person-driven supports â€¢ Social and community integration - See more at: http://www.raincityhousing.org/hf-p-into-p/#sthash.nyIayE3C.dpuf.

Too low There is no excuse for poverty in a community like ours. Maybe 5%.

Too low There is no reason why poverty rates cannot be lowered by 100%. It is simply a matter of political will.

Too low There is very little understanding of why we have poverty. We have a class system in our society that nobody talks about. Why are we not talking about having the wealthy 1% and the corporations give up their money. There is enough for everybody and no one needs that amount of money.

Too low There needs to be more low cost housing opportunities paid through development permits.

Too low There's no reason for poverty at all. we need to tax the corporations, establish a maximum wage, implement a guaranteed livable income, and leave behind this draconian notion that it's okay to allow anyone to live in poverty while surrounded by excessive wealth.

Too low This is of primary importance.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 239

Too low

This target is not within the jurisdiction of the CRD and member municipalities, but I think it's still important to consider. Social sustainability targets could include access to transit, number of affordable housing units built (including tiny homes), access to affordable healthy food, access to social programs, and walkability (scores) for neighbourhoods across the region.

Too low

Too many people think that the shelters are doing their job in keeping the homeless and marginalized off the streets, fed, clothed, and clean. It is a myth. We need to create many new types of housing (and in various places throughout the CRD so that we don't create ghettos) to meet the diverse needs of the poor.

Too low We are rich enough to reduce poverty by 100%.

Too low We could do better than this, first by developing low cost housing, especially for the homeless. Stats prove that when they are have stable housing, they lift themselves out of poverty. Support innovative housing alternatives live living aboard ones boat.

Too low

We have lost much federal support for affordable housing, so need to innovate at the local level, as it's unconscionable to accept the growing gap between rich and poor. We can learn from The Netherlands and Scandinavia how to innovate. For example the "hard to house" can be accommodated in shelters like Cool Aid, while less challenged homeless or low income earners can find housing in two other categories of housing. (A friend has been sleeping in her vehicle for two years, rather than face worse rigours in a local shelter.) A "Home Share/Home Care" programme could enable students and low income earners or the unwaged, to live with compatible families or seniors in exchange for undertaking needed services.

Too low We have to get rid of poverty entirely and this CAN BE DONE. We need to change the mindset that says any level of poverty is acceptable.

Too low

We live in an abundant environment and region - there should be no poverty; I understand some people living in poverty are unfortunately suffering from trauma, mental conditions, etc. There should be adequate housing and support for all; for families living in poverty, children are affected, there should be more programs to support them so they grow up to be self-supporting adults and a positive force to our community; many are First Nations, this is a Federal issue I think, but the conditions are deplorable in which some of them live.

Too low

We live in the first world, poverty need not be here. At the moment our government leans to the individual - fewer taxes, more discretionary income. If we focused on our community, neighbourhood, we will contribute taxes to support all before having discretionary income for perks of travel, stuff etc.

Too low We need a fair welfare policy, a fair minimum wage, a housing policy that protects and enables the poor to build healthy lives.

Too low We need to eliminate poverty. No one in our society should be wanting for the basics of life.

Too low We need to push the provincial and federal governments to take responsibility for poverty instead of offloading it onto municipalities.

Too low We should aim for at least 90% reduction - we are an affluent society.

Too low We should be aiming for 90% by 2038, if CCPC recommend 72% within a decade.

Too low We should prioritize our spending so that there is no poverty, especially with no children living in poverty.

Too low

We waste far too much perfectly edible food. We don't spend enough time exposing bad food packed with carbs, trans-fats and other known food substitutes that make purveyors rich and recipients sick. And why should the community have to pay for the results of poisonous and illness creating food? It should be criminal.

Too low What definition of poverty is being used? The target should define a source.

Too low Why not a 100%? It can be done!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 240

Too low Why not aim for complete poverty reduction?

Too low Why not aim for more?

Too low Why not aim higher?

Too low Why not ask the 25% you’re suggesting we leave behind for their answer to this question.

Too low

Why not have a policy that provides incentives for creating jobs which is done in conjunction with the local authority, employers and the province. Support for apprentice programs in areas of employment activity that are based in and stable within the CRD. Work with directly with the employers to do this through local economic development officers, commissions and local councils.

Too low Why tolerate any poverty in one of the richest countries on the planet? While achieving this is not entirely within the scope of the CRD, let's aim to eliminate poverty.

Too low

Why would we stop at 75%? Why is it accepted to have anyone living in poverty? I think we could significantly reduce crime and save a huge amount of money if everyone had a living wage paid to them for their labours and those who can't work because of various disabilities were taken care of. We need to stop thinking that hardship is a necessary part of how we structure our community. Many cities in the US have passed bylaws that increase the minimum wage. Couldn't that be done here? People say that it just means the businesses will relocate somewhere else but I doubt that that would happen. The CRD is a very attractive place to have a business. What if we made the minimum wage in the CRD be $15/hour? Not yet a living wage - but closer. What if having a business license included a requirement to pay employees $15.00 per hour as a minimum wage?

"Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government" It looks like the strategy isn't really "poverty reduction" but provision of affordable housing. That's good. But it still leaves people in poverty. I understand that "Raise The Rates" is out of municipal / CRD control. But still, you could speak up.

"Poverty" is not just unemployment. This is a really complex issue. I was taken aback by a recent Times Colonist article about the View Towers apartment where reporting suggested being First Nations was as much a risk for poverty as being an addict or a mental health patient. Sorry I can't find the exact reference just now. But, yes, it is true. First Nations who are off reserve at risk of living in poverty. So, housing education for jobs education against prejudice and education on how to take care of yourself and your friends and families. Maybe lifestyle identifiers rather than poverty? To have a sustainable life style, maybe we all need to learn to be happy with what we need, not what we want.

Your own notes remind us that reducing poverty is not in the municipal purview. Municipal councils are not leveraging condo projects to advantage. Many owners of existing buildings see no tax advantage to building rental housing; if they leave their buildings empty, they should be heavily taxed by a municipality.

??????? How, more homeless people every day. the more we give, the more they come.

Reduce the poverty rate by 75% This target should be removed from the RSS and replaced with a target that is within the jurisdiction of the CRD and member municipalities. The CRD and member municipalities have no jurisdiction over the economy and social programs, and therefore cannot have any impact in this area. Additional social sustainability targets could include access to transit, number of affordable housing units built, and walkability (scores) for neighbourhoods across the region.

Again, other govts. Will need to be key players.

Can we explore a redefinition of poverty There are other forms of poverty other than economic.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 241

Complete crap. Not only is the poverty rate manipulated, it doesn't relate to being impoverished - it relates to having low income. Seniors in a clear title house, students, the retired - they are all low income by choice, not impoverished. Create opportunity, not dependence. Create a society that expects contributions from those who can, not a society that have a permanent number of socially dependent.

Great! How? Unless we deal with the underlying problems of over spending - collectively, to include getting a better handle on municipal unions constant increasing demands and all levels of government officials being treated like royalty, we will never achieve this target.

How are we going to achieve this? Homeless and marginalized people come to Vancouver and Victoria from the rest of the country due to the weather and the welfare system supports. The other Provinces even ship these people out to BC on buses. Please look at this carefully. I am already taxed to the hilt as are many others living in Victoria.

How can the CRD do anything about this without support from the federal government? Though I applaud the intent.

How is this within the CRD mandate?

How much of this is within CRD’s jurisdiction? Making it easier to walk and cycle? Creation of secondary housing and denser housing? Inspection of current low cost housing to insure it is really in livable condition and if it is upgraded keeping the rent affordable?

How?

I do not think this is within mandate of CRD.

I find this one hard to answer, as it depends overwhelmingly on decisions outside of CRD's control.

I have no idea what this means. I am not sure that the CRD has any control over this. Certainly encourage job growth in the region.

I think this is an important thing to do, and a valiant target to achieve. But I'm not clear how it would be done. I don't have a clear picture of this section.

I'm not sure how the CRD can achieve this. It seems this should be a Provincial and Federal target.

Impossible to do as a regional district without support from other levels of government. Why bother setting a target for something you can't effect change regarding?

In keeping with the network as infrastructure comments above, it's necessary for the social services sector to have a "digital inclusion" strategy in places that allows for a greater degree of horizontal coordination in the delivery of social services. As a community-based ISP, Victoria Free-Net Association would be an asset in the implementation of a digital inclusion strategy.

It sounds nice - haven't read the CCPA report to see what is required to achieve it. What poverty is can be a moving target and location-specific

It's a worthy objective, but .... 1) I fail to see how this is the purview of the regional government. 2) I don't believe that taxing the middle class property owners to provide social good makes any sense.

NA-- This target, which requires increases in incomes, is unachievable with powers and resources available to local government. Drop this target and focus on service provision to reduce the misery of the poor.

Need more affordable housing and transit accessibility.

No comment.

None is right. Depends on the economy at a present time.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 242

Not sure what poverty means? I know we are very low income but we don't have much debt so we manage ok. I can't give it a number. I would just like to see more min wage earners have a chance to find dwellings that are affordable and safe so that they have a chance to save money. I have always been low income, so I am aware that there are already many existing supports in place. The biggest issue is trying to get ahead (save for a down payment on a house or whatever), trying to find a safe place to live. Min wage is not so bad for all that people moan and groan about it. It’s the housing that gets ya. That and finding a decent job, wages regardless.

Not within the capacity of the CRD to manage this goal. Minimize living costs by locating low cost housing in core area not in agricultural and primarily rural areas.

Poverty is a complex issue which has been with us for centuries. The drain on the economy is significant but the drain on our moral and spiritual wellbeing is also significant. Federal, Provincial and Local governments have to work together. Training programmes, a more equitable tax system, better social services, affordable housing will be essential if poverty is to be reduced.

Reducing poverty is not a specific function of regional government. Take the cash from the proposed expenditures and spend it on something you can change. Transportation improvements and parks acquisition for example. Or to try and stop the mission creep of regional bureaucracies.

Remove from the sustainability strategy. CRD has no jurisdiction over the economy and social programs.

So many of the factors affecting poverty rates fall outside of local government control. However, I wish you well!

Sounds great but what will that take, hopefully more jobs by encouraging more industry and business, everything will follow once the money is coming in. The ferries don't exactly encourage that.

Sure would be nice but where is the land to build affordable housing and who will build it?

The CRD and member municipalities have no jurisdiction over the economy and social programs, and therefore cannot have any impact in this area. Additional social sustainability targets could include access to transit, number of affordable housing units built, and walkability (scores) for neighbourhoods across the region.

The CRD/JdF needs to clarify how they think they will reduce the poverty level with specific initiatives. Not sure that the CRD has a mandate to reduce the poverty level other than to promote increased high density townhouse, apartments in containment areas, increase access to public transportation, etc. It is not within the CRD? JdF mandate to promote development and development based job opportunities. The CRD/JdF's responsibility is to listen to its constituents and act accordingly.

The cure for poverty is a good private sector job. Stop punishing business with punitive taxes. Get out of their way and let them get on with producing real value for society.

The goal should be to eradicate poverty completely. It should not be a feature of life in a civilized community.

The RSS should refrain from targets where it has no jurisdiction to effect change.

There will always be poverty. It needs definition. I don't want you taking tax dollars to distribute to people who often have a flat screen TV, internet and a cell phone. And there are lots of 'poor people' who do. Don't use the LICO figures to define poverty. If most were earning a million dollars, those who had 'only' a hundred thousand would be defined as 'poor'. Help those incapable of helping themselves, not those unwilling to.

This is a worthwhile objective, but largely out of the Region's control.

This is not in the municipalities’ jurisdiction.

This is NOT the CRD's mandate nor does it have authority to get involved in this - appears to be motivated by urge to be politically correct and appease those who believe that throwing money at poverty will solve the problem....


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 243

This is not within CRD's jurisdiction. It can help, however, by increasing low cost housing in compact, walkable and bikeable communities where there is a mix of housing types, so as to not ghettoize the poor. Improving community centres and neighbourhood delivered services are also within CRD's mandate.

This is not within the control of local government. Not useful to have a target over which you have so little control.

This is passing the buck to senior government jurisdiction. Be specific about what can be done locally, and state the target accordingly.

This is ridiculous. Why is there ANY poverty here? Increase wages. Problem solved. Business that can't compete can go away.

This seems meaningless, though sounds good.

This survey is difficult to answer. Is this a 10 year target or target by 2038? What does 75% mean? It is essential that we build strong local economy that supports the people that live here so we reduce poverty completely which then improves every aspect of our regional life. Besides just caring for our fellow human beings reducing poverty saves money in other service areas.

This target is not within the jurisdiction of the CRD or member municipalities.

This target should be removed from the RSS and replaced with a target that is within the jurisdiction of the CRD and member municipalities. The CRD and member municipalities have no jurisdiction over the economy and social programs, and therefore cannot have any impact in this area. Additional social sustainability targets could include access to transit, number of affordable housing units built, and walkability (scores) for neighbourhoods across the region. Also should look at providing for the individual's rights to clean air, water and land.

While an admirable goal - is it within the mandate of a regional sustainability strategy?

4.2 Core Housing Need Target

a) What do you think about the core housing need target?

Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 244



Too high 41 7.0%

Too low 230 39.5%

TOTAL 583 100.0%


About right A complex problem with many variables and virtually no constants. Federal and provincial funding opportunities need to be maximized. New ideas petitioned.

About right About right, maybe. Who are we leaving out? For those left out, the target is too low.

About right As long as 'housing' is not interpreted to mean 'single family dwellings'.

About right Better said than done.

About right Blah, blah, blah...

About right Cannot be done without province and Feds....be sure to include need for advocacy and negotiation to make this happen. Local govt cannot carry this burden.

About right Developers need incentives to build affordable rental accommodation or perhaps disincentives to build yet more luxury condos.


About right Focus on transit and zoning to increase residential density near transit.

About right Government service delivery agencies must be monitored closely and audited regularly to ensure that they don't become part of the "over-concentration of power" problem.

About right I am not clear what this target means or what it is talking about (even after reading the backgrounder).

About right I am not informed enough about this to comment.

About right I am not sure what affordable housing means. Affordable by whom. It is also germane that cheaper housing in outlying regions may not help because of concomitant transportation costs.

About right I do not have an opinion of this question.

About right I don't feel qualified to answer this.

About right I don't know what that means.

About right I don't really understand what "core housing need" means, but I am all for affordable housing.

About right I really can't comment on the core housing needs - something I don't know about.

About right I said "about right" but I don't really understand what you're getting at here...

About right I think this is a reasonable target. There is only so much the municipality can do to address core housing needs, as again, much of this is controlled provincially and federally.

About right I'd like to see an emphasis on higher density housing everywhere. I think everyone needs to learn from Langford's shocking failure. This is not what we want our CRD to look like.

About right

If we go UP and if the density is higher .3 km along major transportation corridors, if developers pay the extra developer cost charges (regionally applied) fees towards rapid transit, if the CRD invests in parks / green space / recreation /schools to accommodate the growth.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 245

About right Just because households can "afford" housing doesn't mean it should be as expensive as it is.

About right Land prices are a driving factor in high housing costs.

About right Maybe a bit higher like 28-30%.

About right

Native housing in this area is very poor, and I don't know how easy it is to get passed all of the Federal Government issues to start a good cooperation within our own community to rectify this. It seems that reasonably priced housing that is for rent is difficult to find and not being built. Most new developments are described as "luxury". I am waiting to see a development that states that it is solid and basic.

About right

Nice goal - but it is motherhood - no practical suggestions, especially if you are limiting the land available for housing. Look at Metchosin with its "rural" policy - housing is now so expensive that their children must move out of Metchosin and look for affordable housing in Langford.


About right Not sure.

About right Not sure that this can be a regional/municipal issue.

About right Oh, at least by 25%. We require MASSIVE shifts in providing affordable housing. There are so many options.

About right Once again, it would be nice to have a bigger reduction but maybe this is what's doable.

About right Please be more specific about how these targets are to be met-- pretty slim pickings on details.

About right Poor sentence. Once again this is beyond the scope of the CRD.

About right Promote housing options beyond the traditional "own or rent" model, including cooperative housing and co-housing.

About right See answer above.

About right Sounds great.

About right The BC housing industry needs to start building more row-houses and investigate freehold row house tenure like in Ontario.

About right The bulk of Canadian debt is tied in real estate. Markets are due to correct imbalances.

About right The CRD has no influence on core housing needs and should not be wasting money on this. Housing is a municipal/provincial/federal government initiative and the CRD has no place in it.

About right The CRD needs to look closely at the land trust model as a way to eliminate the cost of land from housing costs. It has been done successfully in many other jurisdictions in Canada and Europe.

About right This is the only target so far the mentions 2011 levels. It makes it a more confusing statistic.

About right

This is too vague. The problem is the cost of houses. This is due to BC market conditions beyond the control of CRD. Is there a plan to encourage/discourage foreign investment? Incentives for building low income housing? The question is how will the CRD increase business opportunities so more people can afford the inevitably rising prices? Many current low income facilities are already priced out of range.

About right This one is worded strange.

About right This section is jargon. I think what is meant is the reduction in the number of households in need of housing. Reducing homelessness, slum accommodation, etc. Requires significant assistance from other levels of government.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 246

About right

To help with this target strongly encourage all residents and future residents to stop wanting or using so many square feet of housing per person. I think the environment would be much better off if people could accept, and learn to be thankful for, a smaller living space. Some ideas might be to educate builders, buyers and all current residents on the Environmental advantages of having a smaller living space and perhaps give them incentives to build small and smart instead of just big - don't offer the entire incentive back into their pocket but make it something like they can donate to a "low income housing fund" and for that they will just receive their name on a list of donors on a plaque if they want and a 10% rebate coupon for an electric car. Perhaps place maximum square footage per person limits in zoning bylaws and provide incentives for homeowners who have the space to spare to share their home with additional people. This might even include allowing more zones to have a secondary suite instead of them being illegal suites.

About right Unsure of this.

About right Without getting too mired in details, this sounds good to me.

About right Would like it to be higher, but this will be already a challenge.

Too high ?

Too high Again, it is better to be in CHN than homeless. Let's create the cheap housing first.

Too high At what cost who gains by this financially.

Too high Bit of a guess here.

Too high Get out of this.

Too high Good idea! Put everybody in tents or let them sleep in store doorways.

Too high Good luck.

Too high I am not in favour of artificially creating core housing. If some do not have the resources to live here, they should be able to move to where they can afford to live.

Too high Not on my back as a tax payer.

Too high

Not to take away from the attempt at providing for a few under employed people but this policy is more about providing income and jobs to the housing industry. What is needed is more creative ways of living with together without building more houses. Also we need to think of how these people are going to eat as the price of food climbs higher and higher.

Too high

See previous answer - and add The BC Coast area is the most desirable place to live in Canada therefore as much subsidized and substandard housing (basement suites, garages etc.) that is provided without strict residential criteria will be filled immediately - particularly when there are many poverty groups competing. The high rental housing costs with no controls or loopholes is another variable preventing attempts to reduce housing needs.


Too high The CRD wasting time and energy on these social issues is ridiculous.

Too high

The provision of housing is an area that many local governments have taken on and without much success. The market dictates cost of housing. We should be supporting the development of more dense developments to increase the amount of housing available. I would even suggest that we look at the Langford model of requiring affordable housing as part of the increased density. Government should be creating an environment to support models such as these, not actively building housing.

Too high There's too many houses being built on the pen. now.

Too high They should move to cheaper areas. The poor and stupid are not my problem, tell them to get a job and support themselves.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 247

Too high This is just stupid.

Too high Too idealistic!!

Too high Well, first you say you want to place most new housing in a "core", now you say you want to reduce the number of households in the "core"??

Too high While we, as a culture, continue to promote human reproduction, we will never solve these problems. No one seems to want to talk about it, but as a product of 70's feminism, I am appalled at that pregnancy has become the latest fashion accessory.

Too high WHY.

Too high Without support from other jurisdictions this is impossible. There is no or very little support from other jurisdictions.

Too high You cannot keep stuffing people into small areas.

Too high You prefer squatters?

Too high Your document does not explain what you mean by "core housing needs".

Too low 50%.

Too low 100% provide subsidies so no one is paying more than 35% of their take-home pay on rent.

Too low 11% of all households in the CRD would still be in need of core housing. This is too high a percentage.

Too low 25% over 25 years = 1% a year. That seems unambitious to say the least. Aim higher.

Too low

A more appropriate target would be a 50% reduction from 2011 levels. Although the point that key factors in meeting this target are outside the control of local government is well taken, nevertheless local governments need to engage their communities -- citizens and businesses -- to help innovate at the local level, and to pressure senior governments for updated and smarter housing policies.

Too low A question should be put on all CRD ballots in 2018 asking residents if they support a $50 annual levy to create affordable housing.

Too low A reduction of 25% of 25 years is almost a joke. REALLY! 1% per year. This won't happen if it is expected to happen on its own!

Too low Adequate housing for everyone. 100% reduction of homelessness and housing should cost no more than 30% of a person/family/resident's after-tax income.

Too low

Affordable housing in our area is a major problem. The least costly housing is often out of the major cosmopolitan areas, where the jobs are. This forces people to have to live far from their work, particularly for low income situations. Housing has become a quick fortune situation in this community. People buy homes do superficial fixes and flip them to make large profits. Houses have become investments rather than dwellings. Rental properties have become very costly to rent, and low income housing is often dirty and dangerous and some with abusive landlords. People live together who do not like one another out of necessity and some domestic violence is the result of couples or families who cannot afford to live separated. Housing needs to be a basic right. There should be no one living in vehicles or infested homes without heat. There should be tax incentives given to good landlords who upkeep the property or improve housing without major price increases. Reasonable rents should not also mean living in substandard housing, so provincial rental laws need to be fortified to protect those who rent from exploitation.

Too low Affordable housing is one of the areas where we can indeed do a lot as a region, along with developing the economy and workforce, and lobbying the Province for a higher regional minimum wage. Therefore, we should be a bit more ambitious in this target.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 248

Too low Affordable housing is the bedrock of poverty reduction. Front-load the budget for housing which will reduce many other costs to the health care system, policing, etc. The CRD should lobby both the provincial and federal governments to restore investment funds for co-operative housing.

Too low Affordable housing, specifically well-located affordable housing, should be a major priority to address the 'healthy' part of the vision. BTW, what does "core housing need" mean?

Too low Affordable, pleasant, micro-housing in green space would suit a lot more people than you may think. Let people have dignity, autonomy, and the basics close to work and essential shopping, and they will be happier to share gardens, care of chickens, tools, bikes and "yard" space.

Too low Again we have 25 years. Let's be more ambitious.

Too low Again, not something the CRD can deal with.

Too low Aim should be 100%. How do you define 'core housing needs'?

Too low Although many of the solutions are outside CRD's jurisdiction, we need to set a higher target and lobby by example.

Too low An excellent opportunity for the development sector to get behind the RSS in a way that can make them money.

Too low As soon as possible the target should be 10% or less.

Too low

Assuming that the target refers to people who are forced to spend more than 30% of their income on shelter, and that the backgrounder is correct in stating that 15% of the population is in core housing need, this target is far too low. Through denser development patterns, revisions to bylaw requirements, and enhanced housing funds, it should be possible to eliminate core housing need by 2038.

Too low Building low income housing should be a core priority.

Too low By raising the minimum wage to $15, many families could rise out of their housing needs within the first year. Could a 50% increase in income at the lower end bring greater reductions, say 30 to 40%?

Too low Can do better.

Too low

Could this be that, if this were done, the right to affordable housing would be guaranteed within a specific period of time? The target should be that by a certain date affordable housing would be guaranteed for all. If communities move more and more away from car dependency, including car ownership which considerably reduces the amount of space available for affordable housing, the availability of affordable housing would increase considerably. While the ability to achieve this target is within the control of local government, the need for a national housing strategy linked to socially equitable and ecologically sound energy and transportation should become a federal election issue: An innovative proposal that could help more seniors remain in their homes. Home Share/Home Care would be a Registry of seniors and others in need of some form of assistance at home. They would provide background information related to their needs and their interests. Companionable tenants with harmonizing interests could live in at an affordable rent. In exchange, they could help fulfill needs related to house and garden maintenance, meal preparation, errands, etc. An affordable Housing Organization could set up to explore and help implement such an initiative. to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, women’s rights civil and political rights, indigenous rights, social and cultural rights, rights to food, rights to housing, rights to safe drinking water and sewage, rights to education and rights to a universally accessible, not for profit health care system. *Increase Cooperative housing and cooperative living *The Housing First Principles Housing First is made up of five interdependent principles that require simple yet profound, transformative shifts in thinking. Each principle is explained in one of the videos. The principles are: Immediate access to housing with no readiness conditions “Consumer choice and self-determination” Recovery orientation “Individualized and person-driven supports” Social and community integration - See more at: http://www.raincityhousing.org/hf-p-into-p/#sthash.nyIayE3C.dpuf


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 249

Too low

Current facts about wealth distribution show that very few wealthy citizens have vast quantities of financial resources. This wealth needs to be spread around rather more equitably. Others shouldn't suffer because I want a 20 room house and 6 fancy and expensive cars.

Too low Develop policies that provide enough affordable housing to meet all needs.

Too low Developers should meet certain requirements to provide affordable housing. Development should have strict guidelines and become less lucrative for developers.

Too low Economic pressure to sprawl is underpinned by housing need. Eliminate housing need entirely through permissive high-density zoning.

Too low Eliminate the problem over the next 20 years. This should be the target.

Too low Everybody should have the right to adequate housing.

Too low Everyone deserves proper housing. It is a basic human right.

Too low

Everything needs to be done to encourage a lot more housing units to be constructed. 1) A 20 year property tax holiday for new rentals units that are restricted by a covenant to be rentals 2) Remove all development cost charges for housing units until there is no homelessness 3) Make the process to subdivide residential properties in the urban containment boundary fast and cost free 4) Make low density neighbourhoods like Uplands completely available to increasing density. Seek to remove an restrictive covenants in neighbourhoods that stop an increase in density 5) Seek ways to add more building lots in the core.

Too low Expose those who abuse the system for personal gain.

Too low Focus energies on housing for single mothers and children!

Too low

Further to my previous comments," innovation” is the operative word. Homelessness used to be rare. Now it is highly visible even in Oak Bay. (I was a co-founder of a citizen's organization (in Fredericton N.B.) that purchased and restored older housing stock, at a special low mortgage rate, and rented out units at very modest rates. A few units were at market rates to help subsidize the others, and the result was a wholesome diversity of tenants.)

Too low Given what is observable in Victoria we are not winning on this issue. Social housing must be a part of CRd, we should be upping levy on municipalities to allow more housing, and make it compulsory.

Too low Go for 40%.

Too low Going from 15% to 11% in 23 years seems very unambitious. The region would barely be keeping up with projected population growth.

Too low Higher density housing units.

Too low Homeless people need homes, not mats in shelters.

Too low Homelessness is unacceptable.

Too low Housing is central to reducing poverty.

Too low How about assuring a safe and secure living space for all CRD residents in need? And working toward that objective through the Housing Corporation, housing societies, local governments and First Nations. Cut through the crap and DO something.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 250

Too low

I agree with the Centre for Policy Alternatives re strategy for poverty reduction for the agreed upon vulnerable population but it also sounds like a potentially large portion of the population of younger house owners have housing that they are one 'illness' or 'jobless' away from losing them. Mortgages are way too high and risky for all these young families - we need good housing strategies that create communities - and encourage shared resources within the communities. Not total independence and isolation.

Too low

I believe that this is an important target - it is key to achieving health and social equity objectives. I suggest that you more clearly define "core housing need" in this survey and backgrounder. I disagree with the statement that "the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government." A major cause of housing unaffordability is the many constraints on the construction of lower-priced, infill development, particularly low-rise (3-5 story), wood-frame townhouses and apartment buildings in existing neighborhoods, and other forms of incremental infill housing such as secondary suites and lane houses. Reducing restrictions on density, height, FAR, multi-family housing and mixed-use development, and reducing minimum parking and setback requirements in existing neighborhoods would help developers add to the stock of lower-priced housing. I recommend that the CRD sponsor a task force that includes developers, planners and affordable housing advocates to identify barriers to affordable housing development and specific planning reforms that would encourage the construction of more lower-priced housing in accessible neighborhoods.

Too low I believe the problem is larger than anyone really cares to admit or look into.

Too low I don't feel qualified to speak to this - though believe this is a very important issue.

Too low I don't know much about this topic but if the target is to reduce poverty by 75% then surely the core housing need should drop by more than 25%?

Too low I don't understand why the poverty-reduction target is 75%, but the core housing need target is so much lower. Surely poverty leads to core housing need.

Too low

I think this can be partially achieved by allowing for land use patterns for tiny homes. These can be built in place or even tiny homes on wheels. This allows affordable home ownership or home rentals while providing nourishing homes for those who choose to live with less material goods. Voluntary simplicity can lead to a higher quality of life for some people.

Too low I think we can do better than this if we want to have a caring society.

Too low If developers of housing MUST create a certain percentage of affordable (in relation to income, not against market value rent) then the target could be higher. We cannot expect governments to be the sole solution to income based housing in any community.

Too low If it's not 100% we're not serious about ending the system that generates homelessness and climate change.

Too low If we could increase this, that would be great -- I do realize the limitations, given the lack of cooperation of senior levels of government.

Too low If we question our assumptions about what we actually require, we should be able to make more progress than this in the next 25 years.

Too low I'm not exactly sure what this means but I know that 2011 levels were unacceptable.

Too low In a fair society (I believe FAIR is one of your vision words?) no one should be in core housing need. That should be the target.

Too low It doesn't seem like a big enough reduction. Housing should be a top priority.

Too low

It is worthy but Affordable housing in Sooke is useless unless the jobs are there. Transportation costs eat the savings and travel time really reduces the quality of family life. Changes need to be made to encourage low cost housing along good public transportation routes. This also works for lowering greenhouse gases.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 251

Too low Keep the focus of attention to city center.

Too low Leaving 11% of households in core housing need is still far too high. This should be more on the level of 5%.

Too low Leaving this many people without adequate housing is incompatible with other targets in this Plan to achieve a healthy community.

Too low Let's set the bar higher and see if we can do better than a 25% reduction. We should try to reduce it by 65% or more, then we might actually achieve a 50% reduction.

Too low Like I said, housing, safe housing is so important.

Too low More focus needs to be placed on creating small, affordable clustered units subsidized by corporations that want to have permission to build.

Too low More people need to get out of tenuous, stressful and unhealthy living situations. Poverty alleviation goals need to actually eliminate poverty, not reduce it.

Too low Most young people I know have moved away or live in inadequate housing because Victoria rents are unaffordable. "Affordable" housing is rarely anywhere near being actually affordable.

Too low Need creative policy, worked in relation to the other building-related goals (retrofits, net-zero buildings) to achieve this.

Too low

Need to consult with knowledgeable, research-rich consultants who can help with both the social and community planning required, so folks who live in these concentrated living arrangements see themselves as vitally and positively contributing participants in the local communities/neighbourhoods.

Too low

Needs to be done ASAP or you are going to have more of a problem with drugs etc. People who are not in proper Cool aide places with necessary help. Also, people who are living in places where they are forced to be woken up by these individuals need to live in drug, alcohol, free places i.e. like myself who doesn't use drugs or smoke pot.

Too low NOBODY should be homeless.

Too low Not acceptable to have as an objective that people remain in core housing deficits. I would like the CRD / municipalities to look at strategies within their control, including different kinds of housing/zoning to ensure that no one is homeless.

Too low Not nearly as ambitious as your other targets.

Too low Not totally sure what is meant by "core housing need" but legislative and regulatory changes could help bring this percentage down considerably.

Too low Our communities must provide suitable housing for all of our residents.

Too low People NEED affordable housing NOW.

Too low Rather too arbitrary - while there are people in core housing need there should be efforts to move them out of that situation - having a target means the aim is to get to that target which may mean more substantive systemic changes are not being carried out.

Too low Reducing a problem by 25% leaves 75% of the problem, which is still a big problem. The long-term goal should be to eliminate these problems - even though they are never going to be eliminated. To shoot for 25% over 23 years is to not really try. It is lip-service.

Too low Remembering that homelessness means having no home, the provision of low cost housing within walkable, mixed cost communities, would have a significant effect. The target should aim to eliminate this problem, absolutely doable.

Too low Re-phrase the target. I think it means provide affordable housing for 25% of the number of families that at present do not have affordable housing.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 252

Too low Same comment as previous question - be specific about the targets that local gov't can achieve.

Too low

See above - all should have housing of some form or another, taking into consideration differing needs and reasons for poverty. Crime rates would decrease and police calls also would decrease; law enforcement should not be a factor in controlling those who live in poverty and homeless.

Too low See above comment. High real estate prices are a major factor not just in housing unaffordability, but they trickle through to every aspect of the local economy, pushing more and more out of the reach of many people.

Too low See above.

Too low Should be reduced to zero through above measures, and ramping up regional housing investments.

Too low Tax increases on those incomes in excess of $100,000 to be put into a core housing fund.

Too low The same as previously. The ways are known to house almost everyone. Other cities have done better than this.

Too low The target is too low, however I recognize that achieving more will be dependent on other levels of government.

Too low

The term “core housing needs” should be more clearly defined. Any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called “location affordability” (www.locationaffordability.info). Assuming the target refers to households that must be subsidized in order to retain housing, the 25% target is much too timid. The target should be to eliminate this problem within the time-span of the RSS. We disagree with the statement that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government” (Backgrounder, page 6). Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations. We note that the CRD’s Backgrounder repeats the “Core Housing Need Target” as both targets 3.3 and 4.2. This may indicate that the description of another target is missing.

Too low There seem to be many empty buildings that could be used in some way. As long as it didn't get all wrapped up in to many rules and regulations.

Too low There should be no persons/families in need of housing.

Too low Think big and shoot for a higher target... If you fall short of the higher target you will still likely surpass your original target turning a failure to a win... Reference Scotty from the original Star Trek series for a reverse example....

Too low This is a huge issue in our region - need to get real about housing solutions.

Too low

This is an excellent goal. I know it is a complex and difficult issue but I would like to imagine that in a country as rich and developed as Canada we should be able to provide housing and basic needs to all of our citizens. Certainly the wealth to do so is there if only it were properly distributed.

Too low This is germinal to the issue of commuting and GHG emissions. Our city is unaffordable to the people who make it run and that needs to change by more than 25% over 23 years.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 253

Too low

This is just awful - it is saying that by 2038 there will still be 15,652 households in core housing need (which needs definition, by the way.) I was also surprised to find no mention of this in the main document - another file mislaid? We know enough about affordable housing solutions to plan to reduce the number of households in need to 5% or less: ideally 0% by 2028.

Too low This is not a big ticket item. Why not just do it?

Too low

This issue is at the heart of many persons inability to experience wellbeing- growth and change. This issue is a key concern in our communities and needs extensive focus and attention. Those without stable affordable housing, are at greater risk of other forms of risk and one of the areas of vulnerability that if corrected could encourage change in many other domains.

Too low This needs a definition of core housing need and proper consideration of best localities for addressing affordable housing areas.

Too low This seems very unambitious in such a wealthy region where, by and large, there is political & popular support for action.

Too low

This target is much too low and it is unclear how the CRD will/can achieve this target. I agree with the concept of "location affordability" that recognizes low cost housing targets can better be achieved by combining housing and transportation costs; recognizing that affordable housing might not be achieved in rural areas with high transportation costs. As well, long distance driving to and from jobs only adds to climate change issues. Developers should be encouraged to build more high density apartments, townhouses, etc., in containment areas in urban villages and along high traffic connection roads.

Too low This target is unclear and much too low. The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. See Consortium paper. The term "core housing needs" must be defined. (It is not defined in the RSS)

Too low

This target is unclear and much too low. We disagree with the note that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.” It is important that any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called “location affordability”. The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations.

Too low

This target is unclear and much too low. We disagree with the note that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.” It is important that any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called ”location affordability” (www.locationaffordability.info). Note that the CRD’s Backgrounder repeats the “Core Housing Need Target” as both targets 3.3 and 4.2. This may indicate that the description of another target is missing. The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations. The term “core housing needs” must be defined (it is not defined in the RSS).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 254

Too low

This target is unclear and much too low. We disagree with the note that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.” It is important that any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called “location affordability” (www.locationaffordability.info) . Note that the CRD’s Backgrounder repeats the “Core Housing Need Target” as both targets 3.3 and 4.2. This may indicate that the description of another target is missing. The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations. The term “core housing needs” must be defined (it is not defined in the RSS).

Too low This ties directly I think to the last item, and if we want a stable sustainable population that grows from within rather than relying on imports this number has to be much better I am not sure of a precise % but it must be higher than 25%.

Too low

This would only reduce the household in need from 15% to 11%. Can we do better? How would we do this? For future reference, it is more difficult for most people to grasp the human component when using statistics such as this. I would highly recommend that this case be better presented by including the numbers of HUMANS this represents: # of families, # of seniors, # of people, # of children.

Too low Tie with poverty rate reduction. The percentage of households below the poverty rate (13%) closely matches the percentage with core housing need (15%). These are essentially the same people. You can't address one of the measures without addressing the other.

Too low To develop a vibrant and thriving economy the workers who service that market need to have a stable base which includes affordable housing.

Too low

To live in fear that one can't pay the rent the next month is not healthy for our community. Affordable housing should be a top federal and provincial priority, as housing is much cheaper than social services, medical services and policing costs when citizens are inadequately housed. It is the job of elected CRD officials to advocate ceaselessly to senior levels of government to this effect and to build affordable housing if the state fails in its responsibility.

Too low Too low, need to increase density everywhere not just in the Downtown area, too many homes with only one occupant, encourage and allow more suites in all homes etc.

Too low Too many people in our community live in unaffordable/inadequate housing. We need to build more social/ co-op housing.

Too low Ultimately everyone needs somewhere to live. I believe that this has to be achieved by a larger organization that what I can provide. While some people are homeless and others own houses that they keep vacant; there will be injustice.

Too low Way too low. We need to immediately, by whatever means necessary, reduce this by 75 to 95%!!!!

Too low We can do better. Lack of housing is a key component of poverty.

Too low We need a definition of "core housing". This problem needs to be eliminated!

Too low We need more dense housing - eliminate huge houses through bylaws.

Too low We need to aggressively build more social housing.

Too low We need to end homelessness. It's cheaper than managing the consequences of inaction.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 255

Too low We should be able to achieve over 70% by 2038.

Too low We should be able to do better than this in 23 years.

Too low

When will we learn live is not about the bottom dollar but about affordable living for everyone We are way behind in this area. Take manufactured home parks, a great idea but becoming unaffordable because of the bad structuring of fundamental laws and moral standards in believing people deserve affordable housing, education and health care.

Too low Why so low. CRD has lots of building space.

Too low Why such disparity between poverty reduction (75%) and reduction of households in core need (25%)?

Too low With the need for affordable housing or core housing so high in the CRD, we need to move more than this in order to reduce inequities and create the kind of communities we want. Again, let's state what is really needed, rather than what we think we might achieve...

Too low Would like the CRD to take a much more aggressive stance on this and set out ways to achieve, at least, 50%.

I'm tired of the hand-wringing. . just the other day I finally saw activity at the Traveller's inn/lodge on Douglas near Finlayson. NOTHING happened for two years at least!

?

?

??

Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels This target is unclear and much too low. We disagree with the note that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.” It is important that any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called “location affordability” (www.locationaffordability.info) . Note that the CRD’s Backgrounder repeats the “Core Housing Need Target” as both targets 3.3 and 4.2. This may indicate that the description of another target is missing. The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations. The term “core housing needs” must be defined (it is not defined in the RSS).

Again, laudable intent.

Again, not in your control ... don't set the CRD up for failure. The goal should be to work with governments and the private sector to create change.

All levels of government need to put money into this. Remember that money in the pockets of lower income people gets spent locally. The wealthy spend more elsewhere and invest elsewhere.

Don't know.

Don't know what this means.

Don't understand questions.

Dream On...


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 256

Economy is the factor.

Have no idea what this means, why would you reduce households in core housing, wouldn't you want to increase them.

Housing needs to be made affordable for low income earners and people on fixed incomes.

I don't believe 'Canadian housing policies' have stayed the same over the last 30 years. It's my understanding that they've been drastically reduced, offloading onto municipalities. I applaud all efforts to reduce this. You show this on page 5 and again on page 6.

I don't know what core housing need means.

I don't really understand the housing section 3.3 very well. what is core housing needs? I think that particular effort should be made for vulnerable members of the population (e.g., single parents and especially women, elderly).

I have been a Realtor for 20 years and I don't understand what you are talking about. Many people want to rent. They don't have the salaries and the security of a job to purchase property. Leaseholds and co-operative may be a solution but the management would have to be improved.

I have read this question over several times and it still does not make sense. You should phrase these questions so that people can understand what you mean.

I live in Otter Point so I really can’t say?

I need to inform myself on what is core housing needs.

I'm not sure what this means - even after readying the TB.

I'm not sure what you mean by core housing need. I did read your backgrounder & it didn't really explain it. Renters & owners have a place to live, how can they need one?

It would have been nice to define the meaning of "Core Housing Need", but based on what I deduce it doesn’t seem like something regional government can do much about.

No idea.

No idea what this means, even after reading the backgrounder.

No idea what you are talking about. How about putting these questions in layman’s terms not planner terms.

Not conversant sufficiently to give an opinion.

Not familiar with term core housing need. Should have been defined/explained. Could guess but don't want to.

Pay a living wage. Provide affordable housing.

Same as in 4.1.

See above. Do your bit for a robust economy - a rising tide lifts all ships.

So called "affordable housing" seems to be a movable target. It is not going to be affordable for long if the population is allowed to grow indefinitely.

Sorry, I'm still stuck on the 'how'.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 257

The target should be to eliminate this problem over the next 25 years. Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations.

The term “core housing needs” should be more clearly defined. Any affordability indicator reflect combined housing and transportation costs, recognizing that a low cost housing may not be truly affordable if located in an area with high transportation costs, a concept called “location affordability” (www.locationaffordability.info). Assuming the target refers to households that must be subsidized in order to retain housing, the 25% target is much too timid. The target should be to eliminate this problem within the time-span of the RSS. We disagree with the statement that, “many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government” (Backgrounder, page 6). Local governments can do a lot to improve housing affordability by significantly reducing existing barriers such as restrictions on infill development density, height, mix, plus minimum parking and setback requirements. Developers should be encouraged to build more affordable, low-rise (3-6 story) townhouses and apartments along arterials and in urban villages. Because such development tends to be relatively cheap to serve with public infrastructure, they should have lower development fees, utility fees and tax rates than at sprawled, urban fringe locations. We note that the CRD’s Backgrounder repeats the “Core Housing Need Target” as both targets 3.3 and 4.2. This may indicate that the description of another target is missing.

The term core housing need is not clearly defined so I can't comment on this. Please provide a specific definition of this term.

This is a complex target. If Canada developed a national housing policy the local government target could be higher.

This is a ridiculous question! How are you going to "reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels" Who comes up with this nonsense?

This survey is difficult to answer. Over what time period? What does the 25% represent.

What is the definition of "core housing"?

Work on housing affordability, not affordable housing. Create a climate of opportunity, of jobs and prosperity, not a bunch of co-ops and council flats to keep people in servitude to their providers indefinitely. Margaret Thatcher figured that out years ago.

You note that many of the influences needed to achieve this metric are outside your control - why measure this?

You say many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government, which means the target that has been set is meaningless. Perhaps we need to focus on improving collaboration between all levels of government to meet or exceed targets. The system is not working. It needs to be fixed.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 258

5.0 JOBS TARGET

a) What do you think about the jobs target?

Increase full time jobs at the same or greater rate than the rate of labour force growth



Too high 48 8.2%

Too low 80 13.7%

TOTAL 585 100.0%


About right "The same or greater rate" - a little vague, but ok.

About right A good target but as the RSS says creating jobs is difficult for local government to have affect. At times the goal of creating jobs can have an undue effect on local government regarding rezoning.

About right A worthy objective, to be sure, but how can the CRD affect this???

About right About right. By building rail lines connecting the region, and by loosening zoning laws in urban containment areas , employment would transfer from the automotive industry to construction of rail terminals and lines.

About right Again if taxes are too high people and businesses will leave.

About right Again not within the jurisdiction of the CRD or member municipalities - so how is this to be accomplished?

About right Again, minimum wage is an issue.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 259

About right Again, this might be difficult to accomplish. Too many other factors are at play which are beyond the control of CRD.

About right An annual guaranteed income is out of the scope of the CRD, I realize that, but advocacy is possible. It's unrealistic to think that going forward with human reproduction what it is, that there will be jobs for everyone.

About right And it all depends on the economy...

About right Another everybody would like that statement, which is not, to a large part within the CRD's ability to change one way or another.

About right As long as full time jobs are needed; seniors and students like part time jobs.

About right As your document says much of this is outside of the ability of local government to have much of an effect but it's a good goal as long as it doesn't start affecting land use decisions within the RSS.

About right Basic income should be an idea in better currency than it is.

About right Blah, blah, blah...

About right But how much is in local control? Anything that makes the area more attractive to live in will have the side benefit of making it a more attractive area for people developing new technologies with accompanying jobs.

About right But how to implement?

About right But there should also be something in here about green jobs and sustainable jobs, not jobs in industries that fluctuate or could disappear quickly. We should also be trying to attract higher skills jobs to prevent the brain drain/ post-university drain and keep those folks in our community.

About right BUT we need a living wage.

About right By and large, beyond the control of local government, except where local government REDUCES taxes and regulatory burden to divert business costs to allowing for marginal employment growth.

About right Concrete strategies to achieve this? Why not make Victoria and CRD a hub for clean energy technologies? Dream big and promote aggressively (like Province is doing around LNG which I disagree with!).

About right

Definitely should be supporting full-time jobs with benefits over part time jobs. Also need to be encouraging these jobs under locally owned business, not large corporation or foreign interest. Keep the money local to multiply its value! As soon as money leaves the community, the whole community loses out.

About right

Don't make a fetish of full-time work. Find out how many people prefer part-time work for various reasons (as I did all through my working life because I wanted time to write). Lobby the provincial government to remove the 30-hour threshold for benefits, and have pro-rated benefits attached to every hour worked. This removes one reasons businesses have for restricting hours worked per person.

About right Encourage business to share or lease parking at times of non-peak use. If development takes place around existing farming, manufacturing or industrial space residents should acknowledge the existence of such so any future complaints would be in context.

About right

Farmers would hire more local full time employees if their returns were sufficient to pay farm workers good wages. Poor profitability does not allow the farmers to pay the higher wages required to attract full time workers. We need to encourage and provide support to farming community so that they are more profitable.

About right Full time jobs always pay more (in total) that part-time jobs, even when they pay the same hourly rate. What is also needed is a higher minimum rate that will at least pay a part time worker a reasonable wage.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 260

About right

Full time jobs are important, but self-employment, contracts etc. will also grow. The emphasis here maybe might to be different: on job creation through new business development? It lends itself to more organized action. The current goal is 100% passive, and indicates no change or initiative by the CRD.

About right Great idea. How could the CRD possibly make it happen? I guess you will need to hire hundreds more people in order to implement all the GHG targets!

About right Happy to see this as a goal, but employment trends nationwide don't seem to support such an optimistic view. As you understand, there is only a modest amount a municipality or regional district can do to create meaningful, remunerative jobs.

About right How are you going to "promote the region to potential investors"?

About right How does the CRD do that now that Target is gone.

About right How does the CRD think it can influence job development? The only way it can is to reduce taxes and red tape and I don't see any mention of this. How do you keep the municipalities from fighting each other for jobs?

About right How will the CRD accomplish this?

About right How will the regional government work to achieve this target?

About right How will we produce new jobs in new sectors?

About right

I am not sure what "rate of labour force growth" you speak, but for sure it is desirable to have sufficient full time well-paying employment to keep our young people here so that there is an opportunity for a cohesive community to develop over time rather than be impacted by the kinds of labour churn that otherwise develops leaving it difficult to develop a sense of community.

About right

I am not sure what the CRD might do here to achieve the goals but I do think that a region wide economic development strategy is important. I get the impression that the Langford and Saanich both have a tendency to raid Victoria for jobs...I hope I am wrong. I understand that technology industries are really important for the economies of southern Vancouver Island yet I see absolutely nothing regarding their success, their need for workers, training of people to fill those jobs, etc.

About right I chose "about right", but with some reservations. Well paid 'part-time' jobs are very important. I believe that families would benefit substantially if at least one of the parents could be home part-time (preferably full-time) to raise their children. So, although full-time jobs are key, part-time is very important.

About right I don't feel qualified to speak to this.

About right I leave all these percentages to people who have the expertise. I'm not sure why you would expect the general public to be able to make these judgments.

About right

I say 'about right' because there is not the option to say 'I don't know'. Can the proposed policies in the targets backgrounder be achieved in light of all the other proposals of keeping urban containment and green space? Also, these terms and concepts are presented in a way that it is quite difficult to know what is good/bad/neutral.

About right I think it would be ideal for the labour need and the labour jobs to grow at the same rate; in balance. I think turning the environment and green products and green methods of production needs to become the next big industry.

About right I think that the types of jobs that are created are just as important as the absolute number of jobs that are created. We need to focus on long-term, community enhancing jobs, not jobs that feed into environmentally destructive industries.

About right

I would like to know more details than the backgrounder provided, because unless there is a huge change in the types of investments that are made here (i.e. large investment in education, green technologies, tech sector and tertiary agricultural installations) the investment would likely go into creating the status quo on reducing emissions and creating a more livable equal place.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 261

About right I would like to see a focus on creation of green energy jobs over the next few years.

About right IF we provide the skills training.

About right I'm guessing here. I hope the CRD will help promote jobs that connect with the sustainability theme such as in tourism, agriculture and food security, and green retrofitting of existing housing and buildings rather than demolishing them.

About right Implementing the living wage for all city workers would be a good target.

About right Important, but I also feel least clear how you can promote this.

About right

In addition to the major sectors of employment in the CRD, more needs to be done to encourage tech/bio-tech, information-based, internet, etc. businesses to locate here. There seems to be no shortage of entrepreneurial spirit here with many local businesses and self-employed professionals, but a strategy needs to be developed to see these businesses grow and create jobs so that youth may have a future here and need not leave the region in search of employment.

About right

In my view, jobs targets are a useless measure. Number of jobs is less important than quality of job. More Mac-jobs at full time will not create a sustainable community. Is there another measure, which could incent job quality? For example, number of jobs with starting pay of a certain percentage of median regional salary?

About right

It all depends on the kind of jobs. If these are the jobs that we need in the future, and not just jobs for the sake of meeting a target number, then it is a good policy. If we are talking about jobs in industries that promote / depend upon wasteful consumption, environmentally damaging products, or unsustainable resource extraction, then no.

About right It really depends on the kinds of jobs. Truly local jobs offered by locally owned, independent business people are way more sustainable than a Shaw calling centre or a Target store (hah!).

About right Jobs are not a CRD mandate.

About right Let me guess? By making government jobs.

About right Makes sense.

About right Many opportunities exist for community members to work for the community....

About right More part time jobs to offer flexibility for diverse situations.

About right More pie in the sky planning.

About right Need to be more specific - minimum wage jobs vs family supporting wages are not the same.

About right Nice dream you want to control business remember the other capital C.

About right

Nice target, but how is this to be accomplished? All the land will be locked up in the Growth Containment Area. What kind of employers would be acceptable in this new order - probably resource industries? Look what happened with Foundation Organics - the CRD folded in a few weeks during which time the company was working to resolve the issue. No support from the CRD.

About right No reason (apart from corporate greed) that there cannot be well-paid full-time employment for everyone.

About right No specific programs identified.

About right Of course. But the policies must make it attractive and sustainable for jobs to be located in our region. The CRD cannot create jobs aside from its own employment practices, and its policies have a profound effect on the cost and difficulty of setting up and growing an enterprise in our region.

About right Once again, involve knowledgeable and research rich social, community and economic advisers ... don't rely on the loud, but usually biased advice from the business community.

About right Our demographics have changed. The 20-40 year old group is now the largest portion of the population. We need to readily employ these people.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 262

About right

Part time is better for those with families, or re-training. Non-profits are a HUGE component of employment in Canada. Fund nonprofits, provide more (paid) internships, get people in the workforce, and encourage more headquarters of nonprofits in Victoria. Is the CRD investing in high quality parks? What does that have to do with full time jobs? Parks barely employ any staff.

About right

Please use understandable language; what in the blazes is, "labour force growth"? I shouldn't have to read a separate document to figure out you meant, "growth in the labour force." Back on subject ... I feel the trend is moving towards careers that include multiple part-time jobs and less of decades-long single jobs.

About right

Really, I think this is what the market does without government involvement. What employer would set up shop in a community that did not have enough workers to staff their operations? The reality is the labour market in this area is probably going to shrink in the next decade. Given this target we could see a reduction in the number of full time jobs in the region.

About right Some part time jobs will always be needed for students and others who choose not to work full time, but more full time jobs reduces the need for travel between 2 or more jobs just to survive.

About right Some people would prefer part-time.

About right Sounds good.

About right Sounds wonderful - how do you plan to achieve this?? The promotion of tourism would be nice but the downtown area has not been revitalized in any way for about 30 years, so I can't see tourists flocking here in the future. We are just lucky to have the cruise ship trade....

About right Sure but could be better. I think a livable wage is a better model. Everyone that is working a full time position is being over worked as it is. Better working hours around what the actual human body is capable of with more people doing the work instead of fewer on a livable wage....

About right Target full time employment towards the youth if possible.

About right The CRD must explore other ways to help residents generate income, rather than working at jobs controlled by a corporation. Remove barriers to self-employment by relaxing requirements for business licenses region-wide.

About right the CRD should continue to focus on bringing more high-tech/software jobs to the region and take steps to improve infrastructure to make it attractive to tech companies and technical innovation (i.e., a regional public fibre network).

About right The labour force is dropping right now, as you indicated in your report. The wording of the statement needs to change accordingly. Maybe we need to encourage the birthrate to increase to actually get to a place of "Sustainability".

About right The more full time, decently-paid jobs the better.

About right

There are so many variables to creating full employment that it's difficult to set employment targets in our global economy. That's why local food production is so important. Farming is a good job if we set the goal to make it a good job. We need to work politically to let the Provincial and Federal Governments know we believe there is more to the economy of BC than oil and gas. We need to assure that zoning in our communities is changed so that single family residential becomes a zone of the past. We need flexibility in work hours and settings. We need to be creative and work toward the goal of "healthy communities".

About right There should also be a stipulation that a certain amount of these jobs should pay a Living Wage, and that they be Sustainable jobs that are not based on infinite growth/development.

About right There surely is a potential for growing jobs in the sustainable energy field - it has happened in Germany and other European countries. Can't we do the same?

About right These jobs also need to be accompanied by pensions, benefits and also a real living wage.

About right Think the focus should also include (Fair Wage) PART TIME jobs - Not everyone wants FULL TIME work. Part time affords more personal, family, community, volunteer opportunities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 263

About right This definitely needs to be a priority for a sustainable community.

About right

This is a great target but it's not clear how it would be done. Of course we should jobs, and lots of them... A lot of this is up to provincial and federal governments (as the document states), so what would the local gov't do to partner with other levels? What about some kind of partnerships with other municipal governments, either nearby or farther away? I'm not sure what one would do, but rather than competing is there some way we could figure out mutualism or facilitation of complementary industries? Definitely a lot of focus should go into renewable energy.

About right This is a no brainer really, so long as the jobs are meaningful.

About right This is an absolute necessity and is just common sense.

About right This is so important for our local economy. It is the most effective way we can retain our younger population I hope we can achieve it.

About right This should not be a focus of the CRD. Measure it, but for the most part this should be out of CRD control.

About right This target should (in theory) accommodate new entrants to the labour force in our region, as well as the number of retirees who work past 65.

About right This will require more businesses and industries in the region. East Sooke, Shirley, Otter Point will raise their "greenie" hands in horror.

About right To do that we need real jobs & trades , not just a service industry.

About right To do this we need to attract business to our area, therefore we need to research how to do that. Look at how Portland, Oregon has revitalized their downtown.

About right Tough to achieve, since many, many factors affect job growth.

About right Unless labour force becomes too small to support job market due to baby boomers retiring, etc.

About right

Very glad the target says "full time jobs". There is such a difference between one person with three jobs not making enough to support her family and one person with one full time job who can support her family or at least provide half the income and help manage her home and family while her partner earns the other portion of income needed. Secure, full time employment must be linked with "wellness". If not a full time job, fair pay for work done.

About right We have to do this otherwise there will be a societal crisis of unemployment with seniors to support. So it is not that ambitious. But the labour force won't grow if there are no jobs, people will relocate. This is also the issue of the quality of jobs.

About right We need benefits such as eye glasses and tooth care for everyone, as well as medical too.

About right

We need to move towards a green economy and actively encourage green jobs and green industry. We could do much of that by installing distributed solar on every rooftop in the region. It would boost the economy, provide green jobs and ensure energy independence for the region. Solar, geothermal and wind energy projects should be vigorously researched and pursued as soon as possible and be very very very high on the priority list. The region should become a model of sustainability that the rest of Canada wants to emulate. Burlington, Vermont is already functioning on 100% renewable energy. http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/10/brlington-runs-on-100-percent-renewable-energy/ Our region should aim to be the same as soon as possible. Renewable energy projects provide 8 times the jobs that oil and gas and mining do.

About right We really need to work hard on this. I feel we are still looking at tourism/service jobs as important when we should be focusing on tech and manufacturing. We should be creating the jobs out of the great work our post-secondary educational institutions are doing.

About right We should be encouraging companies that provide good full time jobs for people. However there will always be a need for part time jobs for some members of the labour force.

About right We should not be employing people from outside Canada. Give Canadians JOBS.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 264

About right Well, and P/T jobs, too. Many folks can manage on less than full-time but need some additional income.

About right We're experiencing a change in the economy towards more entrepreneurial knowledge workers - maybe incorporate support for this.

About right What is needed is an Economic Development strategy for CRD, and a stopping of municipalities poaching businesses from each other.

About right What jobs? Green jobs or something that contributes to climate change?

About right What kind of jobs? Does the CRD care? Increase the amount of full time jobs that work to build the better economy, social system and environmental protection that is needed for a healthy society?

About right While employment rates are good in the region, It'd be nice to see employment growth be gainful, secure employment to the extent possible in the economy that's been constructed.

About right

Will these jobs be minimum wage? Which sectors will these jobs fall into? Victoria has very little industry and development rises and falls with the economy as does tourism. This may be tempered by the rate of retirement in the coming years. Also, hiring people that are local instead of hiring outside of the area may be of help to achieve this.

About right Wishful thinking, something the CRD has no jurisdiction over.

About right Within the limits of the optimum sustainable population, of course.

About right Yes, but good luck with that. Again, we can't keep reproducing and expecting that jobs and housing will be there for all of us in this region.

Too high A 40 hour work week leaves insufficient time to raise a family, steward the land and commute by foot. A 20 hour work week is much more sustainable if people are going to take responsibility for more of our ecological and social impacts.

Too high Again, incentives to private business needs to be implemented.

Too high And how do you plan to do that. Wonderful to have these visions and goals but without a clear action plan, it is all just words. Where is the action plan????? I would say, based on the lack of any presentation of tangible ideas, this goal is too high by far.

Too high Are you prepared to fund and attract useful jobs to the region ? Industrial and manufacturing are about the only areas offering meaningful and well paid employment.

Too high Automation and robotics will make this goal unattainable.

Too high Delink work from jobs ("jobism"): Cindy L'Hirondelle's call for Guaranteed Livable Income: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JflHH3N8fu4

Too high Follow Portland, create a business environment that promotes innovation, then the jobs will come. Not up to the city to create jobs!

Too high For good paying jobs you need industry, something people don't want.

Too high

Full time jobs are a thing of the past, and we need to accept that there is not enough work for everyone to slave 40+ hours a week. Focus on lowering the needed hours one is required to work in order to be healthy and happy. For those people that feel they require several expensive cars, 1000+ square feet of living space for each person, and glamorous trips several times a year - they need to understand they are the problem, not the ideal.

Too high Government does not create jobs.

Too high How are all these dreams going to be paid for?

Too high How can you forecast what the Economy will be in 5 to 10 years.

Too high I agree with the idea...but this is beyond the CRDs mandate.

Too high I do not believe that government can create sustainable jobs. The number of jobs, and their required qualifications, should respond to economic trends.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 265

Too high

I don't know that having more part time jobs is such a bad thing. It potentially encourages diversity and resilience and can encourage innovation, be better for family life and social values while allowing people to look after the home front. In other words, we need to encourage people to spend less, not make more money, and that often requires having more time available.

Too high

I don't think this is sustainable over a period of many years’ time. It seems that this would not allow for an inevitable economic downturn. It seems like you are saying that there could never be a year where more part time jobs are created than full time. The CRD is still interdependent on the rest of BC, Canada, North America, etc. Furthermore it seems like you have not considered that: a) if the population of retired folks is growing they probably prefer part time work when they go looking for a job to supplement their income or just to give themselves something to do. b) I thought I have heard that with the aging population we will NEED some retired folks to work part time or their won't be enough people to fill the positions in Canada and again I think most of these retired folks will just want to work part time. c) Part time workers are often more affordable for a company for a few reasons like they don't have to pay benefits which although not so good for some part time employees, and probably difficult to understand for well-paid union employees, this allows the company to sell the goods at a lower price which helps the community who buy those goods. Generally speaking I think we are all too greedy in North America thinking we need a higher paying job so we can buy more stuff that harms the environment in the manufacturing process. It might help there to be much less poverty if there were more part time job opportunities so that those who don't need to work full time don't have to and those who need any job at all can at least get part time work. Then there are folks who are starting out in a career and need to get some work experience who I think would be happy to be given the opportunity to get some part time work. Carefully reconsider your rational for this target.

Too high I would love to see this type of growth, but it is not clear that this will be a typical trend for Canada, let alone the CRD. Municipalities and the CRD would have a limited role in full time job creation in the region.

Too high Idealistic!! One has to keep in mind who pays the wages of those they employ .This could result in loss of jobs due to business' unable to pay full time wages to their employee's.

Too high If everyone had a base income, there would not be unemployment. We would not need to think that everything needs to constantly grow. We live on a finite planet. We cannot continue grow and grow.

Too high

Income distribution is a bigger problem that makes it seem that poor people need more and more jobs. They do and they don't The income distribution system needs a lot of fixing. There are a lot of drones sucking up wealth and resources in unfair ways. We need to respect each other and learn to share. People with very large incomes need to go back to kindergarten and learn to share. It's a problem of inappropriate values.

Too high Is more jobs what we want for our society? What about more quality time with the community?

Too high Jobs are created by industry and a good business climate the CRD does not create either.

Too high Local government must stop hiring ... Using taxpayers money ... Taking cash flow out of the local economy by continually raising property taxes ... While finding it essential to raise civic salaries above the private sector rate.

Too high More money and less time (because of long hours) in some cases leads to less sustainable behavior.

Too high Much land (ab)use is justified in the name of "creating jobs". We have done a poor job of weighing short term employment against long term cost to the community, and we must do a great deal better in this regard.

Too high Not socially attainable.

Too high See previous comments on economic growth in general.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 266

Too high Since I am retired, I don't think much of jobs. I grew up here in the 1950s and you have always had to leave this area if you want to get a decent job that pays real money.

Too high The area is finite. Base job creation on population size which should be limited.


Too high The CRD cannot influence this subject in any way at all.

Too high The CRD has no business dictating the hours private businesses choose offer employees. There are laws already in place to protect employees and employers.

Too high The flexibility afforded by part-time work to creatively use our time and energy is necessary to changing the capitalistic society we live in. We can live on less if we have part-time employment available to us - even if it is forced upon us.

Too high The region has very little control over this (and increasing the number of employees at CRD and municipalities is not an appropriate strategy!!).

Too high

This question is going in the wrong direction. Rather than considering how many jobs we want to grow, which will influence how many people come to the region, we need to first consider what the carrying capacity of the region is with respect to how much water we have, how much food we can grow, and how much oxygen we can produce. Only then can we begin to calculate how many people we can support, and this is what the labour force projections can then be based upon.

Too high

Victoria has become a city that needs vibrancy - thriving businesses are needed to provide employment. People need to be attracted to the Core of the Region! The place needs to become, once again, truly attractive to tourists. We see that much of these have been lost over the last few decades and at the same time, we see hope in reviewing the membership list of the new CRD Board. The Region - and the Island - need an overall transportation authority to see that citizens and tourists are able to move about with ease. Too little attention is paid to the long crawls - the Colwood crawl, the Interurban crawl, the cross-town McKenzie crawl, etc., and the Malahat challenge. Indeed, the local shipyards could well do with a first-class Island Rail service to bring in many workers from up-Island - providing low-cost transportation for those who don't own a vehicle. The potential for bringing in day-trip shoppers awaits!

Too high We are automating and cutting production \staffing costs daily - wages are falling - or are failing to keep up to the ever increasing food and housing and living costs - what is to be gained from packing more low income people into this inflation situation????

Too high We have entered a long period of economic contraction. Discretionary income is going to take a generation to rebuild. Small businesses are closing. Big businesses are laying off staff. Jobs are unlikely to keep up with old growth forecasts. Be conservative in employment goals.

Too high Who is going to do that , if there is no work, there is no work plain and simple.

Too high Without primary industry, more jobs simply means less income for everyone.

Too high You are talking about government jobs right?

Too high You have no control over this.

Too low ...again, outside the scope of the CRD.

Too low 200% too many people in Victoria are over-qualified for their jobs. We need more and better jobs. Also more people should retire so younger people can get ahead.

Too low Create opportunity.

Too low Culture and the arts is a key area for jobs growth in the CRD.

Too low Does not seem to jive with what munis are saying independently. Affordability will be impacted by not just numbers employees but by dollars earned. Will this jog growth be high value?

Too low Eliminate unemployment. Reduce the work week in order to create more positions. Living wage.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 267

Too low Encourage business to offer full time work. Part-time work does not instill safety or loyalty.

Too low End the zero hour no benefits....force employers to pay decent wages from their bloated profits. Living wage and guaranteed income strategies should be implemented.

Too low Full time jobs are not a fit for many people facing barriers to employment, or for women looking after children, etc. Instead of the focus on full-time work, can we expand this to include 'increase the number of well-paid part-time opportunities that provide benefits to workers.

Too low How is this to be accomplished, given our free enterprise, market driven economic system?

Too low In particular for youth and main household bread winners, full time employment is a necessity. There has been far too much degradement in employment from full to part time over the past decade.

Too low Inter municipal competition and policy differences will hamper any significant coordination of regional economic policy. But economics more than any other single factor will affect the ability to achieve other goals.

Too low

Lack of full time jobs is a problem for the entire province, country, and in fact the world at large. I believe this is due to a recent trend of replacing full time jobs with part time, temporary, casual, and contract positions (presumably a cost-cutting measure for employers). It should be a higher priority for our region to create an abundance of full time jobs.

Too low Let's push, for quality jobs at good levels...

Too low

Let's put a push on this. The trickledown effect would improve carbon emission numbers since there should be fewer commuters doing the Dash and Crawl and also improve potentially family wellbeing with parents working outside the home with more minutes available to be at home rather than commuting.

Too low Lower growth. Stop multiplying. Go back where you came from.

Too low More Jobs that train young people similar to apprentice jobs would be good.

Too low Need more jobs in Westshore.

Too low Need specific targets committed to growing beyond growth of the labour force.

Too low Need to plan for Growth for Income taxes.

Too low Part time jobs are used to avoid benefits and should be discouraged.. Full time jobs need to be increased at a greater rate than the labour force. growth.

Too low Part-time work does not allow any feeling of safety or commitment to the wellbeing of our communities.

Too low

Quality of life can also be increased by changing the definition of full time work. For example if full time is 3-4 days per week, AND people don't need to own a car, and they can walk, ride most places, AND they don't have a large mortgage or high rents they could be quite happy and have more time for leisure. I would change this target from full time work to "adequate employment".

Too low Service jobs must have a higher rate of pay in excess of $15/ hour.

Too low Set a target 2% growth don't rig it to another measurement.

Too low

Targets on what influences businesses to come, stay and create jobs should be targeted in the RSS not job development itself unless the CRD and the municipalities are on track to be huge employers there is no direct control over this target by the CRD. Again, the implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

Too low The creation of local employment opportunities should be encouraged and the focus should be shifted to create jobs in sustainable fields. That would include farming, gardening, transportation (bike couriers and delivery) home retrofits (energy efficiency, insulation, solar system installations etc.).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 268

Too low

The focus of the CRD should be to encourage high tech sector employment in the region. We have an awesome green/blue space that would appeal to many younger high tech workers for a lifestyle choice. The development of many housing options and viable alternative transportation options will also help to attract these workers. We need more high paying and full time jobs in the region.

Too low The key word here is "full time" The trend of employers is to have many "part time" rather than a few "full time" That trend has to be reversed, urgently, and with force.

Too low There are limits to how far this can be taken, but we currently have far too many part-time jobs, so the ratio of full-time to part-time needs to increase.

Too low

There is no question we need many more full time properly paying jobs with benefits in this area. Businesses have learned they get advantages from hiring part time workers. It gives them more flexibility in scheduling, it costs less in salaries if no benefits are required, etc. Businesses should have to provide benefits equal to their full time employees at a pro-rata basis plus 10% to all part time employees. In other words, a 50% worktime employee would get 60% of the benefits available to a full time employee. That would cause businesses to reconsider the value of hiring part time only. When people have to work 2 and 3 jobs to survive or raise a family, it puts strain not only on the employee, but also on the services the community provides, requiring more travel time, more commuting, more pollution, and less time for child rearing in families. The “norm” in retail, in particular needs to become full time work for those who wish it, with health, and insurance benefits. Fulltime employment also makes for more expert employees who are more engaged with their work, and more loyal to their employer.

Too low There is very little detail here. Not very well analyzed. Needs a breakdown on types of jobs/sectors. This comes across as an issue that is not very important to the strategy while it’s the most important issue to residents.

Too low There must be full time jobs for all who need to need them to support themselves and their families.

Too low There's never enough work on the island. There are so few opportunities outside of the public sector. Even the technology sector is crap compared to Vancouver. There is very little incentive for young people to WANT to live in Victoria because there are so few opportunities for employment.

Too low This is all tied to market demand. Who exactly is going to create these jobs? Or are we [taxpayers] are going to simply fork out more money for someone else who will do nothing to earn that money. Dockyard comes to mind for one.

Too low

This is the wrong metric - should be measuring prosperity and affluence vs. jobs. You can easily have a society with more jobs and less prosperity and you can also have a society with fewer jobs and more prosperity. Perhaps measure goods produced and trade (not gdp) as production is directly correlated to wealth and prosperity.

Too low

To achieve our regional sustainability targets we are going to need growth in our existing businesses and new businesses and entrepreneurs that are focused on achieving these targets. I think the CRD need to put much more focus on being a hub for sustainable innovation and green jobs. While the Targets Backgrounder states: "Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government." This does not capture the potential that local governments can have by: 1. Establishing a strong green economy vision and priority actions 2. Developing programs to support green jobs 3. Delivering a green business engagement program 4. Have local governments walk the talk and support local green business - waste reduction, procurements, green events, reduction of GHGs from gov't buildings and transportation 5. Support business sustainability engagement programs that quantify and track concrete GHG emission reductions.

Too low Too many people are scraping by on part-time low-paid jobs. This is not the way to create healthy sustainable communities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 269

Too low

We need to aggressively pursue local employment options. Instead of using our tax base to supplement the poor and homeless, use this money to create employment options for them. For example, jobs in: Sustainable urban farming Roads, parks, streets maintenance Community policing Day care for working mothers.

Too low We need to catch up from losses in full time jobs that have been occurring in recent years.

Too low We should aim for full employment.

Too low We should strive for a larger jobs target to entice workers to our location.

Too low What sort of jobs can be sustained in sustainable future? I don't know the answer especially if so many new jobs in the service sector are poverty wages.

High tech doesn't produce the number of jobs that a manufacturing company would . jobs come in the service sector, unfortunately, and they aren't well-paying....or could be if worker tips were left untaxed.

A good target but as the RSS says creating jobs is difficult for local government to have affect. At times the goal of creating jobs can have an undue effect on local government regarding rezoning.

A target concerning the types of jobs would be more compelling than simply matching the labour force growth.

A vague goal... need an infrastructure plan to create jobs where none exist today.

Increase full time jobs at the same or greater rate than the rate of labour force growth. Again, the implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

Increase full time jobs at the same or greater rate than the rate of labour force growth It's not the CRD's duty to create jobs.

Again, economy is the determining factor.

Again, I’d suggest we need to have a conversation about what a "job" is. can we consider musicians and artists, people who volunteer at so many various places, people who look after elder parents or children ... many many people "work" and are not compensated for it. too many others work at jobs that deny their creative potential, are soul-numbing and destructive. we need to radically rethink the way we ask people to spend their time.

Again, the absence of a digital economy perspective is limited the ways in which job growth and economic development are imagined.

Again, the implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

Again, this is not something under the control of local government. Should not be a target.

Be careful what you give away to "potential investors".

Can you influence the number of jobs? Is this not about sustainable development?

Can't see how local governments can increase full time jobs, except as part of general policies to encourage investment and employment. These should be pursued.

CRD does not create jobs.

Don't know.

Don't think I understand this enough. Ideally there would be work for everyone but that seems a bit of a pipe dream.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 270

Don't understand the question, doesn't make sense to me as I see young people leaving the area and childless professionals or retirees moving to the city.

Employment is overrated. People need time to enjoy their lives and raise their children well. Let's think about some maximum allowable hours to work. More people could be working if jobs were "smaller" in hours.

HOW.

How about developing policies which encourage and provide incentives to small business to hire full time workers instead of a series of part timers. Continuing to 'invest in high quality infrastructure, public facilities and parks' really only provides ongoing employment to sometimes overpaid and over-managed (too many highly paid managers and not enough workers) usually unionized workers. There are far more non-union workers in the private sector who struggle to manage several low-paying part time jobs, in order to afford to live. Focus on improving their lot.

How to implement?

How?

I cannot make a judgment...I would need to understand the facts.

I disagree with the statement "Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government." Sure there is a lot that senior levels of government must do but local government can build a sense of community that generates economic wellbeing and this community can act together to garner more support from senior levels of government.

I don't know enough to answer thoughtfully.

I don't think you have much control over the number of jobs in the CRD. Also there is a dilemma, more jobs = more growth = more development and energy use etc.

I like this principle because it could be applied to prevent mega projects and big box stores that would impact on the environment and communities and would undermine the vision of the RSS ; I support the following: Supporting fair access to jobs, goods, services and amenities; Rural areas contribute by serving as the lungs of the region, protecting watersheds, providing wilderness areas, recreation areas, open spaces, offering jobs in forestry and agriculture, producing food and lumber, and maintaining the beauty of the natural and pastoral landscapes of the region. Urban areas provide a host of job opportunities, housing choices, health and education services, public gathering spaces, and arts/ cultural amenities. A.There could also be promoted a way of doing local jobs better and ending socially inequitable and environmentally unsound practices (I).Selection forestry http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00092/note_03.pdf End the clear cut logging, and the esthetic fringe which hides a clear cut from view. With this system, your land is never out of production, you’re always growing trees. Merv Wilkinson. Merv feels his management style is fairly close to what foresters call, true selection system, but with one major exception. “I don’t over manage my forest,” he says. “I take my lead from nature rather than a textbook. Good forestry requires the flexibility to make decisions based on what is going in the forest, not always according to rules and theories.” See More on Selection Forestry in Other issues #2 (ii) Identification of biodiversity Another important job would be to identify biodiversity which is required under the legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity. (iii). Keeping it living Learning the ways that first Nations take medicines from nature without destroying nature iv. Value added End the export of raw logs and using them here (v) Linking those who wish to grow edibles with those who have land to share. b. Importance of not jeopardizing existing jobs (I) The jobs in salmon fishing could be jeopardized by socially inequitable and environmental unsound practices such as salmon aquaculture which should be prohibited. (ii) prohibit salmon aquaculture, http://www.salmonconfidential.ca/watch-salmon-confidential-documentary/ (iii) End the production and distribution of transgenic salmon should http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9431:transgenic-salmon-is-fraught-with-uncertainties-and-irreversible-harmful-consequences&catid=87:c-earth-


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 271

news&Itemid=212 (iv) Prevent pollution and invoke the precautionary principle Under article 194 5. of the legally binding un law of the sea is the obligation To prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment and to take measures necessary to protect and preserve fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of â€¦ forms of marine life. And under article 66 1&2, of the convention is the following obligation: 1. States in whose rivers anadromous stock (such as salmon and surgeon) originate shall have the primary interest in and responsibility for such stocks and shall ensure their conservation In article 8j of the legally binding convention on biological diversity is the following obligation: In the omnibus bill 38 the Harper government weakened section 35 of the fisheries act; undoubtedly, the weakening of section 35 was in contravention of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and its agreements.

I would rather see full employment with rewarding jobs for all in a stable population, but this is outside CRD's control. Developers will always say "you get more jobs with an increase in population", but I believe that is a Ponzi scheme. More population requires yet more population to maintain employment.

If many people retire in the next 25 years, and many retired Canadians move to the CRD, then we might have a negative growth in the labour force, but that wouldn't suggest that we shouldn't employ strategies to increase the number of full time jobs available to our citizens. Besides, at the present time, we have too few full time jobs for those who want full time work, so really this target is somewhat meaningless.

If you not that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve targets set are outside the control of local government, then what are you doing to change or influence. The target might be unrealistic from the outset if you have no influence on the ability to achieve targets. What can you do to fix this?

I'm not sure how to answer this. There seems to be a trend in employment to hire part-time employees, so we need more people to do fewer jobs. Many employers use that approach to avoid paying benefits. Both of my children (in their early 20's) were in that position last year, having to work two jobs, both part-time. How can the CRD change this? If the CRD can bring in policies that address this, then we would actually need to create housing for fewer people, and it would be more affordable because the employees would be working full-time.

Insofar as the CRD can affect this, it should encourage buy local programs, job sharing and encourage business growth and attractiveness of CRD as a place to work.

Ensure that jobs created support local business and are permanent additions to our communities not short term positions that do not support the community.

Not really within the power of the CRD.

NA -- the CRD’s policies as outlined in the backgrounder will support employment growth; whether or not that is full time or not depends largely upon trends and factors outside local control. (Exception: CRD and municipalities should ensure that any employment on the model of “Uber” should be prohibited if the organizer (Uber) does not take full responsibility for the “employees” pensions, worksafe payments, etc. etc. Shifting to an economy of “self-employed” paying enormous fees to computerized “coordinators” (often based abroad) who provide market contacts and enjoy effective monopoly through network economies should not be countenanced. Local government regulation has a role to play in avoiding this problem.

Not in your control ...

Not sure how this is under the mandate of the CRD.

Not sure....

Not within the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the CRD and member municipalities. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of the labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

Not your job. Cut waste, programs, the bureaucracy and regulation and this will take care of itself.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 272

RECIPE FOR UNCONTROLLED GROWTH.

Same as previous page.

Same difficult concept as discussed earlier. The implication is that there must be growth in the labour force rather than a change in the nature of work done. We are not a mining or oil producing economy on the lower Island. We need to focus on improving the quality of the goods and services we provide rather than the quantity.

See previous comments about working with employers and other governments to achieve job and employment security.

STAY OUT OF AREAS IN WHICH YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT Again, the implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

The CRD and member municipalities have no jurisdiction to affect this type of action. However, certain areas will have land use areas to encourage employment growth, such as encouraging farming on ALR land or other suitable rural lands.

The implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

The implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments should encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

The implementation of this target is not within the jurisdiction of member municipalities or the CRD. The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth, and local governments should encourage employment growth with such policies as noted in the background paper.

The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth.

The RSS should include targets that specify the land use aspect of labour force growth.

This does not appear to be able to be measured in "Too low," "About right," or "Too high."

This is totally not within the CRD's jurisdiction or mandate. Let the market dictate the creation or elimination of jobs!!! Sounds like CRD is again trying to increase its empire and bureaucracy.

This target is also not within the jurisdiction of the CRD or its member municipalities.

Too many jobs do damage to society or the environment, so let's be strategic about what we allow. Look at the Danish model.

Victoria has become a city that needs vibrancy - thriving businesses are needed to provide employment. People need to be attracted to the Core of the Region! The place needs to become, once again, truly attractive to tourists. We see that much of these have been lost over the last few decades and at the same time, we see hope in reviewing the membership list of the new CRD Board. The Region - and the Island - need an overall transportation authority to see that citizens and tourists are able to move about with ease. Too little attention is paid to the long crawls - the Colwood crawl, the Interurban crawl, the cross-town McKenzie crawl, etc., and the Malahat challenge. Indeed, the local shipyards could well do with a first-class Island Rail service to bring in many workers from up-Island - providing low-cost transportation for those who don't own a vehicle. The potential for bringing in day-trip shoppers awaits!

Well sure, good to have jobs.... But I, as a farmer cannot afford to hire workers. It costs more than I get for my product. I would love to be able to provide employment...


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 273

What type of jobs? Real, active jobs that pay a living wage and help to maintain or create sustainable lives, let's increase them. But sit at desk and manage jobs....we already have far too many. Action rather than more studies.

Whatever target is set, it's important to take into account that jobs should be created with local capital in sustainable activities.

With the aging population this is dicey. Many of the older people may choose to continue to work part-time as they age. I would omit this objective.

You know you won’t do this, too many fat cat civil servants at the CRD.

6.0 AGRICULTURE TARGET

a) What do you think about the agriculture target?

Retain existing amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands.



Too high 12 1.9%

Too low 294 45.7%

TOTAL 644 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 274


About right

"About right" is chosen, but - While we agree - fully - with the target, we see little hope of encouraging farming when "we" listen to those who will not allow deer to be removed from both farm lands and from our settled areas. There *must* be a determined program in place to achieve this goal so that the farmer and the home gardener can realize this "target" of yours and mine.

About right ??

About right A focus should be placed on Farmland Trust and ALR lands. Farmland Trust security will not change at the political will of Province.

About right Absolutely - we cannot afford to lose any more ALR lands.

About right ABSOLUTELY HARD LINE RETAIN (Any chance of recovery?).

About right Absolutely retain the ALR. We will never get it back after it is gone!

About right Absolutely retain what we have.

About right Absolutely. at least.

About right Ag lands keep the environment and open space available for the needs of the population for food, commerce and recreation.

About right

Agriculture is, of course important, but this document dwells too much on agriculture and not enough on protecting forests, wild harvest, fisheries and habitat protection. The lands West of Sooke are really not agricultural lands, though agriculture is practiced. Can we have more of a nod towards parks, stream protection (Salmon habitat) and forest protection.

About right All of it...and add more if possible...

About right ALR is largely broken, so I think there needs to be an alternative layer of designation that truly protects land for agricultural use.

About right ALR land is too expensive for farmers, especially those who want to care for the land and make it better. Most ALR land is grossly under-producing to its potential.

About right ALR lands to me are sacrosanct. They should not be reduced through substitution of lesser-standard lands.

About right ALR needs to be protected, this is a battle with the province, CRD needs to hold strong.

About right ALR retention is one of my biggest concerns for the region.

About right Amount of ALR land is not the issue, in terms of achieving more local self-sufficiency, it is how the rest of the agricultural business is allowed to thrive.

About right As long as the most valuable ALR lands are not traded for less valuable, in terms of potential cropping.

About right BE EXTREMELY FIRM ON THIS - NO ENCROACHMENT ON THE ALR LANDS AT ALL!

About right BUT - we also need to encourage owners to bring their ALR lands into crop production. We don't eat horses and that is what more and more land is being dedicated to. Additional tax incentives are a good way to do this.

About right But don't force non farmable land to stay within it.

About right But INCREASE amount of ALR land.

About right

But the ALR needs to increase Current land needs to be retained and more added. We have productive farms on land outside the current ALR. They should be brought with in the ALR. There is a problem with the high cost of land and the ability of farm to afford to start up The CRD should consider how it can support the development of community land banks and long term leases to farmers.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 275

About right But they also need to be fully brought into production. There are too many properties that are just country estates rather than working farms.

About right Calculate the amount of ALR land, how it is used, how much food is produced. Do not allow exclusions. Encourage intensified agriculture. Encourage rural land agriculture, urban agriculture.

About right Community gardens, rooftop gardens, changes to zoning and building codes to allow for more experimentation by developers and community stakeholders.

About right Complete prohibition on removing any Class 1 to 4 agricultural land from the ALR.

About right

Converting existing land into non-animal agricultural regions will increase production availability and decrease demands on the land already in place. It is well known that calorie for calorie and pound for pound...plant based foods are in the region of 6-16 times more efficient at providing food.

About right Create an agricultural land reserve bank to buy / invest / support the land. It isn't just about land... they need water, compost material to feed the crops and effective pest management controls for deer and geese.

About right

Do not allow further subdivision of ALR land. As importantly, ensure that development does not occur immediately adjacent. That needs acknowledgement - do so has caused many problems for local farmers Occasional removals from the ALR increase the temptation to request removals of other parcels. Even "marginal" ALR land can be suitable for agriculture and food production. Similarly, the designation can protect some ecologically important areas, although ALR designation is not an ideal means of doing so.

About right Don't lose land that can feed us locally.

About right Encourage farming or lose the right to keep it as farm land. Too much land isn't being utilized.

About right Encourage larger gardens, backyard growing, sales at the front gate in "suburbs" and town centres. Tax breaks for keeping your green space/large lot.

About right Farming also need to be economically viable. Could regulations be relaxed to allow for small local slaughterhouses, for example?

About right Food security is increasingly important as California suffers from a drought. The ALR should absolutely be preserved. I would say increased, but I assume that would involve infringing on wild spaces, which is not desirable.

About right Food security is one of the most important things we can be working towards as a community. At the bare minimum we should be retaining existing land reserves.

About right Given the need for future food security we can't afford to lose any more ALR lands to some form of non-agricultural development.

About right Good, but increase amount of ALR land.

About right Hang on to every square meter possible, and maybe add in a few more, for wriggle room.

About right Hold the fort on this one.

About right How are we going to make sure that the ALR is used for growing food?

About right I am not so sure the ALR is the best for farming or the environment. The ALR seems to be more interested in if a profit can be made from farm, than on what is best for the environment.

About right I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on this topic to voice an opinion.

About right I believe it's essential to maintain the ALR. I'd also like to see more in the strategy about creating local accessibility to locally-grown produce. We need more farmers' markets.

About right I feel that this is very important. As the climate changes we will need to keep these lands in order to grow food to support our communities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 276

About right I guess. I don't even know much about the ALR. Perhaps the people in Victoria should know more. We should be able to eat and it should not cost more than $1.00 to buy a single orange at Thrifty's. Victoria should be growing its own food.

About right

I live in fear of losing more agricultural land! Yes absolutely keep things in the ALR; see if we can gain what's been lost??? That's probably impossible... Any way to remediate or rehabilitate land that is damaged or abandoned? What can be done with marginal agricultural land to make it productive and biodiversity-friendly, supply more ecosystem services etc.? I wish there was a map for Section 6 that showed where ALR land was, and where it's been lost recently, and what it's been converted to (probably housing development).

About right I strongly support this initiative.

About right I think it is important for the CRD and the province to not provide ALR status to lands that are used as golf courses. It skews the numbers greatly as these lands are not for food production.

About right I think the boundaries are well thought out with small anomalies that cancel the missed ag land from the non ag land included within the ALR.

About right I would like to see initiatives for ensuring ALR lands are utilized. At present it would seem that a significant amount of this agricultural resource is being left fallow.

About right I'd like to see more local food being channeled into our public institutions.

About right Ideally this would be expressed in specific plans to cause these ALR lands and other arable lands to produce more food for local consumption.

About right

If the CRD is serious about agriculture, some doses of reality are needed. Merely protecting the ALR will achieve little because too much of the ALR is devoted to forms of agriculture which produce no food. Farm land is too expensive for young people to start farming. And unless we take a wholesale revision of our thinking about agriculture, we do not have a hope in hades of ever being food secure or sustainable. Some ideas: undertake a survey of the WFP lands for agriculture potential and set aside appropriate lands for agriculture. Develop a Lands Trust (or use the existing Regional Land Acquisition Fund) to buy (willing seller, willing buyer) agricultural lands which can be made available to farmers on long term rentals. Support the development of large scale greenhousing but since large greenhouses are built on concrete foundations and require extensive infrastructure, make certain that these structures are classed as industrial. This needs revision to definitions of agricultural zoning. Protect agricultural soils for those forms of agriculture which require the soil base.

About right I'm assuming here that you include "and protect absolutely" in your definition of "Retain".

About right In addition, some public lands should be allocated for more community gardening and food production within the urban areas.

About right

Integrated working policies between CRD and all municipalities are required to protect the ALR from internal damage/reductions. For example the dumping of waste materials (unsuitable soils) on a lot of ALR lands. Every year we lose productive soils and they often dump right over wet groundwater discharge zones - there are no surveys to assess the long term effects of groundwater flow and quality in a district. Farmers use a lot of groundwater - the ALR's soils and land are part of an integrated continuum the sensitivities and connections are usually overlooked by authorities.

About right

Ironically, much of the ALR land in the Juan de Fuca is not being farmed. Instead the Rural A Land is being used. Why? The ALR properties are too large and therefore unaffordable for the local farmer who is barely making a living off their land and certainly can't afford the large properties.

About right It is very important that we protect the ALR. We cannot afford further losses.

About right It is vital that we protect the ALR.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 277

About right It might be nice to increase it slightly if possible.

About right It needs to be complemented with food targets.

About right It seems like a good idea, but will be difficult to manage given the number of people who want to live here.

About right It will be about right if you stop future development, and can keep bureaucrats from selling it off (e.g., Sun River, Sooke).

About right Keep ALR lands for farming. Reduce land swaps that benefit developers.

About right Keeping lands in the ALR is not the way to encourage fruit and veggie growth, that just ties the hands of the farmers. Yes it saves them tax money , but it does not encourage production.

About right Local food sources are the way of the future. We need to be as sustainable as we can on this island. The families that I know are all adopting eating local as a way of life and I celebrate any cause to keep agriculture strong on the lower island.

About right Looks good, let someone else own the land so I can look at it and enjoy it.

About right Maintaining existing amounts is a good minimum. Is it enough to sustain growing populations? Should more be protected now to be sustainable? I don't have enough information to know. I hope you do.

About right Massive concern: ALR retention in light of lack of protection at the provincial level. A land trust or land acquisition program should be explored to protect more farmland.

About right

Need a local food consumption target as well - In particular, an indicator should be adopted to illustrate the shift in shopping habits of residents towards local food purchases (already collected through the Vital Signs Initiative); an indicator should also be adopted that reflects the increase in the total consumption of local food. Additional supplementary indicators could be also adopted to evaluate the performance of the local agricultural system (similar to those adopted by Cowichan and Comox). And, what about some house in order targets: Increase use of locally sourced food at CRD offices.

About right Need the land for growing food -it may already be at too much risk.

About right

Nice to see the CRD promoting "retaining" the current ALR lands. Municipalities simply need to more rigorously control the retention of ALR lands in all municipalities. It seems that in some municipalities (JdF included) such regulations can be set aside if a developer with enough funds comes along. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere cannot be acceptable, as when the Silver Spray development was able to strike a deal, mitigating the creation of an eelgrass bed somewhere else in order to put in a marina. As we predicted, the marina itself never materialized, but a large parcel of previously beautiful land that included a nesting site for 75 pairs of cormorants was forever destroyed. We miss seeing those magnificent, interesting birds.


About right No less.

About right No more land withdrawn from ALR. If CRD is to become sustainable, we will need farmland (as well as initiatives to encourage and support local agriculture.).

About right

Once agricultural land is lost it is virtually impossible to regain it. It's a complicated issue. Farmers are so poorly remunerated in our economy, the hope of selling their land is often their only hope of financing their retirement, for example. We need to solve the transactional problems in a humane way without giving in to pressures to allow prime farmland to be developed.

About right Once farmland is developed it is lost. Preserve it if we want any local farming.

About right Once the land is gone, it’s not coming back. Do not permit any further encroachments on ALR.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 278

About right

One thing that needs to happen is a consolidation of ALR lots into larger properties. I would offer a 10 year property tax holiday whenever any two pieces of ALR land are combined and then through a covenant restricted from subdivision Also, municipalities need to stop getting in the way of farming. People do not need to live near farms and if they do they should not be allowed to restrict any farming practice. The single biggest problem for ALR in this region is that most of it is used for large estates for the very rich. As it stands at the moment the ALR primarily keeps property taxes for the very rich low while at the same time offering them a barrier for having to have neighbours. One way to deal with this would be to add a very large transit tax to each parcel of land not being actively farmed.

About right Only it the lands is indeed agricultural and not solid rock like many ALR lands in the area.

About right Or, if it is at possible, INCREASE the ALR lands.

About right Our changing micro-climate will determine future needs.

About right Please strongly consider a regional farmlands trust or related levy to protect our existing farmland and protect local food security in the Capital Regional District.

About right Plus we need to make purchasing agricultural land an affordable proposition for farmers. Currently, farmers cannot afford to purchase land to farm.

About right Present lands are not very productive as many parcels are too small. A broader strategy is needed to achieve more production.

About right Problem is, a great deal of the ALR land is not really productive, unless for INTENSE forms of agriculture. And these forms require high capital. Where is that coming from ? And the payback to the farmer or produces is marginal.

About right Promote individual urban farming to increase access to locally-grown food. This will also help enhance resiliency with regards to natural disasters.

About right Provide people with information to make non Alr land farmable as well.

About right Retain all of it. Every square centimetre.

About right Retain ALR and when possible, add to it. Provide more incentives and opportunities for young residents to become farmers.

About right Retain IF it makes sense. If land can no longer be used for agriculture with any feasibility then let it go.

About right 'Retain' is the key word for me. More if it can be done but retain what we have.

About right Retain OR INCREASE.

About right Retaining existing ALR in North Saanich is an appropriate target. However in urban areas residents should be encouraged and enabled to cultivate their own property and designated community properties in order to promote food sustainability and reduce GHG emissions.

About right Sadly, this is about the best we can hope for. But if California suffers from prolonged drought, it will not be good enough.

About right Save the ALR!!! thank you ...

About right Seems like a no brainer.

About right Should read: retain existing and increase the amount of ALR lands in view of increasing population and uncertainty of external food supply.

About right Tell Stu Young...all he wants is more housing to fatten the Alpine profits.

About right That's the sum total of the plan for agriculture? Just keep the ALR lands? My gosh this strategy seems to lack vision. It's late and the survey is closing soon. Contact me if you want.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 279

About right

The ALR MUST be retained and supported. Future food needs will show up in the near future, disasters such as the drought in California will dictate that we must be able to support ourselves with food supplies with more locally grown products. Input costs have to be as minimal as possible and the supply of water MUST be at a reasonable competitive level. The present bulk rates are more in line with other jurisdiction in BC.

About right The ALR restrictions could be opened up slightly to allow for small clusters of "removable" housing units in the more rural areas. This could include intergenerational low cost housing, "grannie flats", cottages that do not require sewer hookup.

About right The establishment of an agricultural trust fund would help to preserve the agricultural lands while enabling young farmers financial support to get into farming as a sustainable career.

About right There should be a target for "Active farmed lands" not just ALR. Much is this land is not farmed.

About right This coupled with regenerative strategies for soil, water etc. would be good.

About right This is a critical area if we are to grow more food locally but the CRD needs to work with all levels of government to ensure this is not an empty aspiration.

About right This is a good target. Time and money needs to also go towards increasing permaculture designing so we have a more efficient and less harmful way of producing food.

About right

This number is ok given our current population, but will need to increase in the future to keep up. ALR policy loopholes allowing prov govt to sell off land to corporate interests should be fought against. Tightening policy so as to mitigate problems such as in the Gordon Head area, need to be approached with a common sense attitude, rather than a legal POV. Public input needs to be seen to be valued when final decisions are rendered.

About right This should be a major priority for the region. But there also could be a target for food production on suitable non-ALR lands - i.e., community gardens, household gardens.

About right

This target is a good start. It is refreshing to see the language of “retain” and not “equivalent” in recognition that designation of land in the ALR is a soil quality-based standard. There is no replacing or mitigating impacts to land in the ALR. Zero percent should be lost or converted to non-farm uses. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted for excisions. The target would be strengthened by two additions to read “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”.

About right This the CRD can control.

About right

This too is a no brainer. When faced with the prospect of increasingly difficult food distribution worldwide and potentially diminishing returns on existing agricultural land due to climate change, to reduce the amount of usable farmland locally is pure madness. I would also add that promoting urban gardening within the city should also be strongly encouraged (for food production but also for personal happiness and satisfaction).

About right This would be high on my priority list.

About right To be absolutely sure that retaining existing ALR lands is enough, I'd like to see data that would show two things: 1. The degree to which this land now enables us to produce food for our local population. 2. The projected population growth in this area for the next 50-100 years.

About right

Unless some more viable farmland can be created from present forest or other lands, preserving what we have may be the only option. However, I have just heard about a closed containment aquaponics system which could be operated on less viable land, maybe the future potential of this should be investigated and additional lands specially zoned for it.

About right Unless there are opportunities to include more prime agricultural land outside the existing ALR. This may seem over achieving, but as climate change affects our US food supply we may view having more agricultural land differently.

About right Unless, there can be some reclamation, somewhere, at some time?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 280

About right VERY HIGH PRIORITY.

About right Very important! If you are going to take densification seriously you must also take preservation of agricultural land seriously. they work in tandem. If you have any hope of increasing local food production then the protection of agricultural land is also very important.

About right We cannot afford to lose ALR lands.

About right We have enough land which is non ALR that is underutilized.

About right We have too little agricultural land, but the present task must be to retain it vigorously and not give way to pressure from developers.

About right We must be firm in our stand to protect agricultural land and not succumb to pressure from developers or pro-development politicians.

About right

We need a tool that allows farmers to protect ecological features (streams, ponds, garry oaks, etc.) AND still receive the tax benefits as if they were farming those lands. If a farmer runs his sheep through an important ecological feature, she gets a tax break. If the farmer keeps the sheep out, she does not. Does that make sense? no! Give farmers a break, encourage more farm co-ops, use Haliburton as a framework.

About right We need to focus on better utilizing this land and developing creative means of linking farmers to land. Consider land banks and leases for real agricultural activity.

About right

We require existing land to be able to help our self-sustaining food production, possibly more than we already have but that is probably not possible. Problem is small acreages might not be financially able to produce sustainable income, much of the smaller than 10 acres of ALR is taken over for hobby farms - need to encourage organic veggie and fruit crops. In my childhood, living in Oak Bay - everyone had a small veggie patch in their back yard; there were smaller gardens, run mostly by the Chinese population who provided fresh produce, sold from trucks each week to all neighborhoods - we need small patches located in neighborhoods or easily accessed in local areas. The Peninsula especially Central Saanich provides access to many small family run veggie stands or small markets.

About right

We will always be dependent on imports for most of our food needs, constrained by seasonality and land mass. I see considerable waste of arable land, ostensibly used by hobby farmers and the like, who are doing very little, seemingly abusing tax privileges. It would be interesting to see a program for ensuring that land is actively used to its best purpose, with measured and monitored incentives for agricultural landowners. I am not aware of such a program at this time.

About right Where possible, more land should be added back into the ALR to support local food production.

About right While it is difficult to role the clock back, it would be great to see some reversal of previous decisions and recognition of urban farming.

About right Why is there no mention of the quality of these lands? If they are being degraded over time, then we need to be preserving more and or need clear policies for preservation, soil quality, etc.

About right Will need to make sure the ALR land is used productively to produce food.

About right Work with senior governments to put ALR lands to productive use for food production to achieve local self-sufficiency.

About right YES - they have been eroding and it's the one thing that sets BC apart.

About right YES keep it.

About right YES retain.

About right YES!!! I also think various land use applications should be considered as potential green spaces and parks instead of condos and commercial spaces.

About right Yes, certainly maintaining what we have - and how about adding to it? Provide subsidies/grants/incentives for those wanting to farm but are unable to purchase the land.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 281

About right Yes, this is a complete no brainer in my view.

About right Yes, we must strongly resist any further loss of ALR land. The CRD can also look to create other designations and incentives to promote agricultural land use (including urban agriculture).

About right Zero percent of ALR land should be lost or converted to non-farm uses. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted for excisions.

Too high ALR should be re-located outside the Growth containment area, this is practical in every way.

Too high

If the cost of land & subsequent land taxes weren't so high, we could keep more land in ALR. But farming I within the 13 municipalities is simply unaffordable. Farmers on the peninsula particularly are going broke. Keeping ALR land when it can be put to better uses, like necessary housing, is unrealistic. Especially if that land is not being used for anything.

Too high

Not all lands in the ALR are actually suitable for agriculture. The 1974 commission painted with a very broad brush, but correcting these historic errors is like pulling teeth and the municipalities are asking for "donations" if land that isn't suitable for ag is removed, regardless of its unsuitability. Land that is suitable, by virtue of its soil type and contiguous location with other ag land should be retained.

Too high The majority of ALR land in the western communities is not fit for farming , The majority of this land is just kept so that people can get farm tax.

Too high This will only drive up the cost of housing, which, is hypocritical of the CRD.

Too high Too idealistic making it very stressful for those who have land which they can no longer sustain.

Too low ...and remove 'golf courses' from the list of acceptable uses.

Too low 3% of food consumed on VI comes from VI (was around 50% in 1950s). We will need much more local food in coming decades.

Too low Acknowledging that we will have a much higher population in 2038, would it not be proactive and foresightful to seek out more land to grow food?

Too low Add more ...or else how are people going to eat?

Too low Add the word - increase. For too long agricultural land has been given over to development - no more.

Too low Add to the ALR by creating green spaces within the city - too many roads that can be converted.

Too low Add to the ALR if ever possible.

Too low

Again you are lost in the past. The answer lies in the far past. In countries that have been over populated for thousands of years, no one in their right mind would build on land that could be farmed. Instead they built on rocky outcroppings. Huge tracts of land in the CRD are flood plains. The plan should be to move those buildings onto high, nonproductive land, and turn the flood plains back into fields. Recent developments in computerized greenhouse environments in Japan and Holland prove that if we used more of our ALR for greenhouses, that the CRD could almost feed itself in vegetables.

Too low Aggressively encourage urban agriculture and local food production.

Too low Agricultural lands can also provide some habitat for migrating birds....and this area is on important flyways.

Too low All agriculturally suitable lands need to be retained and put into ALR.

Too low All unpaved and unstructured land needs protecting from unplanned use until highest-and-best-use carbon-valuing is determined. Since only five percent of the province's land is ALR, this level is too tenuous for significant carbon neutral food security planning.

Too low ALR land will be an invaluable resource in the face of changing climate conditions - this will be key to increasing local food security.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 282

Too low ALR lands keep being nibbled away. We should create more.

Too low ALR needs to expand.

Too low ALR will need an expansion plan merely to stay current-sized.

Too low Animals live on planet earth as well as humans, and it makes good ecological sense to ensure that they too have room to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of animal happiness.

Too low Arable land has been hugely affected by housing development in the CRD in the past few years, with smaller lots and less area for people to garden on their own property.

Too low Arable land should be added to the ALR if available.

Too low As mentioned above, we need to encourage local food production.

Too low

As mentioned elsewhere, there needs to be some better accounting for farm land that is not in the ALR. People in the JdF EA build up the soil and farm land that is not in the ALR. "Soil quality" can be improved and small farms are productive. Glad to see support for a "Farm Land Trust" mentioned in the RSS draft. The water supply issues need to recognize that food production requires potable water.

Too low

As much ALR land has been lost, we ought to make a combined effort to re-acquire land suited to agriculture and also restore habitat for wildlife. Madrona Organic Farm in Saanich is a fine example with about 20 acres fenced and a wildlife corridor of about 4 acres. In urban areas, food security and composting ought to be more widely promoted, along with private garden space made available to apartment or condo dwellers in exchange for "share-cropping". Appropriate fencing, deer repellants, etc. can make it possible to co-exist with wildlife.

Too low As the population increases, I believe that increasing community gardens, and making use of any arable land space out of vacant lots, etc. would be a good idea. We need to retain but also increase ALR wherever possible, to create security for future populations.

Too low At a minimum retain.....

Too low Based on my calculations of 2 acres needed to feed each person, we will have to cultivate lands not within the ALR to feed ourselves. While this is feasible, it would be ideal to have enough lands in the ALR to feed us and use other lands outside the ALR to grow a surplus.

Too low Becoming rapidly unrealistic. Set core ALR areas and secondary areas for future development. To not do so will drive affordability of housing way up.

Too low Calculate projected population growth and need for local healthy food and increase ALR accordingly.

Too low Can we not add to the ALR?

Too low Certainly retain the AMOUNT of ALR we have but ensure that NO decent food producing land is lost in "transfers" for development or golf courses. We should be working on adding ALR lands to former levels.

Too low

Certainly we should retain the current ALR lands, but we should also aim to increase them (if at all possible) and even more importantly, ensure that our plan supports active agricultural use of ALR lands. We might also look at the potential for designation swaps, for example in areas where ALR is no longer realistic, to protect areas not previously designated ALR, with appropriate compensation.

Too low Consider incentives to have land outside the ALR designated as reserve land.

Too low CRD must be more forward-looking to see where agricultural lands in production can be increased. Can't we increase the existing amount of ALR land?

Too low Create more agricultural land by encouraging urban gardens and greenhouses.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 283

Too low Create new gardens in urban areas and walkable centres (something to walk too). Give more power to food growers and not to food advocates. Replace stolen ALR lands and disallow land swaps!

Too low

Currently we import too much of our food from the United states. They are eying our water, and currently can produce 3 crops to our one . We need to become MORE sustainable, which requires ever increasing food production as the population increases. Therefore we need MORE land on which to grow our food. We also need tariffs on imported food so that our farmers can compete. Otherwise they go out of business. Another point is the affordability of farm land. We need to think about ways that new young farmers can farm, without having to buy exorbitantly priced agricultural land.

Too low Double the ALR, at least.

Too low Easy to measure; I get that. But this doesn't really measure food production.

Too low Efforts should be made to increase ALR.

Too low Encourage more farms, not less. We all need to eat, and getting cheap food from China is not the answer.

Too low Even without a food security strategy, we know our food supply is highly dependent on other areas in BC, Canada, and abroad. We should be increasing our farmland, especially as population on Vancouver Island is increasing.

Too low Every bit of agricultural land needs to be used for food production. This will also create jobs and help feed the hungry without bringing in food from other areas. We are in a unique position on this island.

Too low Everything and anything that can be done to preserve and expand the regional ALR is going to be vital in the coming decades. The CRD should also encourage urban farming, plant many more fruit and nut trees and take a page from Seattle by establishing a urban food forest.

Too low Expand.

Too low Expand ALR lands by 10% or more.

Too low Expand ALR lands by 50% and actively work to incent and promote the knowledge needed to grow a FAR greater amount of food locally and organically.

Too low Expand the ALR.

Too low Extend the current ALR by concentrating housing and demolition of suburbs.

Too low Food security is essential with the vagaries of climate change and an increase in global temperatures and different rainfall quantities.

Too low Food security will become an increasingly serious concern in the future.

Too low Given the increasing population of the Lower Mainland, I believe the CRD should try to expedite an increase its agricultural capability by increasing, not merely retaining, agricultural lands.

Too low Goal should be "retain and secure additional ARL lands - promoting innovative tools & strategies for local governments and developers.

Too low

Growing more food locally has to be a good thing overall. If you agree that growing food locally makes sense and if you agree that the CRD population is likely to grow at all then how about turning some of the rural resource lands into ALR? Also are folks allowed to ask to have arable acreage portions of their property turned into ALR if they are willing to do so? Also why not grow something productive in underused park fields such as Aylard Farm in East Sooke Park. You could still leave the trail through or near the field so people could see and be impressed with how the CRD is effectively using that portion of the park for its highest and best use.

Too low How will you increase local food production without increasing ALR lands? They should be increased.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 284

Too low I am concerned that some ALR includes things like golf courses and trailer courts and NON - FOOD related use. Never should be allowed ever again! And penalties could be set in place for those wishing to remove land from agricultural use.

Too low I believe we need to add more land to the ALR if we really want to develop a sustainable island farming community.

Too low I have said too low, because I know that the provincial government has opened the way for the ALR to be eroded. I hope that the CRD will not bow to that and will retain all ALR lands as such.

Too low I hope we work harder at local agriculture generally. Yes to protecting ALR but also incentivize that ALR means something like "grow food" not "country estate with cheap taxes". Do more to build flourishing local ag (beyond only ALR).

Too low I think that increasing the ALR would be important.

Too low

I think that the ALR should not just be retained but expanded and fragmentation of farmlands discouraged. Initiate a regional farmland trust and farmland acquisition fund, and support and expand urban agriculture. I think the proposal for urban agriculture is so important but the expansion of urban agriculture should never be used as a justification of urban expansion, or for a reduction of ALR or existing farm land. I also support the linking of those who wish to grow edibles with those who have land to share. I am pleased to see the CRD agreeing to the following: We, the CRD, agree to: Lead the development of strategies and action plans that increase awareness of food choices that support sustainability and human health. Local municipalities, provincial and federal agencies are requested to: 4.3.1. Participate in the preparation of strategies and action plans that increase awareness of food choices that support sustainability and human health. 4.3.2. I am, however, concerned that in the RSS there was no proscription against unsustainable practices that would undermine food security a. Proscription of unsustainable practices (I) I think that it is important to promote organic, pesticide-free, GE-free farming, and to ban genetically engineered food and crops, to support the UBCM resolution on GE-FREE BC and to institute a fair and just transition for farmers and communities affected by the ban (ii) Pesticide regulations strengthened and the following pesticides, banned *Glphosate as found in products such as Round-up, Sidekick. http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9826:scandal-of-glyphosate-re-assessment-in-europe-inbox-x-press-releasei-sisorguk-747-am-4-hours-ago-to-me-the-intended-recipient-for-this-message-is-drjrussowgmailcom-the-institute-of-science-in-society-science-society-sustainability-httpwww&catid=86:i-earth-news&Itemid=210 http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops *2,4-D such as weed n feed , Killex, etc. *Malathion Carbaryl such as SevinDiazinon * Neonicotinoids should be banned because of the proven deleterious impact on the bee population.

Too low

I think we need to maintain ALL of the ALR lands, AND also designate additional areas for food production. Using permaculture, we can utilize more marginal lands for food production especially with perennial edible agriculture. Food Forests, which are more reliant to climate change, and use less irrigation. We also need more areas for food production right in the urban environment. Back yard permaculture, neighbourhood gardens, etc. “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”.

Too low I wish this was more ambitious - but recognize that this is provincial responsibility.

Too low I would add to the target "... and aim to add to the amount of ALR lands as possible".


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 285

Too low

I would argue that it is more important to have high quality, viable and producing agricultural land, rather than simply a set amount of land in the ALR. I would prefer to see a target that focusing on increasing the amount of viable and producing land in the ALR, even if the overall amount of land were to decrease. There have been numerous examples in recent years of land being kept in the ALR that is not of agricultural quality. Would it not be better to sell off some of that poor quality land for development to allow for the purchase of high quality land?

Too low I would like to see an increase in ALR lands, again a Provincial matter. We have lost ALR lands. I am glad to see the proposal of a farmland trust.

Too low If population is expected to grow, ALR would need to grow or change with it. Existing levels are certainly worthwhile, but unsustainable if we wish to support food security.

Too low If possible, reclaim farm land that has been developed in the past, especially in Central and North Saanich.

Too low If the population is to increase, then you need to increase the ALR equally, otherwise how will we support ourselves?

Too low If the region is to meet the "tag line target", and GHG targets, the region will need to be near self-sufficient in food production by 2038, which will require more lands to be used for agriculture.

Too low If we are really to improve local food production we should try to reclaim areas for agriculture. Also, the Plan should recognize that agriculture itself is a source of GHGs and therefore the Plan could include provisions to reduce agriculture produced GHGs.

Too low If we want to expand food supply in the region, we need to make more agricultural land available. Importantly, the question of access to land for farmers, especially young farmers, must be creatively engaged. Just keeping the land in the ALR isn't enough.

Too low In 1964 80% of the food consumed on Vancouver Island was locally grown. Now it’s less than 5%. This is unacceptable. We should return to the 80% local food consumption rate within the next 10 years. That goal can be achieved if the will is there on the part of our elected officials.

Too low In future, the ALR holds the greatest promise of continued survival (jobs, etc.). We should put greater importance on securing additional land for the ALR as diversity is key to resilience.

Too low

In many of the other target discussions, you have shown what the general trend is. I strongly believe that this target would be greatly enhanced by showing the rate of loss of ALR area in the CRD. While I understand that you want a target to be achievable, the fact is that we have already taken too much OUT. Would it be reasonable to have a target to encourage land going IN? Or a net gain?

Too low Increase agricultural land - let's look at green houses - and make the island truly self-sustainable.

Too low Increase Agricultural Land wherever possible so that we depend less and less on food from California, Mexico, etc.

Too low Increase agricultural land. Land classification is a misnomer, any soil can be improved with organic ingredients.

Too low Increase ALR lands by placing covenants on potential agricultural land. There are too many examples that show that agricultural land is still being used for land development (e.g.. Helmken / Watkiss). Protection of these lands must be increased.

Too low Increase ALR lands.

Too low Increase ALR!

Too low Increase ALR.

Too low Increase the ALR.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 286

Too low Increase the ALR if and whenever possible.

Too low Increase the land in the alr and create strategies for small farming operations, cooperatives to meet the food needs of the island.

Too low Increasing local agricultural capacity will allow us to be more sustainable and adaptive to rising food prices.

Too low

It is critical to aim for as much food security within the region as possible. This requires the protection of farmlands and promoting community gardens and even urban commercial agriculture as is becoming a movement in many countries. The ALR has already been reduced by development. Food security with a growing population requires an increase in food production lands.

Too low Local food security is important.

Too low Local supply is needed????

Too low

Maintaining the existing stock s good, though there have been continuous pressure that erode it away, from the increasingly common practice of using such lands as fill sites (so dumping fees are collected and incomes for the land owner are higher with less work), and the use of such lands for recreational activities over farming. Here is an area where INCENTIVE is critical. Whether these incentives are monetary such as lower tax mill rates, and a STICK for purposes outside the intended use. I would like to see a push to incorporate productive food systems into new developments, urban forests and community parks, as is seen with the many food forests seen in the Pacific Northwest. Also I see a push for the inclusion of Nut trees a big issue in that they (chestnuts, walnuts and blight resistant hazelnuts) grow in areas that are unconventional agricultural niches such as in rocky areas and on slopes, and demonstrate long growth periods and drought tolerance.

Too low Make it affordable for agricultural business to thrive. You can't grow crops under cement.

Too low May need to increase ALR lands if seeking to achieve local food sustainability.

Too low More agricultural land is needed for our future.

Too low More agricultural land seems easily achievable and hugely beneficial.

Too low More ALR lands - more food production and food security on the Island.

Too low More community garden projects. Incentives to developers to provide food garden features in their projects.

Too low More inner city land soil tested and bioremediated for growing food.

Too low

More land needs to be placed in the reserves! Look at the rest of the world where they have built over everything..... keep the best land for food growth and save swamps, and look at what the land can really give to the people, then build housing in such a way it works with the environment enhancing the area not stripping and destroying it.

Too low

More land that is developed or in pre development should be re allocated to the ALR. Also food grown on the island should not be shipped to the grocers pool on the mainland and shipped back to the island as it creates excess costs and carbon emissions. A rising population and increased cost of import have created a dangerous situation of expensive amenities on Vancouver Island.

Too low Need more farming area.

Too low Need more protection for agricultural lands and more lands should go into the ALR.

Too low

Need to acquire agricultural land for the community to use or for farmers entering the occupation. Land is too expensive for them to purchase so any land owned but the CRD not being used for other purposes should be considered agricultural land and added to the inventory.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 287

Too low Need to add more land to the ALR - and prevent industrial uses like medical marijuana grow-ups from ALR land. Industrial greenhouses should be on industrial land.

Too low Need to consider capacity for feeding current and future populations of CRD. Need to consider increasing Agricultural lands.

Too low Need to increase urban agriculture.

Too low Once agricultural land is gone it is gone forever, even marginal agricultural lands need to be preserved.

Too low Only if it makes sense regarding the location, some land should be developed if its surrounded by settlement but new ALR lands needs to designated outside the settlement area in return, ALR land needs to be expanded to sustain the region.

Too low Or increase the ALR.

Too low Other rural lands should be assessed for agricultural potential, and those with class 2 soil or higher should be added into the agricultural land reserve.

Too low

Our population is already far beyond the carrying capacity of the ALR. We need to figure out how to increase the amount of ALR land; to increase the access of farmers to this comparatively costly land; and to institute policies that promote (or even permit) the development of infrastructure--grain mills, cold storage, processing plants--that make food production possible. At the very least we need to stop swapping existing agricultural land for less suitable land.

Too low Our region should be developing an agriculture sustainability to encourage the 100 mile rule.

Too low

Perhaps we could do more work / more education in terms of backyard sustainable gardening. But also let's think about how we use our agricultural land. For example, why are we building greenhouse on agricultural land. I think perhaps greenhouse could be erected on rocky places or those spaces where soil quality is poor, and thus save our fertile lands for in-the-ground food production.

Too low Please grow the ALR... and/or augment different classifications of sustainable land use the large corporations must pay a larger tax to assist funding.

Too low Presently people who live in the CRD have almost NO CONTROL OF OUR FOOD SYSTEM. We eat imported food that we purchase in superstores. We need a vision of a food system that is in our control to assure food security, healthy food, and a food supply accessible to everyone.

Too low Protect what we have and try to attain more! We need to eat. Vancouver Island only has enough food for 3-5 days or something ridiculous....if something severe happens in terms of weather or disaster we're pretty much hooped!

Too low Reclaim land taken out of the ALR but still sitting idle.

Too low Recovering some lost ground there would be nice.

Too low Remove land that is not farmable for housing. Increase the tax rate on the Hobby farms - few of which actually produce any real crop on their land and use that income to subsidize your affordable Housing initiative.

Too low

Require that local municipalities permit urban agriculture; actively support food production by reducing the amount of rural land converted to urban uses whether these are small-lot subdivisions in established municipalities or large-lot subdivisions in rural and unincorporated areas, especially 4-on-10's. Protect rural lands whether in or out of the ALR. ALL agricultural production in Sooke that comes to the Sooke Farmers' Market or to those in Victoria is outside of the ALR - check the Sooke Agricultural Plan. Not all ALR land is productive, not all non-ALR land is unproductive - protect all productive lands and those that can be improved AND CONVINCE MUNICIPALITIES TO DO THAT AS WELL!!

Too low Retain all arable land, it’s too late once it’s destroyed!!!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 288

Too low Retain it all and never allow any more to be removed from the ALR.

Too low Retain it? It has already been reduced massively. Get your head out of your asses.

Too low Retain or add to.

Too low

Retain or even grow where possible. Look to places like Oxoford where the surrounding farmland is so accessible to the citizens living in the city. They have hard edges to their boundaries rather than sprawling low density neighbourhoods. We have enough of those already so I think it's counterproductive to spread further.

Too low Retain or increase.

Too low Retain or increase ALR lands.

Too low Retain, yes...reclaim, yes!!!

Too low Retaining current ALR land is a good start but more must be done to make sure that such land is being used for truly agricultural purposes.

Too low

Retaining the current amount of ALR land should be an absolute minimum. In a world of changing climate food and water security will become big issues, and if the west and south of the USA and Mexico where a lot of our food comes from continues to suffer serious drought we may need to be able to grow more food locally to serve our local communities.

Too low Return marginal suburban developments to agricultural use.

Too low Review of ALR reserves and their uses. The increase in horse barns on the peninsula does not contribute to our increased food sources here, rather allows businesses to own large pieces of land and pay little taxes to contribute to our community. i.e. so not contributing food or taxes.

Too low Save all undeveloped land from development. Hard to grow food on concrete. We need to be able to grow food for our current AND future population. We cannot expect California to feed the entire North American population.

Too low See earlier comment. Repossess and remediate prime land which way have been turned over to development in the past. If this is a future looking strategy, we need to start making difficult decisions today so we don't mortgage our future.

Too low Seek more and keep all existing.

Too low Self-sufficiency begins with food security. Aid to farmers to set off the high cost of land.

Too low Seriously consider urban agriculture: roof tops, back yards, community gardens.

Too low Should retain or increase the amount of land in the ALR. I think I am the only person to successfully put some of my land into the ALR. It has its advantages if you want to life and work on a property.

Too low Simply retaining does not encourage sustainability. Reach out to non-profits stewarding ALR land. These volunteers go above and beyond doing amazing work. Collaboration saves CRD $ in the end.

Too low So much land has been taken out of the ALR that we need to put land back into it now.

Too low Southern Vancouver Island has already paved over some of the best agricultural land in the country and continues to do so at an alarming rate.

Too low STOP DEVELOPERS FROM BUILDING ON FARMLAND.

Too low Take every opportunity to increase the ALR.

Too low Taking away valuable ALR land is NOT the way to a sustainable future.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 289

Too low

The ALR lands are a good starting point and I support this in general terms. I suggest that: 1) you also consider non-ALR lands currently used for agriculture; 2) non-ALR lands that could be used for agriculture 3) that you expand the concept /definition of agriculture to include the provision of ecological goods and services AND how to formally recognize /reward farmers for the provision of these ecological goods and services; and 4) lobby the provincial government to include the provision of ecological goods and services in the mandate of the ALR and its commission.

Too low The amount of ALR land can absolutely be extended, and this can occur within concentrated urban areas, too. To have more protected agricultural land will ensure that accessibility to local food is enhanced and increased in the long term.

Too low

The amount of ALR land should be at least maintained in each municipality/electoral area planning district, and preferably increased. There should not be trade-offs to creating new ALR elsewhere for loss of ALR in the CRD. I support the other measures proposed, including finding means to finance purchase of agricultural land and ensuring it is in the hands of those who farm it.

Too low The area should maximize agricultural land availability and encourage local production/consumption to the greatest extent possible. Langford for example has a policy of no agricultural land being set aside. This is very short sighted.

Too low

The BC and Federal Government should be buying up and leasing farms instead of using royalty funds to clean up after foreign companies pollute our landscapes. This would provide many living wage jobs, allow real food to be grown and stop off shore ownership (with inflated dollars) to buy up our food sources.

Too low

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly supports the goal to “retain the existing amount of ALR lands” read as retaining the actual existing ALR lands, as opposed to “equivalent” amounts of land. The designation of land in the ALR is based on soil quality. Alienated agricultural land is virtually impossible to replace. Therefore, none should be allowed to be lost or converted to non-farm uses. The creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted as a substitute for excisions. In addition, it would be desirable to increase the amount of ALR lands. The target should be amended to: “Retain existing Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands, and seek to increase the amount ALR lands within each CRD district or municipality.” The problem will remain that small plot farmers generally cannot make a living wage at farming and land costs are too expensive for motivated young people to make farming a career.

Too low The CRD needs to make sure we have an appropriate mix of urban and rural areas. The food supply needs to be protected.

Too low

The CRD should be looking at ways to reclaim ALR land that was wrongfully removed from the ALR, as well as preserving non-ALR farmland that can be used for less intensive agriculture such as grazing, etc. Not all farmland will be growing cabbages, so not all farmland has to be able to grow them.

Too low

The farmland keeps getting eaten away, or in the case of CS being covered in dirt. We have dirt mountains all over?! Maber flats being a key area. It’s a floodplain and its getting filled in.....where is the water to go? It’s also amazing peat soil, but is not being farmed to any extent because farming is not very viable. Last I heard, CS is paying some ridiculously huge amount/acre for some of the Maber flat lands. The whole thing blows my mind. A lot of farmers are getting older, but we cannot afford help. Young people cannot get started in farming because it costs too much....

Too low The target would be strengthened by two additions to read “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”.

Too low

The whole region needs to produce a much higher proportion of the food that is eaten in the region. And local food production needs to span all food groups. The target for protected food producing lands and waters should be linked to food needs. Food needs should be a key critical target in regional planning.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 290

Too low There is significant arable land, some of it being farmed currently, that is not even in the ALR at present. ALR lands are being lost continually to structures and housing that are permitted as farming requirements. Equestrian riding barns don't produce food.

Too low There may be opportunities to increase the amount of land that is protected for agriculture.

Too low Think about it.

Too low

Think about what climate change will do to our existing land and water supplies, and to the land and water in the places from where we import our food (e.g. California). Good soil with nearby water is worth more than anything that any developer can promise. Our world will look very different in 30 years - be smart.

Too low

Think again about what a world without food security will be like and mount an all-out campaign to ensure we have local food security. That will mean much more available space within near range of where people line. That means people must move off of food growing land (and even that will be grossly inadequate). This target was set by some who failed to understand the issue.

Too low This does not talk about quality of agricultural lands, nor does it talk about agricultural production. A target should be set that aims to increase agricultural lands in protected and in production, as well as one for total produced food.

Too low This is a lame and rather meaningless target. If we care seriously about preserving agricultural land, it should be meaningfully refined or simply removed.

Too low This is our most precious resource. This is our food and we must add every little parcel of land that can produce or help the production of clean food.

Too low This means do nothing. We should be aiming to increase the amount of ALR lands and have them being farmed in a sustainable way.

Too low This seems to suggest, again, that the status quo is just fine. We need to reach higher.

Too low This target is a good start, but is too low. We need to increase the amount of ALR so that we can become self-sufficient for supplying food to the Victoria Island residents! I believe this to be a VERY SUBSTANTIAL MATTER.

Too low

This target is a good start, however I suggest the following change in wording. The amount of ALR land should be at least maintained in each municipality/electoral area planning district and preferably increased. There should not be trade-offs to creating new ALR elsewhere for loss of ALR in the CRD.

Too low

This target is a good start. It is refreshing to see the language of “retain” and not “equivalent” in recognition that designation of land in the ALR is a soil quality-based standard. There is no replacing or mitigating impacts to land in the ALR. Zero percent should be lost or converted to non-farm uses. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted for excisions. The target would be strengthened by two additions to read “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”.

Too low

This target is a good start. It is refreshing to see the language of “retain” and not “equivalent” in recognition that designation of land in the ALR is a soil quality-based standard. There is no replacing or mitigating impacts to land in the ALR. Zero percent should be lost or converted to non-farm uses. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted for excisions. ***The target should be strengthened by two additions to read “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”. We need to recognize that with small scale intensive farming, and other methods not used in commercial farming, small scale farming can use lands previously thought to small or not soil via able enough to be in the ALR. The CRD and municipalities should create opportunities for people wishing to farm, on lands not in the ALR, to receive similar tax breaks and where possible, the CRD and municipalities should acquire viable agricultural lands (either in or outside the ALR) and lease or co-op those lands to people willing to farm to produce local food.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 291

Too low

This target is about land preservation and not about agriculture production. We need to move into talking about production and not preservation. What percentage of ALR lands are in CRD Parks? What percentage of ALR Lands in CRD Parks are utilized? What provisions for Utilizing CRD ALR lands were made in Parks Master Plan?

Too low

This too is really weak. It's important, but so much of the existing ALR land is growing hay, and not food. Subsidized hay for wealthy horse-owners, I might add. I would seek to add additional targets, including * a 200% increase in urban allotments * a 200% increase in the number of people actively farming * a 200% increase in the % of food grown locally. We need a goal for instance to reduce the amount of imported food from 95% to 75% or 50%.

Too low Tighten up the category of ALR. Horse barns, riding stables do little to encourage food production. Consider renting, loans to young farmers.

Too low Too low. By having Urban containment zones and making life expensive for those living outside the urban containment zones, more properties would become available for rationing or possibly expanding the amount of agricultural land.

Too low Too many ALR lands have already been lost, especially in Western communities, but also on the peninsula. And too many of them are bloody golf courses instead of farm land.

Too low Too much has been released leaving the CRD region vulnerable in the event of a major disaster, not enough food security!

Too low Too much has been removed all ready. More must be added.

Too low

Too much land that appears to be viable for agriculture remains under used, one or two crops of hay per year, or not used at all. Under used agricultural land seems to generate little interest compared to a few empty stores in a mall or empty property in the local industrial park. I note that lately both Victoria and Langford have put forward proposals/initiatives to encourage commercial use in their jurisdictions. Reduction of red tape and innovative tax levels etc. Perhaps some of this energy and imagination could be focused on our agricultural endeavors.

Too low Too often people have been able to remove land from the ALR and then use it in such a way the land will no longer be farmable. We need to stop this erosion and increase garden plots available for people who have no place to grow food.

Too low We also need to see the food system as broader than agriculture and remember that the forests, waterways and lands are food systems and they need protection and revitalization.

Too low We are losing our farm land, we must support all our farmers so they will continue to grow local food.

Too low

We are losing our most productive farmlands to roads and residences and other non-farm options at a rapid pace. We need to maintain all farmland we can. We rely way too heavily on imported food sources on the island. As I understand it, we currently have less than 72 hours of food available without importation. What happens during disasters like earthquakes, floods, or no ferry service? We should not be so dependent upon US food sources. They have different ideas of use of pesticides, GMO, BST and other growing methods which we do not endorse. If we are fully dependent upon them for certain foods, we are unable to dictate out limitations.

Too low

We cannot afford to release any more ALR lands to development. If California has weather/crop problems our costs go through the roof. I believe we need to add ALR lands and support groups, families that would like to farm as a lifestyle and business. Like protecting our water source, this is fundamental to local sustainability.

Too low We even need to preserve land that is not designated ALR if it is suitable for farming. We cannot count on drought-ridden California forever.

Too low We have already lost a lot of land to industrial and housing developments - we need to create a better balance by increasing this land - it ties in to job creation in addition to the extremely important self-sustainability picture.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 292

Too low We have already lost too much valuable agricultural land and need to rebuild our capacity for food production. We must recognize the need to provide buffer zones to active farming areas to support and protect effective farming methods.

Too low We have lost all land over the past decade…should be higher.

Too low We have some wonderful and amazing growing land. There should be more land dedicated to the ALR.

Too low We live in one of the more fertile areas of Canada. As a former owner of Madrona Farm I can remember my father planting been seeds on Christmas Day. With climate change perhaps we can be growing year round in Victoria.

Too low

We must increase the amount of land in agriculture production of food. People who buy "farms" as estate property need to be taxed accordingly, as it does not seem likely we can stop them from purchasing the land. The smoke screen of producing a little for a farm tax break needs to be looked at.

Too low We need as much organic food growing here as possible.

Too low We need better education about the value of nutritious foods, exercise, and the benefits of locally grown food. And we need help achieving this. Community gardening should be subsidized.

Too low

We need more agricultural land in production plain and simple. Getting more land in the ALR might help, but more important is encouraging the existing land to be productively used and putting new land into production. This is likely the most important aspect of the whole plan since who really cares about transportation and GHG if you can't feed yourself. Will not be able to rely on the huge amount of agricultural imports in the future. This also goes hand in hand with health care by providing high quality, locally appropriate food for our population.

Too low We need more agricultural land with support for folks to actually use it and provide at least for the local market. Include urban gardens, roof-top gardens, etc.

Too low We need more ALR or equivalently protected land to grow the amount of food needed for the people in this region. While the CRD is raising funds to purchase land for habitat protection, purchase viable land for food production as well.

Too low We need not only the existing ALR lands, but if we are to feed ourselves and there is a population increase in the future, we will need more fertile land.

Too low We need to add more as the ALR is currently be decimated by the liberal government. If we save farm land it will be a huge economic boost in the future. Especially with the dollar tanking, importing food from the states will just become more and more expensive. Plus being self-sufficient is ideal.

Too low We need to be ADDING land to the ALR.

Too low We need to create more ALR lands!

Too low We need to expand our local production.

Too low We need to increase ALR lands or other forms of lands that allow us to produce more food.

Too low We need to increase local food production, which means not only keeping the farms we have in business but also opening up more agricultural in this area. We can and should be growing more food.

Too low We need to increase protections on all arable land, by adding land within the Capital Region to the ALR.

Too low We need to maintain a balance between urban development and the loss of ALR lands and other green space.

Too low We need to make local food crop production a priority. Not factory-scale animal based foods production, but grains and vegetables.

Too low We need to promote local food supply security and therefore we need more ALR land as soon as possible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 293

Too low

We need to start growing more food. We are one of the few places in Canada that can, so why aren't we? Areas like Metchosin need some political will to connect organic farmers to steady sales in school cafeterias, etc. Victoria could be doing that on a small scale too. More people will be happier with more integrated cultivation around them. Almond and walnut trees would be better than boulevard trees in many places. roof and hanging gardens etc. can be modelled on Havana's success, which famously grows 30% of its cities needs in the city! And that's just the urban spaces. We have some of the best agricultural land and we need to defend it as if our lives depended on it. Contiguous grazing and pasture needs to be reclaimed for cattle and sheep, etc. Subsidies for young farmers who can't break in and housing for farm labourers on farms is essential. Retiring farms should be given a decent retirement income instead of them needing to sell their land to developers in lieu of decent pensions.

Too low We need to support farmer to grow most of the food for this region. More farmland needs to be protected.

Too low We need to take any opportunity possible to add land to the ALR.

Too low

We should add more whenever possible. Support the Province to strengthen to ALC. Food security is a serious concern of mine, because 1. Climate change is making California, our major supplier of produce, more fragile due to more extreme drought/wet cycles; 2. Farming and food transportation are highly energy intensive. Local food growing capacity reduces our dependency on distant suppliers and our risk of not having enough food.

Too low We should be actively seeking to increase the amount of ALR land here. Victoria and the southern tip of Vancouver Island has a very unique climate and we should be seeking to grow that immensely important agricultural land.

Too low We should be seeking to reclaim agricultural land, not retain! Increase it!

Too low We should create the means to establish more ALR land.

Too low We should increase local food production to support self-sufficiency.

Too low We should make it easier for people who want to farm and put more land into the ALR. Locally produced food is a better option in many ways.

Too low We should not just retain the ALR land, we should both add to the land reserve and identify strategies to encourage the ALR to be farmed.

Too low

We should retain every scrap of ALR land, and make sure that other good farmland is zoned so as to keep it as farmland as well. An acre of farmland, intensively managed growing mixed vegetables, can produce $40,000 (gross) of food annually -- I am a market gardener, and I know farmers who are doing it. We have 26000 acres in the ALR in the CRD. That COULD produce over a billion dollars of food annually, if every bit of the land is grown this way. Think of the benefit to the local economy, the environment, the health of the CRD residents, and to our sustainability if that was achieved. The average BC resident spends $250/month on food. That means that if every bit of ALR land in the CRD is grown intensively, we can feed 345,000 people -- approximately the PRESENT population of the CRD. We will need thousands of well-trained, knowledgeable farmers to produce at this level. We will also need the infrastructure and supports for the farmers to make that happen. Obviously these are simplistic numbers. Not all our ALR land is capable of producing at this level, and not everyone wants to eat a totally vegetarian diet, but if sustainability is the goal, you can see how far we have to go in terms of agriculture, to reach that goal. But I think it's absolutely imperative that we do everything we can to reach it, since the global food-producing land is shrinking, many areas that have formerly produced food for us and the rest of the world are drying up, and food prices are rising quickly. Also, PLEASE keep in mind that North Saanich and Central Saanich have the highest producing farms (gross annual farm income) on Vancouver Island, at #1 and #2 respectively. From the Economic Development Strategy for Agriculture [2011]: North Saanich farms averaged over $119,000 in annual gross farm receipts -- twice the level of the average Vancouver Island farm ($58,000). We have very productive land here, and it would be short-sighted and a tragedy to allow that to be lost to housing or other sprawl.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 294

Too low We should try to add to the reserves (i.e. Panama Flats).

Too low We've already lost too much ALR, especially prime growing land that was traded out for non-prime development lands. We must reclaim more land for food production if we are to be self-sustaining in the food department.

Too low Whatever you do - do not let the ALR rules from the mainland trip over here...use the ALR for food production...

Too low Where ever possible put a priority on reclaiming land for agricultural purposes and supporting local farms.

Too low

While once again outside the CRD's ability to do much about, a continued erosion of the agricultural land base and the viability of agricultural endeavors is one of the most serious issues facing the entire province, not just the CRD. And the inane and ineffective nature of the regional Goose Management Strategy is a frustrating reminder of how far removed most people are from any real understanding of rural issues.

Too low

With the use of the word "amount" this statement suggests that some land could be de-zoned if another parcel was included in the ALR. I think this is a slippery slope and that the goal should be to retain all ALR land as and where they are, instead of the rather weaker approach focusing on total "amount".

Too low

We should be seeking to maximize our ALR - and to ensure as much productive land as remains is protected. California is experiencing significant drought - with climate change this is unlikely to improve in the long term - the agriculture of our region is likely to become significantly more important in the long term both in terms of resilience and economics value.

Too low

Yes, if you mean put some lands into active agricultural use and transfer them into ALR, while letting other ALR lands that are not useful for agriculture go. This needs to be about the amount of actively farmed land (which should increase significantly) rather than the land designation - which says nothing about what happens on the land.

Too low Yes, We need to maintain the existing ALR lands. We also need to protect non-ALR agricultural land and encourage full usage of both. At present, too much farmland lies fallow.

Too low

You need more than just land to grow crops. They need water at a subsidized rate. the farmer needs services to support seed development, implement design, product storage, soil testing, on and on and on. All the services that were promised farmers when they took the hit with the ALR when it came in have been successfully withdrawn by government. They need to come back. The result of this has been the further destruction of our local food system. The only real money farmers have been making in BC for the last generation or two is growing dope. It earns more foreign exchange than any other industry in the province, but the department of finance doesn’t want to face that little issue.

Too low You need to support higher ALR lands and stop changing the zoning of areas from Agricultural land to housing so that developers can put in more housing thus reducing the available seasonal fresh vegetables etc.

Too low You talk big, but all you ever see is a little piece here and there getting eating up by Developers. They promise this and that smoke and mirrors and soon enough the land is out of ALR and we get nothing in return.

Prevent any further loss of ALR and lands useable for farming .establish a regional farmland trust and support acquisition of more farmland .support innovative food and agriculture systems, expand farm production and local distribution of products (this will create jobs!).


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 295

“Retain existing amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands”. This target is a good start. It is refreshing to see the language of “retain” and not “equivalent” in recognition that designation of land in the ALR is a soil quality-based standard. There is no replacing or mitigating impacts to land in the ALR. Zero percent should be lost or converted to non-farm uses. Creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted for excisions. The target would be strengthened by two additions to read “Retain or increase the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands within each CRD district or municipality”.

Absolutely keep what we have in the ALR, however it is not enough just to keep the land in the ALR it is necessary that this land be in production and not just being held because one can afford to own large tracts of land. Too often on travelling around the region one sees large tracts of agricultural land with scarce or no animals grazing or just a horse, there need to be some incentivizing to have ALR lands producing food.

AND require people who manage those lands to do a bit more in terms of yield, fecundity and ecological goods and services.

Any discussion of alr ought to also include a discussion about plant-based verses animal agriculture.

Each member municipality can best determine which of their lands are suitable for agriculture (and animal husbandry). They can then deal with the Agricultural Land Commission to include/exclude lands to promote local food supply (sustainability). CRD can recommend but shouldn't usurp municipal authority.

Great idea to preserve the lands, but they should not be so restrictive as to what you can do with them, like hay or sheep.

I believe there are some properties in the ALR that will never serve any real agricultural purpose but I do fully support encouraging growth within our local agricultural sector. It could be one of the most important things any local government could do to ensure Sustainably of the region. (Jobs, food, housing, poverty reduction, environmental stewardship stem from here. Woodwynn Farm is a prime example. There should be way more people living on that farm and caring for the land, it would create jobs, reduce crime, reduce poverty, and reduce the need for low income housing all at once. )

No more golf courses from ALR lands???

On Pender Island, in order achieve a sustainable economy, some changes in zoning need to be made. I think we may need to move some land from agricultural zoning in order to achieve this.

Reinforce protection of REASONABLE agricultural lands. Not every parcel of land in the ALR should be there, and there are other areas which aren't in the ALR and should be encouraged to be returned. Even better, provide incentives and encouragement to the eager young farmers who want to farm sustainably and responsibly. Work closely with them to develop policies that work for the greater good. Not rules for the sake of rules (such as the weird sensitive environmental areas mapping in Saanich).

Retain existing amount AND food-production capacity of ALR lands. Too often see good soil land 'traded' for marginal land.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly supports the goal to “retain the existing amount of ALR lands,” read as retaining the actual existing ALR lands, as opposed to “equivalent” amounts of land. The designation of land in the ALR is based on soil quality. Alienated agricultural land is virtually impossible to replace. Therefore, none should be allowed to be lost or converted to non-farm uses. The creation of new ALR lands elsewhere should not be accepted as a substitute for excisions. In addition, it would be desirable to increase the amount of ALR lands. The target should be amended to: “Retain existing Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands, and seek to increase the amount ALR lands within each CRD district or municipality.” The problem will remain that small plot farmers generally cannot make a living wage at farming and land costs are too expensive for motivated young people to make farming a career.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 296

The mere retention of ALR land is not enough; true sustainability requires enhancement, improvement and increased growing use of these lands to increase food supplies in the region. There should be an effort to increase the amount of agricultural use of ALR land.

This issue needs a more nuanced evaluation -- is the land that is in ALR now appropriately designated and is there other prime agricultural land that should be shifted to ALR?

Too much land that appears to be viable for agriculture remains under used, one or two crops of hay per year, or not used at all. Under used agricultural land seems to generate little interest compared to a few empty stores in a mall or empty property in the local industrial park. I note that lately both Victoria and Langford have put forward proposals/initiatives to encourage commercial use in their jurisdictions. Reduction of red tape and innovative tax levels etc. Perhaps some of this energy and imagination could be focused on our agricultural endeavors.

Too much remains fallow or unused because it's not economic. Some should be preserved, but farmers have a right to maximize the potential of their property just as you and I do (or should).

Unless the land is farmable, really - not just for the tax advantage, then it should be farmed and the other land, not farmable, but in the ALR, should be made farmable with funds from the municipality.

Your question does not to make sense. You ask a 'yes or no' question and then and ask me to answer with a level.

7.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

7.1 Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt Target a) What do you think about the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt target?

Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 297



Too high 35 5.7%

Too low 53 8.6%

TOTAL 613 100.0%


About right 100% is good - We have an obligation to expropriate as much as is possible to preserve this heritage for our future generations. We need to have a public enquiry as to how much of this "ownership" was acquired in the past.

About right "Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt" poorly defined in your literature. When you first introduce the concept in the backgrounder you should clearly set down the extent, nature and rationale for it.

About right A good and forward thinking policy at a strategic level. Implementation needs to be fair and accountable at an operational level.

About right Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt Absolutely an urgent goal.

About right Absolutely. Keeping this area wild and contiguous will create huge benefits for the ecosystem and us. It is key to maintaining regional biodiversity and ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change.

About right Acquire it all, and add to it.

About right Assuming the land can be purchased at a reasonable price and that money wouldn't have better impact on other targets (i.e., public transit).

About right Bravo.

About right Bravo! As a co-founder of the Green Blue Belt Society, I'm grateful indeed. There are challenges, but citizens' groups can continue to help.

About right

But get it done well before 2038. And do something about the fact that most of the coastline (nearly all!) within walking, cycling, public transit reach of the population of the CRD is private, fenced off, inaccessible to most people and is a commodity called "waterfront" by eager real estate agents.

About right But I would like the green belt to be bigger!

About right But needs to be supported with good access for people of all income levels!

About right But there are lots of other areas which need to be added to protected or parks status.

About right

Cannot have enough natural corridors for ecosystem connection and ecosystem services. As funds are made available I see such projects equaling the wisdom in 1915 with the purchase of the watershed lands. Regionally I would also like to see the Mary Lake lands purchased or secured against development and to create a connecting corridor between Thetis Lakes and Gowland Todd and Goldstream parks.

About right Can't be higher than that, can it?

About right

Compensation must be based on carbon-integrated lost future potential rather than future potential without factoring carbon neutral values into the private property. For instance, if suburban sprawl communities are deferred in the Greenbelt acquisition zones, the compensation to the private landowner must be much less than the value of a fully built and sold expected development.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 298

About right Complete purchase of lands in Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt.

About right Cool.

About right CRD is known for its beauty, nature, habitat. We MUST preserve/conserve as much as we possibly can.

About right Definitely. ASAP.

About right Do it.

About right Ensure that when you are obtaining new land you are in contact with local First Nations. They have interests and rights that must be taken into consideration.

About right Excellent.

About right Excellent and absolutely critical for the ecological connectivity of the region. Good for people too.

About right Excellent idea!

About right Excellent idea....

About right Excellent target.

About right Excellent target. Please consider also the lands West of Sooke, particularly the Muir Catchment area for park reserve and habitat protection.

About right Expand if possible.

About right Fantastic.

About right Fantastic idea.

About right First Nations should be included in this plan.

About right Go for it! Make it bigger too.

About right GOOD.

About right Good goal.

About right Good goal. Need to meet this objective and identify new parkland acquisition goals for area west of the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt.

About right Good idea. And achievable.

About right Good idea. The right to a natural, outdoor environment extends to everyone.

About right Good luck.

About right Good.

About right Great idea!

About right Great idea.

About right Great investment in open space.

About right Great!

About right GREAT!

About right GREAT!!

About right Great, awesome to see ecological understanding guiding the policy of land-use development. Is the Sea to Sea Green Blue belt a large enough area to have the ecosystem function and benefit it is intended to provide?

About right Green spaces are the one thing we have that is in danger of being lost and affecting our quality of life adversely.

About right Hard to be "too low" at 100%!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 299

About right How much would it cost the taxpayer??

About right I am trying to read all your info and understand it all, but not sure if I am. I would like to see all Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt acquired and then some more if possible!

About right I could not make sense of the map, so am unsure about how much land this would entail. So my answer is "maybe about right".

About right I don't think the present greenbelt is adequately connected across Langford.

About right I hike this area and love it and it is large and varied and can handle more 'visitors'.

About right I like it.

About right I was one of the original stakeholders when this idea was first formed [we created the name at that first meeting] This dream needs to come to its full realization!

About right I'm a big fan of retaining ALL remaining wilderness areas intact.

About right I'm really pleased to see this included as an objective.

About right

It may be a good idea, however the documentation does nothing to illustrate what the remaining 10% is. Is this land timbered forest or what? And if such was to be purchased will it become accessible to the public, I understand it now not all of the current sea to sea in accessible even though it has been owned for some years, that is not good enough, there has to be a commitment to provide the infrastructure so that it can be accessed particularly if we want people to be residing denser clusters or the core and it also should mean that with objects of social equity such green space ought to be accessible by public transit (particularly if GHG targets are to be taken seriously).

About right It seems you are almost there - so 100% shouldn't be too hard a target.

About right It would be nice if the sea to sea green belt allowed some consumptive uses in the more remote parts, i.e., mushroom picking for personal use and regulated hunting.

About right It's a terrific program.

About right It's necessary to protect against human greed.

About right It’s not clear where this green belt is from the map.

About right

Keep in mind that this is also a marine environment. As such, marine related activities do and should take place here. Keep the inner harbour and all other protected bays a working harbour. The highest and best use of a harbour or protected bay is to accommodate a safe local for marine related activities like moorage, repair and shore based marine services. Too often in the past these areas have only been considered from the perspective of a view scape for land based residential development. There are many appropriate locations to build residential housing on land, but very few protected locations to moor boats. Victoria exists now because it was originally a protected anchorage.

About right Let community members to be sit at stakeholder table. Sounds good otherwise!

About right Link it to the JDF Marine Trail and to trails in outlying municipalities to make it complete.

About right Love this!

About right More is always better for this. It hurts to see beautiful areas destroyed for overpriced poorly built houses.

About right More than one belt should be considered- even on small scale too.

About right Must do. Period.

About right Nature reserves have tons of inherent value that must be protected to make our communities more resilient in the case of natural disasters and a changing climate.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 300

About right Need to protect forests, wetland, etc. from urban development.

About right Nice initiative, but won't we need a car to enjoy these lands?


About right On this I do feel qualified to agree unequivocally that this greenbelt needs to be protected in its entirety.

About right Only if financially feasible.

About right Our Regional Growth Strategy was well-thought out and this target was part of that if I remember correctly. Hopefully member municipalities haven't changed their minds on this one.

About right Perfect.

About right Real good.

About right Right on!

About right Right on. It is a large part of what makes the CRD livable and attractive to young entrepreneurs.

About right Sea to Sea Green/Blue Belt is a treasure ... go for 100%.

About right Thank you.

About right That is an admirable goal, and I would love to see us achieve it.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly supports this goal as highly desirable and achievable. It reflects existing and longstanding regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt, which is a key part of the green infrastructure for the Capital Region.

About right The green belt is an important part of the regional capital and should be protected.

About right

The natural environment is the essential component of what defines our quality of life here in the CRD and what should continue to be an essential factor in the future of the area. Once destroyed in pursuit of profit whether it be for "affordable housing" or "sustainable" economic goals it is gone forever and future generations will not be able to share in the quality of life we enjoy today.

About right The Parks and Green Belts are becoming more and more of a regional asset for both nature and human use. These areas greatly contribute to health and wellbeing; and are affordable for the participants. You can live in a small house yet get out and quickly enjoy nature.

About right This can be done and requires strong commitment in the RSS.

About right This is a great metric and an inspiring goal - well done! :)

About right This is a noble target and objective.

About right This is a very worthy target, as the area under consideration is truly a jewel for our CRD.

About right This is admirable and should be moved along.

About right This is our "true wealth" It should be protected from stupid and destructive development.

About right This is the first thing we should do, and have a bike path going along the water from Sooke to Sidney.

About right This target is excellent and achievable.

About right This target is excellent and achievable. It reflects existing and longstanding regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt, which is a key part of the green infrastructure for the Capital Region.



1214220002-015-R-Rev0 301


About right

This target of 100% is right and reflects long-standing regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Green Belt. It's still a great loss that the Silver Spray lands were taken out of the Sea-to-Sea Green Belt vision. The loss of that property creates a break in the Sea to Sea Green Belt chain. We have heard T'Sou-ke chiefs speak of cougars and other wildlife swimming the channel between the Silver Spray property and Whiffen Spit. It's the destruction of these connecting corridors that we need to protect.

About right Very important target.

About right Very pleased to see this....

About right We have to be careful though that too much time and resources might be spent to get that last 1-2% just to say we "got it all".

About right We must retain aspects of the original nature of this land - our Island home.

About right Whatever that means.... do you guys have a department that just creates buzz words and feel good programs or are you actually doing something productive?

About right

Wildlife requires uninterrupted water and land pathways to remain healthy, to allow for proper genetic integration and migration. Otherwise, this species diversity is diluted by agricultural practices, lack of primary predators, interbreeding, and other problems. Whenever possible, and in some cases reversal of current land practices are required to make sure such land masses and water tracks remain accessible to the wildlife. With this similar tracks need to be protected from human intervention, and diversity must be allowed to me maintained so proper sub-species and food sources remain.

About right Wonderful -allow everyone to access our wonderful area.

About right Wonderful, I hope it happens.

About right Works for me as long as taxes don't increase to accomplish this goal.

About right Yay!

About right YES.

About right Yes.

About right Yes.

About right Yes yes and yes.

About right Yes yes yes.

About right Yes!

About right Yes, yes, yes!

About right Your Targets Backgrounder could be improved a lot. It's unclear what area is left to be acquired in the belt.

Too high A stupid idea.

Too high Although a fine motherhood goal, I don't think this could be accomplished by 2038. I'm sure this includes private land with homes; expropriation is a horrible concept!

Too high And what taxes will be raised to expropriate private landowners?

Too high Cost benefit ratios.

Too high Cost?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 302

Too high Even China recognized now not the time for pipe dreams unless you’re planning to build nuclear reactors.

Too high Government should acquire nothing.

Too high Has someone forgot the TAXPAYER only has so much money.

Too high

I am not convinced that this target is really needed for the environment. I also suspect the CRD has enough underused park space already. Have you counted the number of folk you pass on the 18 km trail through East Sooke park lately? Have you considered the number of users throughout all the other large CRD parks? Do you really think that deer or cougars are having trouble getting into town currently such that they need more long, unbroken green corridors? I also wonder if part of the reason to achieve this target could be to satisfy the ego of certain persons or special interest groups and I think the RSS should move above and beyond boosting anyone's ego. Be careful thinking that one reason that you should want to move forward with this, or any target, is simply because it has been talked about for many years and it has gotten to 90%. Probably one sign of a good RSS is that it should actually humble a lot of folk. It may be better for the environment to sell a piece of property that does not make sense anymore and give the money to something that will more effectively help people or the environment. Remember as well that Vancouver Island has vast amounts of forest land - look at a map. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that spending CRD funds to acquire additional parkland makes sense.

Too high I see no further need to expand the Sea-to Sea belt. There is enough land today and into the future 50 years for parks.

Too high I think the location of the Green Blue Belt is not well thought out.

Too high Most of this area is protected. Focus on areas and ecosystems within the region that are less protected.

Too high Most Residents too old to walk it.

Too high Move infrastructure to higher ground ... Don't build in the path of destruction like tsunamis ... Plan ahead now!

Too high No practicable and too costly for tax payers.

Too high Not a high priority for me.

Too high Not enough background on why this is important.

Too high Since most of this area is protected, I don't see this as a priority for a regional sustainability strategy. A better priority would be to protect representative regional ecosystems in the portion of the region west of Sooke River.

Too high So where will all the people go in 20 to 30 years. You’re not thinking far enough ahead.

Too high These areas do not appear to lend themselves to any development, regardless of who owns them. Is restrictive zoning and clear communication of intentions sufficient?

Too high This is one that is not really needed. Very costly when compared to other items of more value. Not necessary to achieve vision.

Too high This sounds very attractive yet once again too idealistic due to logistics!

Too high Unrealistic targets. People should have the right to buy & live in forested areas.

Too high Why do we need yet another belt, part, trail, or whatever.

Too high Why?

Too low 100%? That is of what was already planned. The more people we have living in the CRD the more area and connections we need.

Too low A great recreational value and a great carbon sink.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 303

Too low Clearly the peninsula is being neglected.

Too low CRD should be making a concerted effort to protect more land through a land trust or acquisition program.

Too low CRD should dedicate part of its coffers to acquiring more areas in need of ecological protection, flanking the belt and further widening this biological corridor.

Too low Excellent and achievable target. There is never too much green space and wild land. It can do no harm.

Too low

Green space is essential for healthy communities and for hazard mitigation. As climate change progresses the danger from flooding will increase. We must move away from developments that destroy wetlands as has happened in Langford region and realize these areas are critical to absorb heavy rainfall. We must also protect the biodiversity of our communities. We need to recover wetland and green space. After their devastating floods, Alberta is now reclaiming wetlands to mitigate future issues.

Too low Help out the TLC.

Too low

How can 100% be too low, you might ask? Well, wildlife need corridors, and a green belt from Saanich Inlet to Sooke Basin is a good place to start, but not a good place to stop. Corridors are needed along the major valleys between Port Renfrew and Shawnigan Lake, and between Loss Creek and Sooke Lake.

Too low I absolutely agree with this. We need Mother Nature as our ally to stay healthy. The more animal and plant diversification we have the better off we will be. If more land can be acquired or agreements with farmers and land owners can be attained this will benefit all of us.

Too low I am all for maintaining natural areas! Especially the all-important forested areas. Trees are hugely important in maintaining air and atmosphere quality.

Too low I just said "too low" because this is an excellent idea! The more the better - I have worked internationally for many years. So many people here do not know what they have (and what they should protect).

Too low I think the belt may be in the wrong place. The Tod Creek watershed isn't protected and clean water is one of our necessities for a healthy life. Ideally do both, but do consider the impact of where the belt is.

Too low

I would like to see us pay far greater attention to protecting environmentally sensitive areas, acquiring lands to build wildlife corridors, and preserving natural habitat. Also a 'natural' park vs 'park' are very different. Some natural areas should have only controlled or even no public access. It's of no public benefit or interest to open up our ever decreasing natural spaces to the public.

Too low

I would look further into the Sooke Hills which have large areas that are being logged to the point that they are completely dysfunctional ecosystems. The management of the hills is completely unsustainable with massive sections of subsequent logging fields that look like croplands. There are some areas of old-growth still present especially along steep banks and streams. These areas should be protected right away as they are some of the last old growth pockets in the area.

Too low I would see that as one part of a larger protected area strategy that included additional protected public lands and support for private land protection.

Too low

I'm in the JdF EA. Most of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt is in the JdF EA, if not all of it. Also the GVWS watersheds. The JdF EA does not belong in a grouping as "West Shore". And let us extend the acquisition of wildland habitat to the west from Sooke River through the Esquimalt and Nanaimo land grant area and on to Port Renfrew. Don't need everything but need enough. "Nature needs half" says the current CRD Parks strategy.

Too low It is important that this region has a big greenbelt that is that is not fragmented, that gary oaks & other big significant trees that still exist are protected. They provide habitat & sequester CO2


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 304

Too low Keep acquiring land, especially to the west. Gain control of the forest land in the region for sustainable production and local jobs.

Too low More green belt. These areas contain valuable fauna and flora life that once extinct can't usually be brought back.

Too low More questions outside the scope of the CRD.

Too low Need to implement existing and long standing commitment to establish Sea to Sea Greenbelt. Must not be considered the only area needing protection.

Too low Not enough.

Too low

Obviously, 100% is "about right" if that includes all the lands currently in the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt. The CRD, however, should expand the Belt in order to protect more regional forests for recreation, GHG abatement and to meet our psychological/spiritual needs as citizens to be in direct relationship with Nature.

Too low Still looks like an unconnected series of islands, not exactly conducive to ecological system maintenance i.e. not even the land base for proper wildlife corridors.

Too low The commitments to complete the Sea to Sea Greenbelt need to be achieved. Furthermore, there should be efforts made to expand the proposed Sea to Sea Greenbelt.

Too low These areas have phenomenal wilderness values and as much of it should be protected as possible.

Too low

This is great - really, really great, don't get me wrong! - but it's not close to downtown Victoria where most people live. What would be the effect on housing (or other things) near the green/blue belt (the turquoise belt?). Would more people want to move there? Is that the most biodiverse area or are those habitats the most valuable ecologically? I would hate to gain something like this because it's easy, and lose other areas because they are more difficult to get, but more useful/important ecologically. How was the blue/ green belt determined, were university academics and NGOs involved? I'd like to see more information about this (like a video or something that's easy to watch/read, like Tumblr or a fun website, but not another report). All that being said, I love Sooke and I think this is an important thing to do! Many cities are looking at green/blue belts (Toronto, Montreal) and it would be great to have something like this for recreation (as long as it's not threatening the wildlife and natural environment - like ATVing around reservoirs or where cougars live).

Too low We need more public lands that belong to communities for shared use, enjoyment, stewardship.

Too low

We need to expand the STSGBB to larger corners for species connectivity, look at where we can protect urban forests, clean up the watersheds from the headwaters, and listen to where the community wants to protect properties (Maltby lake, Mary lake, Triangle Mountain, depleting areas on the westshore).

Too low You are still leaving gaps in the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt. There are countries that set aside more their entire land mass to parks and reserves.

Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt This target is excellent and achievable. It reflects existing and longstanding regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt, which is a key part of the green infrastructure for the Capital Region.

Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt. This target reflects long-standing regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Green Belt, and is a key part of the climate change, green part of the Capital Region. Acquire this land now, while it is cheaper and before developers purchase more designated areas.

Can we have more than 100%? I'm not clear about this...

Good idea.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 305

Great idea. The coastal Douglas Fir ecosystem is going to be under increased pressure from increased meridonial jet stream activity leading to longer periods of drought. Acquire and protect.

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT.

I don't see a greenbelt that allows for movement of species to larger undeveloped areas.

I'm not sure what this means but I do value and support the retention and maintenance of public lands. As a community/communities we need areas where we can meet and care for each other and our lands in common.

Interesting but not a priority for me.

It is our responsibility to create and maintain this corridor for future generations.

Just leave it the way it is.

More, but stay off arable land.

Need to inform myself.

Open it up to more forms of recreation. Anything with a gas motor is anathema to planners, but significant numbers of CRD residents want to ride motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATV's etc.

Sounds great!

Stay away from it.

Suggest that you consider ways and means to purchase/reward/incentivize private landowners to provide ecological goods and services from their land as contributing to the Green Blue Belt. This may be cheaper and more effective than outright acquisition.

Target sounds nice. Not sure why the sea to sea green blue belt is special.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly supports this goal as highly desirable and achievable. It reflects existing and longstanding regional commitments to complete the Sea-to-Sea Greenbelt, which is a key part of the green infrastructure for the Capital Region.

This is a laudable goal. There is also the "Blue “part of the Belt that has not been considered and has been in the works from Salt Spring to Port Renfrew for some years. In particular, there is a need for the conservation of the forested lands from Sooke to Port Renfrew in the JdF Electoral Area and OCP in that area. This is central to CRD Climate Change targets. More parkland in this area is required, now at about 3%. This can be achieved by adding the JdF forested areas and coastal areas to the greenbelt and no retreat from the 120 ha. zoning.

Too expensive and a waste of money that would be better directed at social initiatives - affordable housing, To provide support for new employers, allocate some of that land for industrial use.

Would this tie in to managed deer corridors? Local farmers have explained how this works to manage deer and help reduce their invasion into populated areas. Sounds good, close to the target.

Yes! Acquire 100% of the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 306

7.2 Conservation of Nature Target a) What do you think about the Conservation of Nature target?

At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) land and water base is managed and connected for the conservation of nature.



Too high 26 4.3%

Too low 197 32.7%

TOTAL 603 100.0%


About right :)

About right A proper definition of nature is required. People are part of nature. The food we require to exist and the organic by-products of our existence are part of nature. All inputs and outputs must be considered in an integrated manner in a holistic context.

About right Again very pleased to see this.....

About right Again, I'm not familiar with the GMPA.

About right Aim high and settle for a little bit less.

About right Although it will seem high to some this benefits us all through the ecosystem services provided.

About right Always considering economics to be reasonable. More would be better though.

About right An OK idea.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 307

About right Any bylaw would need to address concerns about drinking water watershed management. Deforestation in these areas needs to cease. Use of toxic pollutants also needs addressing.

About right As long as the strategy truly balances economic and social realities with the goals of conservation.

About right Be sure to include green spaces that are people friendly and readily accessible.

About right Both of these seem like good ideas, but I don't know where the money will come from.

About right But not too restrictively - our health and wellbeing means we should be allowed access to that area.

About right Conceptually good; uncertain how it will be achieved given the past settlement history and expected pressures. Suggest expanding the role that agriculture land can provide in terms of ecological goods and services as one means to achieve this goal.

About right Conservation of nature must always be a huge priority.

About right Conservation, enhancement, resilience and thrivability. Wildlife corridors are identified and the welcome mat is "rolled out" by making areas hospitable and ready for resting migratory birds etc.

About right Create jobs? This plan is to CRD Centric. I'm guessing that acquired lands are to become CRD Parks? Provide incomes for well managed properties.

About right Essential.

About right Fine.

About right Good idea, but probably unaffordable. Again inter municipal independence makes this difficult. Perhaps focus on urban containment boundaries, and parks acquisition.

About right Good target. However additional public park and agricultural spaces should be added where appropriate.

About right Good, but more parks needed.

About right Great idea.

About right Great, we need to do our best to maintain biodiversity in the region. Providing habitat and nutrients, and necessary privacy for critters.

About right Green spaces/natural areas are important for the well-being of ecosystems and healthy communities.

About right How will this play out on farm land?

About right I agree with the targets backgrounder!

About right I don't know what this target should be.

About right I would like to see the CRD to stop growing outwards, and increase population density where we already have development.

About right

I would like to see the word "protect" in there as well, not just manage. Issues such as cumulative impacts, connectivity, protection of endangered ecosystems (e.g. Garry Oak Meadows) must be considered. Ecologically sensitive ecosystems must be mapped in each local government or planning area. And a gap analysis must be done to identify what needs to be protected. How is the RSS going to deal with, for example, the Garry Oak ecosystem by Florence Lake that is threatened? Or the Douglas fir ecosystem that is inadequately protected on Vancouver Island?. The CRD has opportunities to do more in these areas as well as setting a standard for protecting critical wildlife habitat and wetlands. See Consortium comments.

About right If you can possibly acquire land before it has been clearcut...!

About right It could be a bigger percentage. Connected corridor areas (away from traffic) are very important for the movement of wildlife.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 308

About right It's okay, but could be even greater than 50% if the opportunity arises.

About right Love it.

About right Love it!

About right Love the nature needs half concept!

About right Monitoring could be a problem, e.g. irresponsible use of ATVs which degrades environment.

About right Neighborhood parks should be encouraged.

About right Nice if possible but the result will be much higher land costs.



About right Not just the conservation of nature in the state we've made it, but in a manner that helps its resurgence.

About right Not sure the CRD has much say in this as zoning is usually a municipal matter.

About right Of course more than 50% would be good, if possible. There has been significant habitat loss in the past 20 years.

About right OK, but you can't budge an inch on this amount!

About right Press municipalities to contribute more parkland at municipal level, e.g. Pendray property in Colwood.

About right

Protecting 50% Caore Nature Areas is great. As long as there is an understanding that the conceptual hubs and connectivity (RSS Figure 13) are deemed as necessary parts of the target as well. Too often, only ecological sensitive areas are protected, creating a fragmented landscape with tiny isolated non-viable patches of protection, which do not permit the well-articulated necessary ecosystem services described on p. 93 of the RSS.

About right Provided that it is not applied only to the areas outside the Growth Containment Area, but some proportion inside as well.

About right Provided that the region doesn't assume its commitment is met if the areas west of sooke remain largely as is. The target must apply to all areas in the GMPA, and include sensible projects (e.g. ensuring migration corridors, not just blocks of "unused" land).

About right Remember that people are also a part of the natural environment. With respect, people can exist within a natural Environment.

About right

Rural areas depend on underground and surface water for drinking, commercial agriculture, livestock, home gardens, etc. Trying to get our waterways identified and protected is a struggle. If you want to be sincere about this target then you'll need to get serious about accurate mapping and water enforcement in rural areas.

About right Same comments as 7.1.

About right Seek opportunities to combine this with local agriculture where agriculture can be more part-of-nature (more human labour intensive, not machine). Very thoughtful expansion of edibles in natural environments. Community gardens/orchards thoughtfully sharing natural environment.

About right Seems to be a touch ambitious, but I appreciate the target. It should not be done at the expense of adequate intensification of the urban core areas.


About right That is a lofty goal, and I support our attempting to achieve it.

About right That seems pretty high but I like the idea.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 309

About right

The above target is about right. It reflects a commitment to climate change issues, greater protection of ecologically sensitive areas. Hopefully another Silver Spray will not occur. The destruction of the ecological values at Possession Point and surrounding area will remain a lesson in purchasing such properties prior to developer commitments. There should also be greater interest in local park initiatives. There is nothing better than a local community based park to enable families with children to walk or bicycle to the local park on a daily basis, without the need for cars.

About right The concept is nice but I am not certain about its practicality. What are the tradeoffs here with agriculture and food security?

About right

The elephant in the CRD's "conservation of nature" living room is the private forest land in the vast area north of Jordan River, which is I guess 75% of the CRD's land base. It does not even get a mention in the RSS - but as a base for forest carbon sequestration, it's really important. I realize that the CRD may have few tools to do anything, but it does have some: mapping, data, public discussion. etc.

About right

The entire CRD should be declared a UN Biosphere special area as a way to apply moral suasion to the needed tools to achieve this intent. However, I am concerned about what happens when nature fights back, such as raising water levels, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.? These need to be mitigated now.

About right The pace of growth will control this. Too much restriction will drive housing costs too high.

About right The target is good. Emphasize West of the Sooke River, particularly adding the Muir Catchment and a green belt around Sooke.

About right There is no estimate of the costs of doing this. So my answer is really "Maybe about right".

About right This has an inevitable effect on raising the cost of development and living in the remaining parts of the region that must be addressed by other effective policies if it is not to be reversed under pressures at some future date.

About right This is a reasonable target. I would like to see an increase in parks where needed.

About right This is ambitious enough.

About right This is an admirable target, and a very important one.

About right This is essential to protect conservation of nature in the light of continual loss of habitat and the depredations of climate change.

About right This is really needed!

About right

This target is reasonable with climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience. Natural spaces will give greater protection ensuring adequate ecological adaptation over time which is imperative. There should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks as part of healthy compact communities.

About right

This target is reasonable. In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. However, there should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks where needed.

About right

This target is reasonable. In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. However, there should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks where needed.

About right

This target is reasonable. In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. There should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks where needed. We also need bold restorative targets for “nature reserves” They need to grow, not be maintained or shrink more slowly.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 310

About right

This target sounds reasonable and critical given the problems associated with climate change and the need for adequate ecological adaptions of flora and fauna over time. I have always been a big supporter of neighbourhood parks within walking distance for families with children and the elderly. it’s great to have huge parks like East Sooke Park, but a lot of folks simply can't gain access to such long distance walks on a daily basis. It also requires them to use their cars. As the various municipalities and JdF grow over the years, foresight in creating more small parks is advisable. We are fortunate that we live in an area dotted with many beautiful land areas and have the opportunity to plan ahead for small parks.

About right This topic is well managed at the moment. As climate change brings unusual weather, it is hard to plan for the unknown future. Therefore, changes may be necessary and should be made possible if needed.

About right

This will be hard to achieve but necessary west of the Sooke River in the JdF EA but the green belt around Sooke needs increasing on the north and west. The Rural resource lands are just that and increasing closed to recreation The logging has placed an enormous stress on wild life and eco systems.

About right

This will be incredibly challenging, but given the broad mix of lands and waters that qualify for inclusion in this network I think it is achievable. However, it will require an very large effort directed at public awareness of the importance of this initiative and an equally great level of coordination with municipalities, private land holders, natural resource companies, and senior levels of government.

About right This would be an important achievement. I'd love to see it higher, but this would be a good start.

About right We are bounded by water on all sides, so any conservation for Nature areas will probably need to have some form of shared use with other land commitments (e.g. dwellings, industry, transportation).

About right

We must be careful. Reducing is not always good. In a rain forest area, using water is good and building reservoirs, treatment plants etc...can help create the full time jobs you want to have. water is renewable and abundant. It is easy to reduce garbage though, we could have better regulations about packaging.

About right What does "at least" mean in this context? Could that mean 60%, 70%, etc.?

About right Whatever minimum is required to at least maintain species diversity is the least that should be maintained as parkland, and some of that should probably be off limits to recreational use, to allow it to develop naturally without disturbance.

About right Yes!

About right Yes, and we need to budget for maintenance of this land.

About right Yes, this helps maintain the urban forest and biodiversity within urban spaces, which has large benefits for human health and happiness.

About right Yes... at least!

About right You can never have too much fresh, clean water. The more we can acquire and protect, the better.

Too high Again costly to achieve and 30% more realistic.

Too high Cost.

Too high GWPA should be for humans to enjoy nature NOT preservation areas exclusively.

Too high How do you plan to make municipalities and private land owners conserve land?

Too high I can't find the section in your backgrounder but what can you possibly be doing to use 50% of our water for conservation? It sounds nuts.

Too high I see that number no more than 30%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 311

Too high

I support the following; Connected, continuous ecological networks and conservation corridors are an important means for supporting resilient response to changes in natural habitat allowing for fluid movement of animal and plant life. Regional environmental health, including the maintenance of biological diversity and essential ecological processes, can only be accomplished by working across administrative boundaries. Human health and well-being are linked to a healthy natural environment and the availability of areas for outdoor recreation and personal rejuvenation in an easily accessed regionally connected system of green and blue spaces.1 Regional economic vitality is linked to the competitive advantage we obtain from maintaining a healthy natural environment and preserving the natural beauty of the region. This land use policy area includes major federal, provincial regional and municipal parks and ecological reserves that are protected for ecological and recreational purposes. Ecological reserves, along with BC parks must be expanded and a moratorium placed on resource or urban development which could jeopardize future ecological expansion. Respect must also be given for sites which could be designated either for a UN Biosphere Reserve designation or a listing of a world heritage designation under the 1972 UN Convention on the Protection of Natural and Cultural heritage. See other #8 in other issues Abiding by precautionary principle is essential for protecting and conserving the environment and for reducing the ecological footprint. Canada and BC are bound by the precautionary principle which reads Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent the threat." (Rio Declaration, UNCED1992). In the Convention on Biological Biodiversity, the precautionary principle reads; Where there is a threat of significant reduction or Loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat In the1992 UN Framework Convention on climate change: The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and its adverse effects, and where there are threats of irreversible damage, the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures. And in1995 agreement, relating to the Conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks is the obligation to invoke the precautionary principle. There is sufficient evidence that there could be serious irreversible damage, loss of significant biological diversity, adverse effects of climate, and harm to marine life to justify invoking the precautionary principle and end environmental destruction (ii) Instituting the fair and just transition principle Often in projects that involve jobs and the environment there is as dispute between unions and environmentalists. An important labour principle should be applied. When there is the possibility that a project will be harmful to human health or the environment, there should be the institution of a fair and just transition for workers involved with the project. (iii)Transboundary principle; this principle usually applies to adjacent states but could also apply to adjacent regional districts. It is important to develop anticipatory policies and of preventing, mitigating and monitoring significant adverse environmental impact in general and more specifically in a transboundary context (Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 1991).

Too high In my books, go for more but I don't know about the reality or practicality of upping the target upward.

Too high Let developers decide.

Too high Maintain the current level, which is already too high.

Too high

Nature already has way over half of Vancouver Island as forest land and I think the CRD already has a great amount of nature conserved. Use these target funds in some other way for something that will be more effective like reducing the amount of cars crawling into town during the rush hour.

Too high Only if the target for affordable housing is met and conservation should never mean not public access for all to enjoy.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 312

Too high Parkland is an expense you can't recover cost. What happened to Sooke campgrounds, Jordan river campgrounds your organization can't support the current levels plans should be to reduce park land.

Too high People need space to live.

Too high Ridiculous.

Too high The word "manage" presents a red flag and thus once again too idealistic!

Too high This is at odds with farming.

Too high Too high for the area, although you again might be able to catch up with the many cities who have already done this for 20+ years.

Too high Too many local variables to just toss out "50%."

Too low 60%.

Too low "Growth “must start having a different meaning, and it's not material.

Too low 100% if we're serious about maximizing climate mitigation potential.

Too low

100% should be managed and connected for the conservation of nature - we do not have the opportunity to compromise HALF of our land base with climate changes imminent. We should be trying to protect EVERY corner of natural feature we have left, not just 50%. We have already lost 95% of our garry oak meadows, where did that 45% go? We have already destroyed over 50% of the natural areas in Victoria, all of the remaining must be protected, and maybe we will salvage our "Nature needs half" ideal More partnerships with nonprofits and other groups that can protect land with covenants is key. As well as facilitating the protection of private lands in other ways.

Too low 50% of the GMPA could be just the Rural Resource Lands. However, losing forestry within the CRD would be a major loss. It should have a goal about areas within the Growth Containment Area being managed for conservation values.

Too low A loosey-goosey phrase: "managed and connected for the conservation of nature". Very easy to work around, says nothing concrete. For a start, define nature.

Too low

Again I reiterate that we need to match population growth to the food, water and energy that can be produced in the region to support that. Increasing the park lands will effectively provide a container to limit growth, it will secure ecosystem services. I support more conservation area. What is the footprint required for one person's needs, and how does the population projections fit with this target? Something to consider.

Too low Aim higher than you think you can score you will likely be surprised at the results....

Too low All of it.

Too low All of the area should be managed and connected for the conservation of nature. This does not mean that housing/jobs/etc. cannot exist in these areas, but they must be developed in a way that allows for natural processes to work, unhindered.

Too low Another fantastic idea but you can never have too much forest around you.

Too low As other comments, need reduced growth.

Too low

At least 50% or more. I think there are ways to build communities taking the totality of our environment into consideration including wildlife. For example, there is no reason we should be affecting deer grazing areas by building condominiums in their pathway. We need to consider these things and how we can work with the animals natural habitats before we build.

Too low At least 50%.

Too low Clean Air, Clean Water, no toxics.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 313

Too low Connect wildlife corridors through residential areas as well as outside.

Too low Conserve as much nature as possible! That's a no-brainer.

Too low Considering most of the protected areas will be in areas outside the GCA, this target should be higher. There should also be a target for, or at least an emphasis on, protecting areas within the GCA as this is where natural areas are most threatened.

Too low Essential to the entire plan. 50% is far too low.

Too low Every time we encroach on nature there is consequence. That is why our housing strategy needs to be contained to where it currently lies. Grow UP not OUT.

Too low Green space and recreational areas promote healthier and happier populations.

Too low I agree with this proposal. I would like to see more land for Mother Earth, though the goal of 50% is a start.

Too low

I am buoyed by this question. I feel it's of great benefit to make every attempt to conserve land and water for the conservation of nature, but 50% is far too low. On the peninsula many volunteers are working hard to restore habitat, streams and lakes. So a sweeping 50% statement doesn't sit well. I'd rather prefer hearing sweeping statements that say 100% of ecosystems would be sustained for ecosystem processes and biodiversity benefits. Shocked to see how little green space appears on the map. Also, not all natural areas should have public access. Perhaps consider 'monitored' public access. I expect there would be an associated cost to monitor areas protected by by-law or policy.

Too low I believe that we have not held to this ratio in the past, if you look at the nature vs urban maps of 1950. I suggest that rezoning applicants be asked to contribute to the protected land/water areas or provide for a portion of the property to be committed to this.

Too low I'd rather see a higher amount of land and water conserved because while 50% is a minimum, a healthy balance is probably more like 75%.

Too low If any water is to be used, it must be cleansed prior to returning it to the river, lake, stream, ocean ...

Too low If growth is well-managed and channeled into complete, compact communities within the growth containment area (which represents far less than 50% of the total region, then it should be straightforward, over time, to protect much more than 50% of the region's land and water base.

Too low If we are going to have any positive impact - aim for 80%.

Too low In consideration of changing climate, protection of wildlife and quality of human life we must consider ecosystems specifically the impact of any change on entire watersheds.

Too low

In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. However, there should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks with food forests to increase local food production AND increase habitat for nature. We also need a strategy to maintain carbon sequestration in our forests, and our living city landscapes.

Too low Include adding to the base by restoration.

Too low

Leading biologists in the CRD are indicating that this is the time to ensure that we protect and restore as much natural areas as possible as coping mechanisms for climate change. There has to be a push to restore areas by planting trees in order to enable trees to establish themselves before radical climate change sets in. A priority in the CRD has to be the protection of nature. 80% of the Growth Management Planning Area needs to be protected and rehabilitated. This would include a large portion of the Rural Resource Lands. The CRD needs to enable dense forest growth on the Rural Resource lands as this would be the best way to serve the Region's citizens with impending climate change.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 314

Too low Learning about nature and conservation of flora, fauna and habitat should be expanded--even in "rural" and "urban' areas. The Metchosin model for "Talk and Walk" public education should be encouraged and expanded.

Too low Let's ask for more and hope we arrive at half.

Too low Let's shoot for 75%.

Too low More aggressive targets and timelines are required to keep the existing ecosystem functioning. If ecosystems become disconnected they will fail.

Too low More Metchosin thinking, Less Langford thinking.

Too low Much too low.

Too low N/A.

Too low Nature and people are one and the same, so false dichotomy.

Too low Nature needs half? Really? I disagree with the separation of humans and nature. Leads one to believe we can actually function without it, that we are separate from it. That is a perilous thought. Much better to emphasize that we are part of it, wholly dependent on it.

Too low

Nature needs more than half. Nature needs Half is catchy and sounds great, but is it guided by science or is it simply politically useful as a saying? Ecosystem integrity and function requires more space than 50% of what is has evolved with. If you took away 50% or a body, would it still work? Ensure this target is guided by science and is true to the intention. Politically challenging and progressive as it is already, can you give nature more?

Too low Nature target is directly linked to a sustainability plan.

Too low Needs work but can be very manageable.

Too low No harm in trying for more!

Too low On the right track but needs more to be save.

Too low Once again, as the plan involves increasing density, we need to balance out human and wildlife health with respect and access to our natural environment.

Too low

Once again, I will point to quality measures. If 50% of GMPA land and water base is NOT managed and connected for the conservation of nature - what IS it being used for, and what is the quality of that use? If a truly non-conservation based activity is happening adjacent to the conservation area it may completely eliminate the benefits of said conservation area. So, I would suggest looking to impacts of the land use (e.g. footprints it creates) rather than a simple percentage of land mass on its own.

Too low Our environment has a lot of recovering to do. We need to scale make urban development on a huge scale and promote nature on a huge scale in order to do this.

Too low Our natural environment is overused by people and dogs. We need more nature sanctuaries.

Too low Preserve more now to obviate the painful bioremediation necessary if we fail to preserve what Nature offers us.

Too low Proximity to areas of high ecological integrity have health benefits. These areas provide a bank of resources for sustainable future use.

Too low See above comment.

Too low Should be min. 60%.

Too low Surely we could manage our growth planning for the conservation of nature, or more than half of our land and water base. How about 3/4 or more?

Too low The CRD area contains a lot of nature and well more than 50% of it should be conserved. The CRD should focus on bettering current and not looking to expand housing, so it should be able to conserve 65-75% of nature trashier than 50%.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 315

Too low

The Juan da Fuca Forest will continue to be targeted for development. It ought to be protected with appropriate zoning, and the Juan da Fuca Trail widened. Bowker Creek has a 100 year conservation plan that ought to be stepped up. As the coastal areas are threatened with sea level rise and possible tsunamis, future construction ought to be curtailed. Insurance companies and liability lawyers ought to be helpful allies, as no one is enthusiastic about subsidizing threatened structures and infrastructure.

Too low The natural environment deserves more protection.

Too low The water base in particular needs to approach 100%.

Too low There is no Growth Management Planning Area, it is nonsense to suggest that there is actual planning for the conservation of nature. Take a look at some of the developments around Sooke.

Too low There needs to be more emphasis not just on percentage but on sensitive areas, risk species, old growth, unique habitats, unique characteristics or functions, and so forth.

Too low This could be improved - perhaps with some innovative strategies. There may be opportunities for the CRD to support municipalities in offering property tax incentives to landowners who set aside ecologically valuable lands for ecosystem services.

Too low

This is a reasonable target, although I believe that with certain novel approaches to nature conservation, which involve homeowners and other private landowners, the target could be raised. For example, many homeowners' yards support what could be protected Garry Oak habitat. If such areas were to be protected and connected, with close collaboration between planners and homeowners (and other stakeholders), this would be a huge step in improving the resilience of our natural environments. Urban diversity is of utmost importance and should not be disregarded. As such, urban spaces deserve protection and restoration.

Too low This is quite a good target, but the emphasis should be on the words, "at least."

Too low

This must be higher - see note above. We are moving away from a "dig it, cut it, gut it" economy - the most important thing for the knowledge based economy that we are moving towards is for our region to be desirable for knowledge workers / entrepreneurs. We have huge potential in this regard. And we can hugely damage that potential with quick-and-dirty plundering.

Too low This should be another top priority. Health adds to wealth, not necessarily the other way round.

Too low Ultimately we will have to return to the ancient appreciation that all lands and waters need to be managed and connected for the conservation of nature. (William Cronon's book "Changes in the Land" is instructive in that regard)

Too low Water it can be argued is our most important commodity - we must protect it in every way possible.

Too low

We are part of nature, and nature provides important ecological services to us. We need to consider that if we set this target too low, we are not only doing a disservice to nature by preventing or reducing ecological potential and possibly biodiversity, but we may also be starving ourselves of what we need to survive - clean air, water, and land. If we prioritize biodiversity and nature over sprawl and malls, we will be happier and healthier far into the future. I believe this target should be in the 80 - 90% range. We don't need more shopping malls or industrial areas. We need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean soil to grow food. Nature is our greatest contributor and should be prioritized accordingly in all of our planning.

Too low We have already over-used-50% is way too low.

Too low We have stolen too much from them already and are talking about killing wolves in this province and the like--let's leave something for the ecosystem and not be such a goiter on the environment.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 316

Too low We must aim high...we are getting too close to not being able to salvage what we have lost.

Too low

We need more protected area along the West Coast and closer to urban areas. As the population is growing steadily protected areas need to increase as well to ensure the unique quality of life in our area and protect this amazing area, especially any old growth forest that is left.

Too low Well, I would love to see more but it's probably not realistic... I'm going to put 'too low' just because I want to push council to do more!

Too low We're running out of nature...

Too low What does role does the CRD see itself filling with all of these proposals?

Too low What happens to the other 50%? Who is "managing" it?

Too low What's the fallback position if it turns out to be too low? Why not make it 66% or 75% and see how that works?

Too low

While it is great to see that the CRD has adopted nature needs half for its park strategy, 'nature needs half' actually refers to half of each ecosystem in a region, which would require a more focused approach, such as expanding protection and restoration of garry oak ecosystems. Please see: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/parks_19_2_locke.pdf

Too low Why not 100%?

Too low Why not more?

Too low Without a healthy intact natural ecosystem, nothing else will matter.

Too low Would like a higher target, but this is a good one to have!

Too low Would like to see it much higher - say 80%.

Protect our water! Keep water restrictions in place. Regulate/legislate soil waste deposits.

?

At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area land and water base is managed and connected for the conservation of nature This target is reasonable. In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. However, there should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks where needed.

Again, I am not clear about this. We need land for food production...

Elk, deer, bears and cougars are going to go where the food source is. Keep the rural areas rural and minimize opportunities for wildlife/human encounters and wildlife will stay in outlying areas. As for preservation of sensitive ecosystems and species at risk, the CRD should be leading the way and setting thresholds that the local governments are able to meet.

Is this the same GMPA in which we are placing 90% of development? If so, that land should be densely developed. Parks and public spaces are appropriate in these areas, but nature preserves are not. Land and water should have stronger protections outside these areas, for instance keeping 100% within the boundaries.

Leave it alone.

More is always good. Remember that MANY farm properties also have natural areas that we consciously maintain as nature areas. Hedgerows make for great habitat as well. English Ivy should be BANNED from the whole area. It kills forests and ends up being a monoculture that is very hard to eradicate. Funding/support for farmers to develop/plant trees/maintain ponds would be nice.

No opinion off-hand, but this sounds like planner code for "We'll tell you what you can and can't do with your own land."


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 317

Nonsense.

Not clear what this means. Conservation areas need to be connected to one another. Isolated pockets of "green space" do not support species.

not sure.

Not the area of competence for the CRD to pursue.

Please clarify if the intent is to eliminate operational forestry in lands west of Sooke. I don't see how the 50% target can be achieved without affecting that area. Forestry can be compatible with "conservation of nature" but the intent of this target needs to be clarified!

Sounds laudable.

This needs closer attention to local area planning and local input. A great concept but only in conjunction with the expansion of food lands.

This target is reasonable. In light of climate change and the increasing climatic variability we will experience, greater protection to ensure adequate ecological adaptation over time is imperative. There should also be recommendations for increasing neighborhood parks where needed. We also need bold restorative targets for “nature reserves” They need to grow, not be maintained or shrink more slowly.

What can you do about municipalities, e.g., Langford, who insist on building choc a block on flood plains (like Happy Valley) and seismically unstable areas - like Triangle Mt?

8.0 INFRASTRUCTURE TARGET

a) What do you think about the infrastructure target?

Identify, by 2020, the long-term capital plans for CRD utilities and major infrastructure improvements

necessary to address the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 318



Too high 32 5.4%

Too low 150 25.5%

TOTAL 588 100.0%


About right Absolutely.

About right Add increased vulnerability to wildfires to the list of impacts (longer, hotter and dryer summers; lack of snowfall retention in higher parts of JdFEA

About right

Again, this is the bare minimum of time we should be taking. If we only identify the areas by 2020 that really only gives us 30 (or less!) solid years of implementation, and that’s if we start immediately after identification, which, let’s be honest, probably won’t be the case. But this timeline gives a good amount of time to actually study and research our available options and explore some good case studies. Although we should keep in mind that we, as a community and region, should strive to be a leader in implementation, not wait for someone else to do it if it’s we believe it to be viable and cost effective.

About right Again, we don't know the future. We need to start soon to identify plans for utilities and infrastructure improvements, and we need to start making those improvements. We also need to keep in mind that, with a 25 year plan, a lot might change, and plans will need modification.

About right Although this should be decided within the next two years, the CRD speed of decision consensus suggests 2020 as an optimistic target.

About right

Amalgamation might reduce the overlap in support mechanisms, making this target more achievable, and providing more coordination between governing bodies. The CRD sewage fiasco is a prime example of this lack of coordination and cooperation. There is a lot of wasted time, effort and money the way things are done right now.

About right As soon as possible, and take this seriously. Work on helping individual communities increase their small-scale energy projects. Stop Site C!

About right Be sure to consider absolute high tide (storm surge / king tide / sea level change) when assessing sea level rise.

About right BTW Mother Nature is really not that much of a hazard. Humans are.

About right Build 20 - 30 state of the art tertiary wastewater treatment facilities scattered throughout the CRD instead of one big plant obsolete before it is constructed.

About right But start doing this immediately.

About right Can't this be determined sooner and then constantly updated? Why such a long horizon for this one??

About right Create a regional transportation authority to oversee all transportation infrastructure in the CRD. Small municipalities do not have the resources to manage such projects.

About right Diversification of energy, water, sewage through smaller sized, distributed systems to limit damage in case of major disasters.

About right Draw up the plans, but a referendum will be required before committing funds.


About right Essential long-term thinking ...


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 319

About right Find a way to fund them without breaking the population.

About right

Find out who, locally, is starting or running businesses engaged in utilizing our other natural energy resources such as wind and solar, tides, etc. Consider, first and foremost, distributed networks of smaller forms of infrastructure (to avoid repeating the whole sewage fiasco) Fund innovative small and start-up businesses by depositing reserve funds in credit unions for a 5 year term (with options to renew) and earmark such funds to be lent out by the credit union to such businesses. Some of the interest on the funds can help defray the costs of the lending program, or to subsidize the lending rate.

About right Fire is probably the single most important risk factor in the CRD. Is there a regional approach to managing fire risk? fighting fire? restoration after a fire? Is there water infrastructure which should be developed to mitigate risk?

About right Good luck! Given that the sewer system cannot be resolved (to prevent discharge of raw sewage into the sea) It is unclear how buy in will occur for other projects for upgrades which impact municipalities.

About right Good luck. I can design edible landscapes, I hope that someone else can plan the infrastructure. :P

About right Good luck. Reliable water supply is paramount, especially after the earthquake!!! The region and municipalities need to be honest with residents. We are not there yet. We have no plan to use emergency water supply when all the water mains break.

About right Good luck...

About right Good to plan.

About right Great! Thinking ahead today.

About right Great.

About right Heads up, that’s only 4 and a half years.

About right High priority needs to be given to mitigating damage caused by rising sea levels. In Victoria that would include the area between Memorial ave and Clover point and areas in James Bay.

About right However, faster would be better.

About right

I am unsure of two opposing issues. a) If waiting to 2020 to identify these issues is waiting too long, when we should be anticipating, budgeting, and possibly reacting to climate change mitigation is waiting too long to be able to both acquiring the necessary finances in time, and b) if we will have a full enough understanding of the likely curves and outcomes of climate change by 2020. Climate change, in spite of the many models presented is a moving and, for now, accelerating target. There appears to be some charges which are arithmetic and others which are exponential. While our area is probably less in the cross hairs of climate change than others, it is hard to know at one point a threshold might be crossed. I think we need to remain diligent and begin identifying issues now, particularly when it comes to weather events, such as drought, floods, etc.

About right I think it needs to include planning for some kind of light-rail for the Saanich Peninsula in the future, and of course, the West Shore even sooner.

About right

I would also add that this goal should emphasize cost-efficient provision of public infrastructure and services which in some cases could include limiting infrastructure expansion to outlying areas, or charging residents in more dispersed locations higher development fees, utility fees and taxes to reflect the higher costs of providing infrastructure and services there.

About right If you fail to plan, you plan to fail!

About right I'm sure you have spent enough tax payer funds on useless reports. Just do it already!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 320

About right Immediately halt multi-billion dollar sewage treatment plans since this is a red herring driven by special interest groups rather than good science. Focus instead on the real issues of strategic concern based on science rather than emotion.

About right Include flexibility -- we'll need it.

About right Include the BC Ministry of Environment maps or reference to the maps for sea level rise in the RSS.

About right Infrastructure development and repair is absolutely fundamental to permit growth and development of our municipalities.

About right It is a good start, but the adaptation requirements are a moving target, since the predicted impacts seem to be increasing as scientists discover more of the feedbacks.

About right

It is essential to have long term plans for utilities and infrastructure, with climate change, or simply for a growing and changing CRD. This is an imperative. And I think a review every 8-9 years to see if projects are on track and that the needs of the community are still staying the same or changing is also imperative.

About right It's a big task for 5 years - but climate change is URGENT, and Earthquakes are IMMINENT. No time to lose.

About right Just do it...

About right

Lol. Climate change. You are so wrong about everything you naively believe. I can't even start about how stupid you are. Of course climate change is real. If it wasn't, we'd be dead. That said, warming is completely normal, and we are in fact, in an ice age. More CO2 and warming would be fantastic for plant and animal life. Boy oh boy you politicians are gloriously incompetent.

About right Long-term capital planning is important. I'm concerned about the potential for waste on this.

About right Look into more local power generation, and backup reserves.

About right Major infrastructure is more than highways.

About right Most important.

About right Must have a cohesive plan.

About right No matter the cost needs doing and doing right.

About right No targets?

About right Not a lot of time.

About right Or sooner if at all possible.

About right Overdue And should be constantly updated. Municipalities should undertake to do the same for the infrastructure under their control.

About right Planning ahead is a good idea.

About right Presumably, I hope, once the plans have been identified by 2020, the CRD will work towards implementing them.

About right Seems like good planning. Maybe consider the problems associated from all the soil dumping going on as far as drainage in various areas.

About right Since we don't know how bad things are going to get, I hope we will move through the target and plan for the worst.

About right Sure, 2020 seems like enough time to come up with a well thought out plan for infrastructure.

About right That needs to include foreshore development accommodating sea level rise and the effect of sea walls, etc.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 321

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter believes this target is essential.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter believes this target is essential.

About right The options for this question aren't relevant.

About right The sooner the better. Extreme weather events are accelerating.

About right Their target should be better defined, I presume it is to include sewage treatment, but why not identify improved transit to Westshore, i.e. light rail or Express bus lanes, or similar.

About right

These must be considered in an integrated management system. CRD's own long term water demand projections are decreasing yet the CRD consultant's long term sewage generation projections are increasing and after 2020 exceed total water demand when only 2/3 of water is flushed down the toilet! Why?

About right This has to be done as we are in for it and plans need to laid now!

About right This is a cost-effective way to achieve this target.

About right

This is a good target, but should be integrated with an energy/GHG mitigation target. Additionally, if the CRD has yet to begin this work, it is unrealistic to think that this level of comprehensive planning could be completed by 2020. It would be better to set this target for 2025.

About right This is also a VERY IMPORTANT TARGET!

About right This is critical, and the CRD Board and staff need to do much better at identifying, planning, and supervising large infrastructure projects. The airport roundabout, the Blue Bridge, the sewage: we can't afford to do things this way.

About right This is critical. All infrastructure needs to have built in resiliency. This isn't the most efficient way to do things but it's important to have more localized, distributed, and redundant infrastructure to prepare for extreme weather events.

About right

This is essential, and requires a very concentrated and diligent approach to planning and processing the various studies and decisions involved. There should also be provision for systematic revision and updating in light of changing circumstances. Given recent experiences with sewerage (which is nowhere mentioned in the survey) CRD must do some real soul searching on how to improve performance in providing services.

About right This is essential. Rezoning and mapping sensitive areas is helpful, along with state of the art infrastructure where needed.

About right This is very important. Risks from natural hazards have not had enough attention, other than climate change.

About right This must have a priority.

About right This needs to be done sooner rather than later. Certainly it cannot be delayed beyond 2020.

About right This should be happening now.

About right This target is essential to address climate change issues and natural hazards.

About right This target is essential.

About right This target is essential.

About right

This target is essential. The requires a very concentrated and diligent approach to planning and processing the various studies and decisions involved. There should be provision for systematic revision and updating in light of changing circumstances, e.g., Sewer and storm water systems.

About right Unless events overtake us...


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 322

About right

Urgent necessity given rapidly changing global climate and threats from Enbridge and expanded Kinder Morgan pipelines. One oil spill would devastate our regional economy, property values, jobs, and marine life. Transport Canada last January said southern Vancouver Island is at "very high risk" of such a spill if Kinder Morgan is approved. Let's keep up the pressure on the Province to withdraw from the NEB and conduct its own environmental review with meaningful participation by First Nations, municipalities, and all interested BC citizens.

About right We have to apply the best environmental planning with regard to infrastructure as possible.

About right We need to address infrastructure improvements very quickly since much of that infrastructure is old and at risk of failing. When infrastructure fails the focus changes from new growth to repair, putting a hold on many of the forward looking projects.

About right

We need to begin to consider local infrastructure rather than Roman-designed centralized infrastructure which is more costly and does not consider natural watersheds. We also need to consider conservation and GHG's as a primary factor in all of our decisions - especially infrastructure.

About right We need to focus on being prepared for earthquake.

About right What about just plain old wearing out?

About right Will need to not just assess but also take action.

About right Wish it could be done sooner, but this is likely realistic.

About right

With infrastructure, up front large capital and maintenance costs save money in the long term. The CRD needs to implement monitoring, robust asset management and maintenance programs to achieve this goal. As it stands now, the deficit is very much outpacing the required replacement and upgrades for infrastructure without evening looking at climate change or natural hazards.

About right Would prefer to bring the timeline down to 2016.

About right Yep.

About right YES - genius! Climate change IS happening. Where will we protect, retreat, abandon??

About right Yes!

About right Yes!

About right Yes, and don't slip on this!

About right Yes, important.

About right You didn't do well on the sewage planning. You need to work cooperatively with each and every municipality and you need to aim for more resource recovery. Don't expect them to always come to you. Sometimes go to them.

Too high 2020 is too ambitious for the utilities to figure out the long-term costs of adapting to climate change. 2025 might be better.

Too high Based on some of the other targets considered in this questionnaire, I think further analysis is required to set achievable goals.

Too high Climate change is not an issue, a waste of tax dollars, considering the earth is NOT warming.

Too high Don't live in fear, do something when it happens, don't waste time and money planning for something that probably won't happen in your lifetime, anything that is done now will just have to be redone again and again and for what.

Too high Five years window to short will turn into another pipe dream How's the sewer treatment going in greater Victoria your building bike paths while dumping untreated sewer into the ocean FOCUS please.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 323

Too high I think the CRD is ill equipped to really assess the impacts of climate change and any plans would be, at best, highly speculative.

Too high I would like to see these decisions being made sooner.

Too high

In order to achieve 95% of these goals we have to become one large municipality and work together. We have too many layers of government which we cannot afford. The Capital Regional district , so far has spent so much unnecessary money on studies, while the elected officials in the municipalities argue, spend their people's money on disagreeing with this higher level - it is almost like the European common Market!. It is a make work project for high paying jobs!! It certainly is not government by representation - One municipality wants one thing and the CRD and the municipality waste time and money - too many want to be leaders and not enough work accomplished - look at the sewer mess and the green box - no planning ahead. The salaries that the Capital Region draw, doing unnecessary studies could be well spent elsewhere.

Too high Leave this up to individual municipalities. Utilities services best managed by local requirements, so don't infringe on this by having, say, a sewer line encroach onto a municipality which does not want to deal with the pressure of development.

Too high Long term preparedness for natural disasters such as earthquakes is already being addressed methodically by various government and other agencies. Naturally, we should take care to avoid reinventing the wheel.

Too high Maybe too high unless the local economy improves sadly.

Too high More roads will decrease the amount of time vehicles idle in traffic.

Too high No way to assess. Stupid to waste money on this that could be spent elsewhere. We could get a Japan tsunami tomorrow ... Or never. No amount of planning will change what happens.

Too high Really? Infrastructure does more than address climate change and natural hazards. Needs a better analysis. What about population growth, demographics, income, etc.

Too high Seems much too long for identifying a target without a plan.

Too high Sooner.

Too high This needs to happen faster.

Too high

This sounds too vague and to open to being interpreted as an opportunity to spend a lot of money on expensive consultant's reports. If you were going to do this by getting together a group of volunteer contractors, waterfront/creekside type landowners, VOLUNTEER consultants and VOLUNTEER engineers, and other applicable volunteers then that would be OK. Also ask local contractors and engineers if these climate change and known natural hazards are not already part of their work when designing and constructing current infrastructure work projects. It may be that much of this concern is dealt with nowadays as each section of utility and infrastructure gets replaced due to natural aging.

Too high Too idealistic! Too many agenda's thus money spent on studies that will not be implemented.

Too high Victoria and the other Municipalities can't even agree on their SEWAGE Problems and how long has that been. Give your head a shake, to many chiefs arguing over every little thing. I don't see this as a reality of ever being completed.

Too high Why does CRD have to be the educational body? This area should be left for larger governing bodies.

Too high Your explanations in the backgrounder are so confused and vague that I think that we are not ready. And the recent news say Canada has not had climate warming last year. Why prepare for a non-event.

Too low 2018.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 324

Too low

"Identifying" something is a non-measure. I recognize we need to start somewhere - but taking 5 years to 'identify' something - give me a break - set the bar much higher. Two years at most, and more importantly what comes afterward in terms of infrastructure targets? That is more important. Are we targeting future-proofing the infrastructure by a certain date - similar to earthquake proofing? If so, by when and what might be the activity we'll be doing? I recognize we won't know until the assessments are complete, but this Plan is for a 20-25 year timeline - so this target on its own is simply not enough and I dare say irresponsible.

Too low "Let’s figure it out in five years" doesn’t seem very aggressive, although this is a proactive measure. There are already private organizations within the CRD that can help with this, such as Archipelago Marine. Form a working group and get goin'!

Too low 2020 is 5 years from now. We need a faster pace than that!

Too low 2020 is too far away.

Too low 2020 is too late; action must begin now.

Too low 5 years to identify the plans is too long and what about the time period for implementation?

Too low Addressing & identifying will not stop earthquake damage or a Tsunami.

Too low

Again you are stuck in "old think". Read up on breakthroughs in solar and batteries. Read up in power generation through sea tides. Forget wind power. Re: sewage Put every household on the same sewage rules that houses with septic fields use, then we don't need to spend a billion dollars on secondary treatment.

Too low All areas should have full access to portable water. Get on with the sewer project and stop wasting money with all the studies. Go to a P3 and let the industry provide the best solutions.

Too low As per Part 1.

Too low As we are already seeing the impacts of climate change (drier, warmer winters; hotter, drier summers), I would be looking to develop a plan in the next 2-3yrs.

Too low

Basically you are saying that it will take 5 years to identify which CRD utilities and major infrastructure are vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards? This seems too low - you could identify in 2 years and then start to take action. Is the CRD keeping track of costs associated with improvements required to address impacts of climate change (I recall reading about Jordon River improvements on the waterfront; due to increased storms and surges).

Too low Because of the tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia, much was learned about development, infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Do we even have a warning system that school children are familiar with?

Too low Better if these were identified sooner.

Too low By 2020 a lot of climate change impacts will already be here, and if we are only just identifying infrastructure needs, it may be too late to get some of the projects done by the time they are needed.

Too low By 2020? Will it take that long? It surely cannot be that complicated.

Too low Could start setting targets before 5 years.

Too low Could we not identify the plans in-term? Say by 2016?

Too low CRD needs to start this process now- with each budget.

Too low Do it sooner as then it may be too late.

Too low Do this next week. Why wait until 2020?

Too low Establish a 15 m coast line setback, no waste water treatment plant at the ocean side - tides are rising - flood waters need to be better managed for recovery and reuse.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 325

Too low Faster....

Too low Five years to identify targets seems like a ridiculously long time - especially with a rapidly aging infrastructure.

Too low Get Oak Bay to replace the Sewage drain Pipes that flood the beaches with SHIT. STOP TALKING, TALKING AND PLANNING IS NOT ACTION.

Too low Get on it people.......climate change is real and the tipping point is almost nigh....no dilly dallying around.

Too low How about just addressing the current infrastructure needs based on "wear and tear" and urgent need for repair! I would suggest that this is more practical and urgent than worrying about climate change and natural hazards!

Too low I am not sure what high and low means here? Sooner is better.

Too low I can think of no good reason why we would need another 5 years just to identify required improvements. This would realistically mean another decade before anything actually happens, which is unacceptable.

Too low

I think any planning and identification process that takes 5 years on something that is the first item noted in the tag-line (a healthier planet) is too long. There is so much knowledge and examples of what to do out there already. Look outside of our little corner of the world and start the ball moving.

Too low I think that by 2020 we will be seriously dealing with the ongoing impacts of climate change in our communities. Can we move this deadline up a little?

Too low I think this needs to happen quicker than 5 years from now. 2017?

Too low I think this should be done more quickly. We are behind.

Too low

I think this should be sooner, all identity of principal areas ought completed by end of 2016 including plans for prioritizing and financing and some things like zoning changes to prevent further residential or commercial development in high risk areas say for tsunami or liquefaction can be done quickly. Other examples to develop sustainability would be to encourage ASAP the development of wind farms on the San Juan ridge as well as having all public parking lots such as park and rides and at parks to be covered over with solar electric panels feeding into the grid. (very common sight in Europe) this could even be encouraged in the urban setting at malls and other surface parking facilities with some kind of incentivizing either carrot or stick or a bit of both, or put the land to better use. And for future commercial developments, surface parking ought not to be allowed that the overall land use footprint ought to be no bigger than the building.

Too low I think we need to move faster in getting an inventory and incorporating improvements as soon as possible in budgets.

Too low I think you should hustle faster to stay ahead of the curve.

Too low Identify by 2016.

Too low

Identify, and prioritize. Also, this should be done in less than 5 years as it needs to impact immediate capital projects to accommodate climate projections. We have relatively accurate climate impact projections for 2-4 degrees of warming that should carry us through the next 20 or so years (pending methane feedback loops...).

Too low Identify. What a bold step. It is nice to have them Identified, so we know where to go to watch them fall apart.

Too low Identify? Should not take 6 years to create a plan and start work. The recent water main break in Saanich should have served as a wakeup call that action is needed now.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 326

Too low Important to get this nailed before 2020 -- work is already going on that should be consolidated and published for decision-makers asap, on seismic risks, tsunami risks, etc. The 2020 deadline will simply become a cover for business-as-usual.

Too low

Infrastructure is aging and responsibilities for improvements are unclear, which almost certainly guarantees as chaotic and expensive situation in the near future. A recent example was the rupture of a water main which was not anticipated due to lack of quality control and maintenance mechanisms. Climate change will put additional strain on the aging infrastructure. This is an issue that deserves to be studied.

Too low

Infrastructure is only about "human built" objects and systems we need to focus more on the wellbeing of natural system and we need to learn to adjust to the needs of "natural" systems. There is increasing evidence, for example, that the starfish wasting disease epidemic traces to sewerage discharge in ocean water. Just as B.C. fish farms certainly do destroy natural salmon runs we need to educate ourselves and get rid of our broadly destructive activities.

Too low Infrastructure should have preventative maintenance and capital plans in place once they are built. If this is not done already, it is overdue.

Too low Is just identifying them enough? Couldn't we have some plans starting to roll out by then?

Too low It has to be done sooner.

Too low

It is Feb 15th - and 12degrees ... accelerate the work necessary on climate adaptation. FYI - at an all candidates meeting in Metchosin, the Mayor said 135 waterfront homes were "at risk of sea level rise," to which someone in the audience shouted out "balderdash!!" So there is work to be done informing the public ...

Too low

Jeez, by 2020? What will we do in the intervening five years?! Surely this can be done in a faster, iterative, adaptive management method where we do some kind of triage and then decide what the easiest things are that can be evaluated now, then work on the longer-term ones. There are some great climate change researchers around (like PICS at UVic, researchers from the Sustainable Canada Dialogues at UVic and Royal Roads and maybe VIU). How can university students be involved? I think this needs to be moved up sooner - and by natural hazards, do you mean earthquakes? The Big One is coming...

Too low Let's move faster! Surely a committee can do this task, with public and expert input to guide decisions.

Too low Make certain that facilities are totally covered by earthquake flood insurance.

Too low

Need to spend more money on infrastructure now to support environment, and encourage more jobs and growth into the future. Infrastructure spending now is necessary to keep pace with the rest of the world and be competitive to investors so our quality of life does not slowly fall behind.

Too low Needs to be sorted out sooner - by 2018.

Too low Not sure why it would take 5 years to do a scan and study.

Too low Now.

Too low Only "identify" by 2020. We need to move faster than that!

Too low

Our infrastructure planning, financing and implementation in this region is a world-class disaster of incompetence, petty infighting and misdirected goals. It is an embarrassment to everyone in this region. The basics need to be fixed before chasing after other important but more marginal issues like the effects of climate change and prospective natural hazards.

Too low Planning should be done as soon as possible, and well before 2020 (it shouldn't take 5 years). Because in the meantime, without such plans, poor infrastructure decisions might be made that will have long term costs and repercussions.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 327

Too low Pretty vague, I guess so but more specific targets should be identified.

Too low Question doesn't make sense. If the CRD doesn't have a handle on the next five years, it doesn't deserve to exist.

Too low See comments from before - little growth, more maintenance.

Too low Should be in place right now! How else can developers be charged for putting in place, upgrading, replacing, and maintaining infrastructure to meet the needs of current and future population.

Too low Should it take six years to identify all of the upgrades needed? Could it be completed within this political mandate (four years)? Getting started early could have longer term benefits.

Too low Since this appears to be a planning, not an execution target, it should be brought forward to 2018.

Too low Sooner.

Too low Sooner the better.

Too low Sooner would be better.

Too low Start an asset management process now that includes impacts to climate change, etc.

Too low The CRD, and its population, is still very unprepared to help itself for the 6-8 weeks (given the damage that the heavily-populated Fraser Valley will incur) of sustainability and self-help that will be required when and immediately after a major earthquake occurs.

Too low The impacts of climate change are being felt now, so discussions on this should be started immediately. If this is a 5-year process, then this is a reasonable target - but it should be put as a priority.

Too low The recommended 5 year timeline, could be phased differently to allow for some more urgent issues around climate change to be addressed earlier.

Too low The time frame is too long. Most of the needs can be identifies now. for example 1. Proper sewage treatment, especially to remove pharmaceuticals. 2. Efficient rail and bus electric transit.

Too low The timeframe is right, but it should not be limited to climate change and natural hazards. We need a huge coordinated effort toward reducing and eventually eliminating the infrastructure deficit in the region. I believe this need must be incorporated and highlighted in the RSS.

Too low

There are two types of Na-Techs; the first is technology destroyed through natural occurrences the other is nature being destroyed by technology. An example of the first is the Fujiyama nuclear plant destroyed by a tsunami and an example of the second is the accident in Mount Polley mine disaster or accident caused by Enbridge spill. The latter two were caused by gross negligence. Perhaps the nuclear accident was too- building in a country that is susceptible to Earth Quakes. Hopefully, the member states, at COP21 will finally agree on a bold set of mitigation targets and there will not be onerous infrastructure to address climate change. Mitigation is essential to prevent the need for excessive adaption.

Too low There is an absence of an "infrastructure" plan to network the systems "necessary to address the impacts of climate change" and make them "smarter."

Too low There is no need to wait until year 2020. One year is a sufficient amount of time to identify the long term plan.

Too low These things will effect life here for generations to come, and need to be supported.

Too low This cannot be studied more quickly than 5 years, in order to get verifiable results?

Too low This has to be done sooner!

Too low This is a priority sooner rather than later.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 328

Too low This might need to be done earlier.

Too low

This needs to be a priority. Along with this work needs to be a real and sober conversation about how we will pay for addressing our deferred maintenance on infrastructure and addressing the long term capital plans. We can't defer action on climate change without expecting to pay much more in the future.

Too low This needs to be done sooner.

Too low This needs to be taken seriously and acted upon as soon as possible.

Too low This specific item must be sped up and dealt with now - Not just CRD utilities and buildings, but all CRD area communities. Not just plans, but achievements and completion by 2020. A major jobs creator?

Too low This will take too long. Get it done sooner.

Too low Time to plan is now.

Too low To achieve any of these goals there needs to be massive investment in infrastructure.

Too low Too slow and too vague.

Too low Try do it by 2016 or 2017.

Too low We are already aware of some of the major changes that need to be made. Waiting until 2020 to make decisions and implement action leaves a window open for others who may act quicker.

Too low We can start to identify these now. And set a bit of $$ aside each year to deal with these. The capital plans will change over time as we identify new hazards.

Too low We can't wait that long.

Too low We don't have as much time as we think we do.

Too low We have an infrastructure deficit! Shouldn't this be a priority for before 2020?

Too low We know much of what we need to do. It won't take five years to identify our plans. Get on the ball.

Too low We must do more and push all levels of government to help.

Too low We must move faster after years of neglect.

Too low We need a solid long term plan to stay on top our infrastructure.

Too low We need better public transport, improved roadways and better waste management with more recycling and water and energy recovery - tertiary sewage treatment to deal with pharmaceuticals and toxins and we need them all now.

Too low We need to be fully functioning with GREEN sustainable energy asap.

Too low We need to do this sooner. I think we need to identify the shifts we need to make in terms of utilities, etc. and start implementing small changes by 2019.

Too low We need to get on this asap...Even if we start something small...we need to start now!

Too low

We should have done this BEFORE embarking on the largest infrastructure project in our history. It is now hopeful that we can avert the $800+Million capital cost plus ongoing $15M.yr operating costs plus unaccounted amortization cost sewage project. It is now hopeful we might convert that to a lower capital cost project with more environmental benefit and operating profit. But that said this is still going to be the largest project in our history and we don't know what other priorities exist for the CRD? The horse is supposed to go before the cart.

Too low We should limit population growth in the CRD.

Too low Why don't we put this money into REDUCING carbon impact and climate change.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 329

Too low Why five years? Too long.

Too low Why six years to do this. One to two!

Too low Why so long, as the people on the CRD Board change it will become increasingly difficult to keep the same target.

Too low Why wait until 2020. We should know today what are issues are with our infrastructure.

Too low Why will this take 5 years? Surely it can be done in a year.

Too low Why will this take five years? Step on the (metaphorical) gas, CRD.

Too low Why would it take that long (5 years) to identify plans?

Too low Why would it take this long. I would think this exists now does it not? E.g. Mackenzie interchange?

Too low You already have failing infrastructure in numerous Municipalities and nothing is being done to improve it.

Get on with it now!

2020 is not far off. Show some plans.

A make work project. While climate change may require capital projects no money should be spent planning for what are now unknown impacts. The only obvious exception is water supply.

Identify, by 2020, the long-term capital plans for CRD utilities and major infrastructure improvements necessary to address the impacts of climate change and natural hazards This target is essential.

Ambitious. I guess it also depends on what this entails. What infrastructure? All of it should be renewable and sustainable.

Assumption not found in fact. You have no realistic understanding of "the impacts of climate change" other than that the climate constantly changes and not necessarily in a given direction.

By 2020 for studies it will be too late to have an effect, let alone implement them.

CRD infrastructure targets need to address demand. Do not permit artificial demand to be created nor let servicing occur in rural areas for the convenience of developers. Providing water or sewer servicing in rural areas only promotes density and defeats the purpose of protecting rural lifestyles, managing growth, managing sprawl, protecting resource lands, protecting ALR lands, working toward food security and maintaining rural areas. Keep CRD water out of rural areas that do not have a public health problem and where extensions are necessary limit them to servicing existing serviced areas. Plan for sea level rise and climate change as rigourously in rural areas as in urban areas; this may mean restricting rural development away from the coastline and may eliminate levels of development in certain areas. This may be the price to be paid by developers - remember local governments have the right to zone any area for any use including prohibiting uses.

Did not read about it.

Earthquake preparedness has already been dealt with by the Province and member municipalities. Tsunami warnings are in effect along coastlines. Most roads are under municipal jurisdiction. I'm curious as to which infrastructures you're referring to?

End the stupidity of trying to build an on-land sewage treatment system. That will help with lower CO2 output. Plan for natural disasters, emergency response, etc. Shrink the size of government, not expand it. Smaller infrastructure.

Essential.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 330

How can this goal be aligned with the CRD plans to build secondary sewage infrastructure by the water, not even looking ahead to the coming 15m setbacks but instead requesting variances to the existing outdated 7.5m setbacks? This makes no sense. Surely a more forward thinking CRD would be working to, in the case of sewage treatment planning, build more sustainably. The proposals I've heard, read about and researched for tertiary or higher level, distributed facilities with water re-use planned for in future development...makes far more sense. Gasification is the best solution I've heard so far for disposal of municipal sewage sludge.

I do wish governments would get off this climate change merry-go-round. Climate changes every day or haven't you folks noticed?

I have already made my comments on this.

I see this as a pipe dream. We can't decide on infrastructure to process the sewage that we have now.

Identify sooner. No new infrastructure should be planned or built without a thorough assessment of the risks to it from climate change and natural hazards, starting immediately. The assessment of mitigation required for existing infrastructure will take longer; 2020 seems a reasonable target.

Illogical question - how does one respond with a "low", "right" or "high" to a target of identifying plans?

In five years? Should have maybe started this one ten years ago.

Isn't 2020 too late for this (sewage, etc.)??? How does "low" and "high" work with a time period such as 2020? I don't know how to respond to this question.

Not just identify by 2020, but implement long term capital plans.

Not really a target nor appropriate for a document running to 2038. And it seems self-evident we should get planning for infrastructure for climate change and natural hazards. Like yesterday.

NOT UNDER THE CURRENT GOVERNING STRUCTURE YOU WONT.

Squanders too much by assuming we humans can continue living beyond our proper share of nature's resources. I see no hope for coming generations. This generation what’s it all.

This is essential but as mentioned before should also include the acquirement and rehabilitation of natural areas as a key measure to address climate change. The Rural Resource Lands and the Sea to Sea Greenbelt can play a major role in the mitigation of climate change if they are protected and restored.

This statement is incomplete - maybe a word missing? Also need to look at alternative infrastructure solutions - innovation in "waste" management to look at it all as resources.

This target is essential.

Too low/high doesn't sound like the correct questions? Perhaps early/later than 2020 would be more appropriate?? I think this identification should be done earlier than 2020.

Unless you have the approval, by approved voter permission in a vote, stay out of additional business. Water, OK - Others, then seek a vote!

We need to do this as soon as possible. It will take a lot of planning. BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL.

whatever happens utilities 7 major infrastructures need to stay in public hand & not be handed over to private for profit organizations.

You don't have access to the expertise needed to do this, nor, based on your track record, are you likely to reach out to those who do [see CREST, sewage treatment, etc. ].

YOU WILL BE LONG GONE.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 331

9.0 WATER TARGET a) What do you think about the water target?

Defer the need for expansion of regional water supply areas or reservoirs.



Too high 22 3.8%

Too low 99 17.0%

TOTAL 582 100.0%


About right "Manage water through conservation...." How exactly. CRD needs to manage development using restrictions on water usage i.e. minimum requirements for water conservation for housing, businesses etc.

About right PROTECT AND ENSURE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY AREAS WILL LAST A LONGGGGG TIME. I'm dismayed to hear in the media today that water restrictions will be lifted this summer. This is short-sighted.

About right A little vague - defer until when?

About right A worthy target. (I'd love to see, "defer indefinitely"!)

About right

Ability to supply should be linked to expected demand. If as you say the demand is dropping, then supply increases can be deferred. However, if the expansion is not being done, then the cost to consumers should be held in place, not raised ever year or two to maintain or increase CRD budgets.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 332

About right Actively encourage people to build infrastructure to recycle gray water and store rainwater.

About right Agree conservation and re use better than expansion.

About right Agree with the need to conserve more and employ better water capture and greywater re-use.

About right Agree, with education and infrastructure repairs/improvements.

About right All good. We must realize that we have "the gift" of a pristine water supply.

About right All municipalities and EAs should be required to reactivate groundwater wells to augment surface water supplies. This would also help with disaster resiliency.

About right Alongside this, we should be seeking to better the water use system in the CRD. This can be done by eliminating leaks and improving piping systems.

About right Although, has climate impacts been considered (I.e. last target)?

About right

Amendments to building codes ought to be made that would see the necessity of having cisterns incorporated into the design so that rainwater can be trapped and used which also would reduce the pressures upon storm drain systems. This type of amendment if it hasn't already been done should certainly be considered for the Gulf Island where water shortages exist (so this would for sure mean new residential).

About right And find ways to reduce costs in the system so that rates don't have to keep increasing to make up for revenue lost due to reduction in consumption.

About right As I understand it, the recent expansion of the CRD Water Reservoir ensures future needs are met for the next 20 years at least.

About right As long as the reservoir is full I suppose we're okay. Keep water restrictions in place.

About right

At first I didn't like the sound of this but now I see that it would encourage efficiency, which I think is way more important than increasing supply (the same with energy). So yes I totally support this. But I think we should evaluate what sectors are using the most water now, and how that will change in the future -- will encouraging neighbourhood rain barrels really make a difference (or just feel like one - that's important too, but can't be greenwashing) if industry or agriculture is actually using the most water? I would like to see opportunities to split up the different types of water, like treated drinking water but not treated for washing machines, toilets etc. That’s probably complicated plumbing!

About right At last some realism!

About right Better have a plan for the future as water supplies dwindle.

About right Conservation of present resources is more needed.

About right Contain population growth so we don’t need more water.

About right Converting to a plant-based agricultural system will greatly reduce the amount of water required and used. It is a well-known fact that using agricultural land for plant foods instead of animals can reduce water consumption anywhere from 10 to 100 times.

About right CRDs cut to the water conservation program should be reconsidered to make this feasible.

About right Defer.

About right Defer the need, but plan for the expansion nonetheless.

About right

Deferring seems an inadequate term in a target statement. We need to meet our water needs in some way, so how about a positive target statement, Obtain 100% new water through protection of existing water sources to remain clean and potable, conservation of our local water sources, and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.

About right Definitely focus on reducing demand than increasing supply.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 333

About right Despite constantly increasing water rates and restrictions, Victoria has never had a dire shortage.

About right DO NOT EXTEND PIPED WATER INTO RURAL AREAS IT ONLY ENCOURAGES SPRAWL. Have municipalities practice, and have the CRD reward, conscious water conservation practices.

About right Do not increase it, it only would add for more development.

About right Educate for conservation, for sure.

About right Educating people on how to use water more efficiently with respect to gardening is important and the decrease in use that you already see is great, but increasing our cost of water because we use less is not good.

About right Emphasis needs to be on conservation of our water supply, and thus expansion hopefully won't be necessary.

About right Encourage conservation of the water supply with education.

About right Encourage rainwater systems for households and businesses along with conservation efforts.

About right Encourage residents to move away from the 1950's concept of lawns.

About right Encouraging grey-water reuse and rainwater capture are great ideas. Constructing programs that educate citizens on how to do this is also essential in order to ensure people know how to go about doing this and have the resources easily accessible to do so.

About right Essential could be more strongly stated.

About right Fix this target - should be more like "address expanded water needs through metering, education on appropriate use, encouraging local personal water collection, and supporting grey-water systems."

About right Focus on reduced use.

About right Got lots of water most of the time.

About right Great to see this recognition of a need NOT to expand service!!!

About right Great work on this so far. Keep it up.

About right Great!

About right Helping to teach and provide rain water harvest even for garden watering would reduce our water needs drastically.

About right I agree with the report assessment.

About right I believe an exception was made for some communities including East Sooke which I support.

About right I don’t know enough about this to have an opinion. I wish your survey included: 'don't know'.

About right

I think conservation and efficiency measures coupled with higher water rates would go a long way to ensure that we do not overdraw and thus require increased watershed lands. Higher prices, though unpopular, would aid in deterring excess waste. As well regional strategies that mimic the Regional District of Nanaimo's Rain Water Harvest program, or inclusion of Keyline design as seen in several CRD funded projects, along with the new regulations just being written for the BC Ministry of Environment for Greywater and Composting Toilets all pursue the goal in reducing wasted water.

About right I think CRD water does an excellent job managing our water supply.

About right I think you're exactly right. But please push this: conservation, rainwater, greywater. We could do much more; local policies and education / promotion can help -- big time!

About right I would like to know more about how our water is treated - chlorine? UV? I would like to see a healthy, sustainable water treatment plan.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 334

About right

I would say this differently...Obtain 100% of "new" water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period. Grey water reuse where appropriate composting toilets where appropriate Low flow fittings and toilets Rain water harvesting Perennial forms of agriculture (require less irrigation) Keyline design of farms (swales on contour) Permaculture Building soil organics to retain moisture (carbon sequestration).

About right If it ain't broke don't fix it.

About right If there is no need for expansion, the cost for water should be coming down as well.

About right If we conserve properly. People must understand that the existing reservoir is only good for 2 years supply.

About right Implement ambitious water efficiency and water re-use incentive programs - also aids in GHG targets through reductions in energy requirements to move and treat water.

About right Important for the whole water/energy nexus.

About right

In support of all the excellent points listed on Page 10. I would like to add, if not already considered, the need to protect our aquifers (many households are on wells. Others draw water from lakes and streams). I would greatly appreciate an emphasis placed on protecting our rare pristine water bodies by not allowing development or agricultural practices to take place in their surrounding watersheds. We need to protect the quality of our drinking water sources at all cost.

About right Increasing the existing water rates will enable even more demand management measures. Watering lawns is a poor use of potable water!!

About right Invest in regional farm ponds for on-farm irrigation and to relieve pressure from Sooke reservoir.

About right It is important to prohibit expansion of public water service to the Juan da Fuca lands and most other unserviced areas. Rural dwellers expect to be responsible for their own wells, and public water lines lead to the very suburban development the CRD hopes to prevent.

About right It overflowing NOW.

About right Let's work with what we have! Our water supply is a beautiful gift. Let's keep the balance of this gift and not tip it with allowing for demand to dictate the infrastructure we develop.

About right Make it a positive statement - obtain 100% of any new water through... thereby not needing to expand the regional water supply ...


About right Makes sense! Conservation efforts are the way to go!

About right More water conservation in all aspects of life in the CRD needs to happen. ONLY low flush toilets allowed, maximum house size established, composting toilets more easily utilized within bldg. Code.

About right Must contain unnecessary water use. No more watering lawns! Plant succulents instead...

About right

Need to focus on water conservation, The watershed lands are beautiful lands and if properly managed can last for future generations, some water use activities perhaps could be more restricted (carwashes, watering lawns, power washing driveways), sustainability involves culture shift of practices as well.

About right Needs to be couples with a water conservation and efficiency program.



About right No water expansion into rural areas with sprawling subdivisions.

About right Not sure how to answer this. I think we need to look at the carrying capacity for our water supply as well as our agricultural land, including future needs for agriculture if we strive for complete sustainability.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 335

About right Odd that the user is penalized economically by increase in taxes related to water, penalized by conforming to water restrictions etc.

About right One item I have noted is that when asked to conserve water, the rate payers comply but then are hit with higher cost for water as the municipalities are losing money, It makes the rate payer wonder "Why bother to save water if there is a higher cost associated with the saving?".

About right Please factor in that measures such as watering restrictions will relate to the need for higher dams, new ones, etc.

About right Population growth is the real factor in future water demands, and until we decide what is an optimal population for the area if we wish to retain our quality of life, the other measures are marginal and merely stop gap in nature.

About right Protect water shed as discussed earlier, but no need to develop water infrastructure until needed.

About right Rainfall is one of our regions natural advantages.

About right Recent improvements of our regional water supply containment have proven to be very effective. However, the means of getting the water to its users consists of old and deteriorating infrastructure.

About right

Require new detached housing developments (most notably in the west shore) to have low-water groundcovers for much of their area. do not allow sprinkler systems to be installed for grass watering as part of new developments. develop landscaping guidelines and local nurseries specializing in low-water and native plants to provide plant stock for new developments.

About right Residents are conserving water and rates are going up because we are not using enough water -CRD needs to ensure conservation efforts do not get punished.

About right Restrict population growth based on current water supply.

About right See comments, use waste water for water expansion as use for grey water in toilets, laundry, watering.

About right

Should agriculture expansion occur there may be a need to provide some additional storage in the future but agriculture use will probably not impact expansion requirements in a significant way. We really need to look at being to change the quality of the water from grey water so that it could be used cost effectively by golf courses and agriculture.

About right Should focus on water conservation.

About right Simple ways to conserve water will render this unnecessary. People should be conserving water and if everyone did this enough we would be ok.

About right Stay on top of this as the years roll by. Eventually, if the area's population continues to grow, the water catchment area will need to be expanded.

About right Stop people from watering their lawns.

About right Stop supplying regional water to new developments and maybe they'll stop eating their way through farmland and natural areas.

About right Strange the way it is written - is there not a % target of conservation or % reduction that could be used?

About right Support people to collect our copious rain water for home and garden use.

About right Target needs scientific support.

About right Targets?

About right Teach lifelong water conservation and protection.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 336

About right

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter suggests recasting this target into more positive language: “Meet all new water resource requirements through conservation and efficiency, such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.” Also, we suggest you consider that a lot of water is lost through leakage and theft, but it is expensive to locate the leaks and the source of theft.

About right

The biggest issue with this is that rates have increased while use has dropped. This is not how you encourage environmentally sustainable behaviour. A new metric on cost needs to be added to this plan so that sensible behavior is rewarded and costs are kept in check or are declining due to efficiency gains.

About right The CRD has already had great success in changing the populations' sensibility about water use. Keep up this good work. News from California about their water issues makes this more credible to other communities, like our own.

About right The CRD penalizes water users and abusers, in draconian style. It’s time to stop penalizing taxpayers for CONSERVING WATER! GROSS ABUSE OF POWER!

About right The dominant water supply goal of the RSS should be to gain increased supply needs through conservation practices and improved efficiencies.

About right The efficient Victoria supply system must not be compromised. We are very fortunate.

About right

The increasing price of water (and sewage) will create incentives for water-users to conserve water in all possible ways. The only problem will be setting a rate for urban agriculture--the present residential water rate (and including irrigation water in the sewage charges) are strong dis-incentives.

About right The purchase of the additional land a few years ago, will provide enough water for 50 years to come.

About right The size of the Sooke reservoir is more than sufficient to meet drinking water needs of and expanded population model in the CRD. Curtailing water consumption costs less than a capital building project.

About right

There are tremendous gains available to us in efficient water usage. For example, we are still using drinking water in our households to dispose of human waste. The CRD can move forward with policies that will allow grey water to be used to flush toilets, and even better, to support the adoption of composting toilets at a scale that will truly reduce our water consumption.

About right There is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.

About right There is no need to expand regional water supply. People have become more aware of wasting water and should be encouraged to continue to conserve.

About right This is a fair approach as long as the cost per capita of any future expansion is not higher in inflation adjusted dollars to expanding now.

About right This is terribly vaguely worded. What does it mean?

About right This target needs to be explicit: achieve 100% of water needs by conservation and efficiency.

About right To conserve water we need to limit "monster homes" and development in general. STOP FORCING RESIDENTIAL WATER RESTRICTION IN GARDENS It is killing our tree cover. Can't have backyard veg growing without unrestricted water. Restrict plumbing (building) not gardens.

About right Unsure.

About right Until when....I assume the goal is to have higher retention through water conservation efforts.

About right Use what we have now, continue our reduction in demand.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 337

About right

Water distribution should not be extended out of urban containment areas prior to other the supply of other services. If you supply the water first, the people will come and they will demand the other services and the whole thing will just turn into a continuation of the squabbling that has gone on for the bulk of my life time. The idea of creating and implementing a plan is to forestall that eventuality.

About right Water management / reservoirs planned well 20 years ago.

About right Water Reservoir expanded recently - situation is good. Continue to focus on Conservation. (REDUCE).

About right Water should be far more expensive for everybody.

About right Water use reduction should be a priority.

About right We are blessed with great water and a great supply system. Let's focus on keeping it that way.

About right We are ok.

About right

We are supposed to be a city of gardens but with the price of water rising, and then the sewer rates being based on consumption of water, even though watering gardens does not fill the sewer system, is making gardening and watering prohibitive. It seems to me the way you are planning to conserve water is to make the price only affordable to the rich.

About right We don’t have the need at this point and are unlikely to in the near future. I believe we are on track. What needs to be discussed is DISASTER planning from the perspective of supplying water.

About right We have enough water, we just need to use it appropriately, watering lawns is not necessary.

About right We have great capacity to conserve / reduce water consumption - we have barely even begun to try!!

About right We have lots of water, no need to conserve, just collect it better.

About right We need to raise understanding of the preciousness of water. (Fracking is an insane waste)

About right We need to support massive conservation - like NO watering of lawns, incentives to plant native (low-water) vegetation, and to convert lawns into food-growing areas...

About right We need to use our existing water more efficiently.

About right We seem to be getting more rainfall these days and this is likely to continue so perhaps this is not a main concern.

About right We seem to have enough water, don't we? On that note, speaking of poverty targets, the CRD need to stop the appalling increase in water rates!!!!

About right We should be more active: let's live within our means by being more efficient with what we have.

About right We should be using water more efficiently and reach consumption targets here before expanding services.

About right We should launch water catchment initiatives to promote and support water conservation, subsidies for purchase and installation and use of residential rooftop water catchment and grey water systems and efficient fixtures to reduce the demand on the existing reservoirs.

About right We will need more water...if we keep growing...we will need more...

About right We've got a big reservoir and supply area. We need to insist that people use water better.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 338

About right

What does this deferring the need for expansion of regional water supply areas or reservoirs mean? How do we project this into the future? This target should also include some hard minimum targets for amount of water conservation. Extend this conversation to build awareness about the water used by CRD residents that is sourced from other areas (i.e. - water used in manufacturing of products, food, etc.) Expand programs and initiatives that can concretely deliver water savings today that will continue on into the future. Explore the connections that can be achieve from projects that save water, energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If all three can be achieved prioritize those initiatives to maximize program benefits.

About right Why not encourage citizens to install cisterns in their yards?

About right Would love to see new developments put in grey water systems for toilets!

About right Would suggest improving the language. I'm pretty sure you're talking about conservation measures being taken to reduce usage and create efficiencies/reduce waste. Give the measure more inspiring language to speak to that.

About right Ya, think we have plenty of capacity atm. Dealing better with what exists would be good. E.g. we have a large reservoir but it leaks, so we mostly keep it drained. If repaired we could use it for irrigation and also as natural habitat. However, we do not have the funds for repair.

About right Yea, get businesses, huing units and residents to reduce their water usage!

About right Yeah - this will free up funds for other objectives.

About right

Yes - and do this in part also by allowing those on well water to stay on well water, rather than having as the goal to increase or expand water infrastructure. There is an imbalance currently in CRD decision making between land use planning which seeks to limit water (and sewer) infrastructure as a means to controlling sprawl, and the current model of CRD water sales which seek to increase the customer base to pay for infrastructure, thereby requiring increased infrastructure. These sorts of discordances between CRD departments need to be resolved with a mind to sustainability first, and then figure out the financial aspects as a secondary consideration.

About right Yes, deferring increased demand is a great plan. This should be done two-fold, by promoting water conservation, and limiting population growth.

About right Yes, definitely do not add to / burden it more. Last time it decreased the "quality" of the water.

About right Yes, in terms of priorities, this makes sense to me.

About right Yes, we have to encourage conservation.

About right Yes. Conservation first.

About right You have more than enough storage and future expansion lands.

About right Your low flow toilet program needs another breath of life. There are so many businesses including the frequent flushers like cafes that are on big tanks. We could still do so much more with reducing our use.

About right

Zoning in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area needs to be updated before considering any extension of waterlines in our area. The present zoning predates the incorporation of Sooke and doesn't adequately support the communities' vision re density as described in OCPs. The mantra has been to, "Let zoning and not the Urban Containment Boundary determine where water should go." So, zoning first; maybe waterline extensions next.

Too high Although I am entirely for the growth Containment, providing water is essential and should be a priority. There are other ways to discourage rural expansion.

Too high Conservation isn't enough. There should be plans for expanding supply. And plans for how to pay for it, as conservation measures may reduce your revenue stream.

Too high End the need. Many ways to do this: Extensive "road-rip" initiatives: remove asphalt, pavement and lawns which prevent aquifer restoration. Composting toilet change-outs. Tertiary treatment. Hosing cars at home banned, as cars are abolished.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 339

Too high I feel that the water supply area is very poorly managed. Too much valuable green space is removed from public use.

Too high More water recovery and conservation instead on expanding reservoirs.

Too high

Our water policy is an example of misdirected expense and energy for ideological rather than practical reasons. We are discouraging people from using safe and abundant water supplies from Sooke Lake et al in favour of questionable practices such as use of groundwater (as proudly proclaimed on signs in Langford) and construction and use of very expensive and health-risky options like household rainwater collection and storage. There is no shortage of water in this region and will not be for many years with the current reservoir infrastructure. In fact, vast quantities of water are spilled most years, and domestic water consumption is actually dropping. We do have a seasonal pattern of aridity for which collective storage reservoirs are exactly the right solution, for health, for quality of life, and for economic viability. What is needed is a rational set of policies that provide water that is clean, safe, and affordable from the sources we have that work well, not imported ideology from other jurisdictions that have a different reality on the ground.

Too high Reduce the rates...you are gouging.

Too high Storing water should always be a growth industry look at California.

Too high The only reason we would need more water is to serve more people. We should limit population growth.

Too high There is currently no need, what is needed is to reduce the water restrictions and increased rates.

Too high This whole Area needs a rethink. Makes no sense to constituents to pay more the more we conserve. Full reservoirs should be rewarded and if overhead is too high to be supported, then cut it.

Too high To encourage jobs you need an expanded water supply, not a decreased one.

Too high Water supply determines development. We are fine with the supply we have. Eventually water supply reaches a non-expandable level. So be it. That is your growth limitation.

Too high We live in a rain forest. There is no need to be so tight on water conservation. This is ridiculous, we don't live in the desert.

Too high We should be following Norway's example and removing wastewater and run off for depuration and then filling residential cisterns with pure water.

Too high Your options don't apply here - we need to EXPAND water supply in the future to address growth and extended dry periods.

Too low Again, another nonsense question.

Too low Another ill-advised decision, what's more important than water, always plan to increase retention capabilities.

Too low Are you nuts? Salt Spring has issue with having any drinkable water depending on the season.

Too low Are you serious, defer? It won’t be so easy to defer once peoples drinking water is compromised.

Too low BUILD A BIGGER DAM.

Too low

Conserving water is the primary priority for this century. Ensure maximum health of riparian areas and reducing water use - by emphasizing on site use (rainwater) and reuse and recycled water in larger developments offer easy opportunities to ensure we are living in our local water balance. Additional benefits include reduced infrastructure and energy needs.

Too low Defer forever is more like it. Through demand management or, if push comes to shove, less growth.

Too low Definitely NOT. Plans to expand the regional water supply must continue acquiring land as soon as it can practically be acquired.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 340

Too low Educate, educate, educate - people must use less.

Too low Eliminate the need to expansion of regional water supply or reservoirs through water conservation measures.

Too low Encouraging development of high performance buildings that use water efficiently is a good goal, but will not necessarily produce a large reduction in water use across the area.

Too low Expand regional water supplies as required.

Too low Grey water? Rainwater collection? Deferral is kind of boring.

Too low Has to be based on population growth despite better management.

Too low I am not pleased by this target. I would like to see 100% water through conservation and efficiency!

Too low I see no evidence that the CRD is thinking about a climate-appropriate parks and land management strategy that would look at using indigenous plants more adapted to our meteorological conditions: plants and parks that use less water.

Too low I would like to see an active commitment to how CRD is going to protect regional water supply and encourage regional water-saving strategies for public infrastructure and private households. Victoria has a drought every summer, nobody should have bright green lawns.

Too low If people need water we should be doing everything possible to help them, at a reasonable rate.

Too low If the CRD population is to increase by 30% the need for water will be necessary and dependent on the rate of climate change and warming of the Earth.

Too low If the region is growing and the climate is pointing us towards drought, perhaps this is overly optimistic.

Too low Include water supply reserves within the protected areas. Reduce waterfront development.

Too low Increase in population will deplete water facilities.

Too low Increase the water supply area now before we need it.

Too low

It does appear, based upon current rates of water use and growth, that we may have adequate reserves for some years to come, and with conservation, we may be fine. However, we again need to remain vigilant, as drought might occur, forest fires requiring large amount of water, snow pack could suddenly alter. There may be higher demands for municipal water should home insurance costs magnify for people who are outside of the standard water service areas.

Too low Look at innovative ways to expand regional water supply by introducing permaculture methods.

Too low Make education and conservation a priority.

Too low Much work can be done to improve the CRD community's conservation of water. Aggressive conservation policies and especially in new infrastructure is needed.

Too low Need to clarify how this will be achieved. Conservation and efficiency will reduce demand but minimal increase in population numbers depending on this limited resource must be considered.

Too low No defer.

Too low Not correct points to respond. Should be now and not deferred.

Too low Not sure how 'deferring' can be too low, about right or too high.

Too low Question/ choice of answers could be better.

Too low Rainwater catchment, composting toilets and grey water systems should be implemented for all new housing and commercial developments.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 341

Too low

Research groundwater resources, catchments and their status, recharge areas, discharges zones seepage and springs, aquifer types and capacities; place forms of protections over significant areas; groundwater should be a resource coupled to regional water supply areas and managed with the Provincial Government.

Too low Start to gradually implement a water recovery program ASAP.

Too low Summers are getting hotter and drier.

Too low The "need" will determine this.

Too low

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter suggests recasting this target into more positive language: “Meet all new water resource requirements through conservation and efficiency, such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.” Also, we suggest you consider that a lot of water is lost through leakage and theft, but it is expensive to locate the leaks and the source of theft.

Too low The development of more reservoirs would allow for the development of more green power if turbines are installed on all dam outflows.

Too low

The wording of this target could be better. The CRD doesn't own all of its water supply areas so they should expand to 100%. The reservoirs won't be expanded, water from the Leech River will be diverted to an existing reservoir. Suggest changing the target to continue the decline in per capita water use by a specific figure - e.g., 20%.

Too low

There is a qualifier on the "too low" above! Make certain that ALL of the watershed needed for our water supply is outright owned by the CRD. Land acquisition of the watershed contributory area by the CRD was already done in the past and I think that was truly visionary. There are communities in the US that are losing their water supply because corporations are buying up the watershed and I am delighted that the CRD had the farsightedness to buy the land that our watershed is part of. It may be that we own all the land that comprises our watershed but I think we need to make certain that ALL of that is within the ownership of the CRD, INCLUDING rights to the groundwater and the ability to prevent any activity (including fracking) that might impact our groundwater. Part of climate change in this region is predicted to be lower rainfall. Please continue to be as farsighted as you have been in the past.

Too low This appears unrealistic. CRD residents are very supportive of conservations efforts but will only new buildings/development will be able to create lower use and rain-water capture systems. Existing residents are not likely to invest in this (but they will forgo watering their lawns in summer).

Too low

This is not a target on par with the other targets (i.e., no specifics). Plus it is open to confusion. The water supply areas should be expanded to obtain all catchment lands for the CRD (2% missing from existing catchment lands and 8% missing from future water supply lands). We shouldn't have to expand the water supply reservoirs given declining water demand, so this is not much of a target. How about continue to reduce per capita water use by a specific number? How about a number for the percentage of buildings and outdoor watering systems that are using water efficient technologies?

Too low This target is lukewarm or inadequately expressed. It would be better stated as follows: Obtain 100% new water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.

Too low

This target is lukewarm or inadequately expressed. While we are not opposed to it, stated more positively it could read: Obtain 100% new water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period. Also, this target is completely contradictory when there are provisions to extend water services to East Sooke, Otter Point and Port Renfrew. This proposed extension is incomprehensible in terms of cost and also contradictory to the whole aim of the RSS to reduce urban and rural sprawl and to create compact and complete communities in the urban core. I am completely opposed to extension of water and sewer services outside the present urban containment boundary!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 342

Too low Waste water recovery is the smart way to go – tertiary.

Too low Water is our most vital resource. Protect it with everything we've got!

Too low Water is precious. If we can expand wisely, it makes sense to do so.

Too low Water is too important an issue to be deferred.

Too low Water reservoirs are always important given the lack of snow packs and increase risk of droughts.

Too low

Water supply is becoming less reliable with weather extremes as demonstrated by the water shortage in Duncan last summer. We need to repair and improve both water supply lines and sewage/ water run-off systems to handle both droughts and floods. We need to start integrating a blue pipe system for household use and garden watering.

Too low We are experiencing hotter, dryer and longer summers. This trend most likely will increase in intensity. Now is the time to expand not wait until it becomes a crisis. Also keep water conservation measures and targets in place even during and after wetter winters.

Too low We must protect the water and expand the supply.

Too low We need expansion of regional water supply as we cannot predict the future.

Too low We need to be looking at worst case scenarios and plan for years of drought. regional water supply must expand as housing needs grow and water dwindles.

Too low We need to retain more water for longer dry summers expected. Reservoirs should be developed to maintain water flows in creeks and rivers for fish habitat.

Too low We should be doing this now - again sooner rather than later.

Too low We should be protecting as MUCH water as we can, holding it on the land as it can be our saving grace when it comes to climate change. Protecting wetlands (Maber flats) and other features on public and private lands are so important for our future.

Too low We should build our water supply to allow for the risk of extreme conditions associated with climate change.

Too low We will always need water and there is no such thing as too high a reserve when changing climate conditions are considered... We waited too long to expand in the past and failed to expand as much as was needed when we did....

Too low What do you mean by defer? Perhaps reword with an emphasis on how this might be accomplished such as through conservation and efficiency.

Too low What will happen when agriculture comes on line? Prepare to supply more water now.

Too low Why - If we continue to Pack and Stack people into the CRD ????

Too low Yes - do not expand this infrastructure - make us live with what we have.

Too low Yes, defer the need for expansion but more education, thought and action is needed to ensure clean water for future generations.

Too low

Yes, demand has reduced, but that pace of reduction may be bottoming out. I personally have just about done all I can to reduce water consumption, except for letting my plants and trees die in summer - with the adverse environmental effect that would result. Also if the population projections come true (I hope they don't), more water/watershed will need to be protected.

Too low YOU NEED CLEAN WATER; CLEAN AIR AND NON TOXIC FOOD.

"Too low" and "too high" don't make sense for this question.

?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 343

Defer the need for the expansion of regional water supply areas or reservoirs This target is lukewarm or inadequately expressed. While we are not opposed to it, stated more positively it could read: Obtain 100% new water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.

Add to the storage of Sooke Lake to cover dry years. Promote water conservation more.

Again, not a "low", "right" or "high" type of question. The intent seems to be to assess public views on whether to put on hold any additional planning for new water supplies. That seems reasonable in light of current declining water use.

Again, the three choices are inadequate. Do NOT defer expansion of the regional water supply. In addition to coping with anticipated population growth, the watersheds of the reservoirs also contribute to the amount of untouched green space in the region.

Conservation and efficiency first.

Conservation needs to be encouraged and incentivized.

Defer? Defer? What does this mean? Not do something now...but do it later anyways? What's the point?

Definitely! Don't expand what is already there.

Do a better job of forecasting the impacts of climate change on water supply before deciding on a water target.

Expand the reservoirs while we still can.

First, you complained about the lack of water, then, at the spending of lots of money, without approval, built additional height on the dam. OK, now lots of water and you put up the price and then everyone stopped using the water, so you put up the price of water and then again wondered why the consumption went down. Smarten up, get out of the business. Stop jacking about.

I have a problem with the vocabulary. The JdF EA OCPs for Otter Point, Shirley/Jordan River, East Sooke and Port Renfrew talk about "community water" service, not "regional". At this time, Wilderness Mountain for Mt. Matheson, Sheringham Water District, and the Port Renfrew water service are not connected to the GVWS system. Each of these "independent" systems will be limited by the water available locally. The Wilderness Mountain system is calibrated to the sub-division it was built to supply. There is no room for expansion especially as future rain fall patterns are uncertain. Sheringham is near capacity and will not expand unless development occurs to pay for the expansion. I don't think that level of development will be supported in the new Shirley Jordan River OCP. Port Renfrew also has a system where supply will limit the number of hook ups possible. A new water system to serve the Pacheedaht and development on Browns Mountain has been discussed and should be planned for. All that said, the RSS plan questions with regard to regional water have to do with expanding the service area along East Sooke Road, Gillespie Road, and Otter Point Road. Also have to do with how much water will the CRD permit to be sold to the two JdF EA Improvement Districts for water service: Seagirt and Kemp Lake.

I would suggest that a target for water should take into account the projected changes to the aquifers and watersheds that is expected to result from climate change.

If densification is planned, more reservoir water is required.

If there were an immediate campaign to conserve water through numerous means such as discouraging lawns, reducing urban sprawl, collecting water in barrels, reducing impermeable surfaces etc., then in the future there might be a reduced rather than an increased need for expansion.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 344

Improve leak detection.

It sounds as if we are doing the right thing here.

Lumping Sooke, Otter point, East Sooke, RRL, Shirley Jordan River and Port Renfrew in with "West Shore" completely obscures this point as they are dramatically different communities re water usage and infrastructure. Many of these communities have local water systems not connected to the CRD water supply, are on wells or depend on trucked in water delivery or cisterns for their water. I am not sure that these targets reasonably apply in these areas.

Not very clearly expressed. Perhaps an indication that conservation and efficiencies would alleviate any need for expansion of the regional water supply.

Plan for water usage in accordance with the most up to date science on water usage. Help property owners gain access to technology for water recovery on their property. This includes reusing grey water from bathtubs and washing machines where this can be done without risk to health. If we want people to grow gardens, both food and ornamental, we can't make water costs prohibitively high.

Please suggest a better target; one that doesn't require a water engineering degree to related to.

Rephrase to say - obtain new water thru conservation and recycling grey water for agriculture, treatment plants etc...so that there is no need for expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs for the moment.

Responses don't seem to match question. The background doesn't say: Is our water supply sufficient to match the projected needs? Our water supply is mostly in one reservoir which might be subject to failure. Perhaps we should be looking at a separate backup supply.

Should defer the need. We have enough water now.

Stress conservation so less need for expansion.

The target should be about what amount of water consumption is needed to achieve this goal. We also need to think about greater resiliency - we are very dependent on a single source of drinking water and that makes us very vulnerable (e.g. if there were an earthquake).

There is no need to expand reservoirs or regional supply areas - all new water can be obtained through conservations and efficiency.

These options can't answer this question.

This is just generally confusing and needs clarification in the RSS.

This is stupid. Given climate change and with it long dry periods it only makes sense to retain the water we get in the winter, because if we have a couple of dry winters, you will wish you had.

This needs more detail as to how we conserve to avoid expansion.

This should be a more positive statement to read: Obtain 100% new water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.

This statement needs to be stronger. We should be conserving more water by a variety of means through conservation. East Sooke is in a rain forest. the JdF and CRD should much more rigorously promote green expansion. We have a neighbour who has a fairly large rain barrel. We are looking into a rain barrel and (along with this neighbour) looking in solar panels for an outbuilding. With foresight and commitment, there should be no need for expansion of the reservoirs.

This target is lukewarm or inadequately expressed. While we are not opposed to it, stated more positively it could read: Obtain 100% new water through conservation and efficiency such that there is no need for the expansion of the regional water supply areas or reservoirs within the planning period.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 345

Those municipalities that have increasing requirements need to be contributing to a fund for future expansion. They cannot be allowed to just offset other who are trying to lower their requirements.

Total demand has been declining partly because cost per unit has been steadily and dramatically rising. This isn't a bad thing. But we can reduce demand on the fresh water supply even further by planning for water reuse for toilet flushing, car washing facilities, parks watering, and any industry which uses large amounts of water. It makes no sense to use water once then throw it away.

We have lots of water stop charging more for it.

We should never run out of water here, it rains too much. If you allow for expansion of housing then the services should match the need.

With Leech and Sook Lake, the areas are sufficient.

10.0 WASTE TARGET

a) What do you think about the waste target?

Achieve a waste disposal rate no greater than 250 kg per person.



Too high 103 17.8%

Too low 150 25.9%

TOTAL 579 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 346


About right A good goal for now but it needs to be accompanied by more aggressive pressure in manufacturers, retailers. etc. to stop producing unnecessary packaging on goods we purchase.

About right A greater reduction would obviously be better but this target seems do-able but needing significant changes/effort so it's okay. One thing to start promoting is a 4th R: Reduce, re-use, recycle, repair. Repairing things also creates jobs.

About right About right if this does not include building demolition waste.

About right Achievable.

About right Again, as we carry out our 3 R's, hopefully we'll be able to reduce the 250 kg per person to far less.

About right Again, programs that educate people and make it easy for them to contribute to this are essential.

About right Aim for an even lower disposal rate.

About right An obvious goal.

About right Anything more ambitious would tax the present CRD system's capacity, and its management capacity as well. The reduction of waste is a very good way to reduce the cost of waste/sewage treatment.

About right But reduce waste further if possible.

About right But why business downtown do not have a recycling program...?

About right Charge people for the full cost of waste disposal. The more you throw out the more you should pay.

About right Continue to encourage universal organics recycling.

About right Create and enforce corporate targets. Individuals by and large are reducing.

About right Creating facilities throughout the region where usable items in good shape can be dropped off and picked up for free by residents to reuse and recycle items instead of throwing them out and buying them new all the time; supporting soft plastic and Styrofoam recycling.

About right Definitely reasonable. We should design communities and encourage businesses to promote zero-waste consumption and re-useable materials.

About right

Discourage use of non or difficult to recycle take out packaging from restaurants (i.e., styrofoam). Encourage restaurants to provide reusable containers or allow customers to bring in their own containers. Improve list of recyclable materials (i.e., soft plastics) support re-use of products and materials (i.e., the Free Store that was shut down due to regulatory issues).

About right Encourage/offer organics recycling.

About right Environmental producer responsibility should be a key piece of reducing household waste. CRD should continue to take a leadership stance on banning items from the landfill (organics), but needs improved infrastructure and policies to support these decisions.

About right Essential to maintain progress on waste.

About right Every month piles of discarded household items blossom all over the CRD... Organize collection, repair and redistribution services within the community operated by community members....

About right Explicitly state whether compost waste is included in this amount. Have a goal of compost waste being processed on Vancouver Island.

About right Fine.

About right Good. We can use more advice on home composting. Even apartment and condo dwellers can use their own compost on balcony and roof gardens.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 347

About right Great target! Hope we all get on board!

About right Hard to know how this compares with other communities, here and abroad. Needs better context.

About right Higher fees for folks that go over that target?

About right I assume this is an average across the spectrum number. Do you include construction waste or is it just household waste? Increased opportunity for recycling is necessary.

About right I assume you mean "per year". Green waste is the most problematic for some people as they are charge a huge amount of money but produce very little green waste.

About right I believe most folks have bought into the concept of recycling and composting etc.

About right

I don't have a good sense for whether this is a large or small target. What is the current average (and is this figure per year?)? Does this include recyclable and compostable materials? In general though, significant reductions in wasteful consumption and associated garbage generated from it should be sought.

About right I have no point of reference. What sort of waste? Liquid? Solid? What about using the diversion target as well, as those are being used by Metro Vancouver.

About right I really have no idea....

About right I think we need to make the acquisition of styrofoam, containers, and plastic bags harder and I think we need to make their disposal easier.

About right I trust that this is a viable target.

About right

I would hope that this target isn't achieved by simply banning certain materials from Hartland Rd and diverting the problem to another area or facility and then suggest that we have achieved the target because of data from the collection of this material at Hartland Rd. Nothing but a shell game.

About right I would like for this to be lower but it's probably not realistic. I think the city is doing a great job with curbside composting pickup.

About right

If this is truly down from 367 kg, then that would be a very good thing. I would be interested to know what all is included in that number. Is that what actually goes into the garbage or does it include all recycling efforts as well. Our household of two produce one black garbage bag of true garbage per month. I would estimate that is around 120 kg. Maybe there needs to be a renewed campaign to reduce even further.

About right

I'm confused by the language in this target - it's not clear if that's disposal to landfill or total waste generation, including recycled materials. I agree that we need to reduce our waste generation significantly, and am happy to see a 33% target. I think clarifying the benefits of the kitchen scrap diversion on GHG emissions and landfill lifetimes would be useful.

About right

Incentives for businesses to reduce packaging or accept waste packaging back? This does not eliminate the waste, just sends it elsewhere, but maybe in the long term would serve to get manufacturers to produce less packaging? Or it allows the aggregation of similar waste streams for recycling. Do we know the breakdown of our solid waste stream components enough to further target certain practices or sources?

About right Is that per person per year?

About right Is this per year? If so OK. But let’s reduce packaging materials.

About right It's a start.

About right It's about right if we factor in waste done commercially to "service" individual citizens. By building short lived structures we are continuously tearing down and building anew. This generates VAST quantities of waste. We could be building for sustainability and then maintaining what we build.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 348

About right Less than that with compost & recycle.

About right Most householder sustainability campaigns are aimed at homeowners. The region needs to do a lot more to enable renters to be more sustainable, from waste reduction to energy efficiency.

About right

My neighbourhood (South Jubilee) has a community recycle day once a month that accepts the things that the CRD doesn't. It's handy for people in the area to just drop off things there rather than having to go to Ellery St or Hartland rd. with recycle and hazard etc. which some people cannot do. If more neighbourhoods were encouraged to have the recycle drop offs less would be going into the landfill.

About right Need to lean on retailers to reduce wasteful packaging.

About right Needs more higher level legislation about packaging, etc.

About right Needs short term (2018) target as well. target should be zero waste, recognizing that we may never get to absolute zero.

About right Over how long? A month, year, lifetime?

About right Please add in "per year" as it is unclear as to what this number refers to for time. Look at WTE systems that would give our solid waste a second use and possibly a third use from wastes produced from a WTE system. This would provide a much longer outlook for Hartland.

About right

Please add some context to this target. This target should state what the present average waste disposal rate is per person (and I am assuming per year), so that it is clear how much of a reduction this target is. One simple way to reduce waste is to enforce composting for restaurants and grocery stores and to ban plastic bags within the Capital Regional District.

About right Promote composting & recycling.

About right Rather than just moving waste to different landfills, the CRD should be providing solutions locally. Enable citizens to drop off their food scraps, etc... we have to stop making waste removal difficult or expensive as otherwise people will continue to just dump their garbage in the woods.

About right Realistic, given the current kitchen waste initiative. My personal goal is 25 kgs annually by the end of this year.

About right Require all vendors to use re-cyclable packaging.

About right

Same comment as last time - work on the language here. Sounds like it was created by a group of engineers (no offence). Also, by when and what is the time period for the measure - presume it's an annual rate. And how about a 'kaizen' approach - continuous improvement - for the measure. E.g. Maximum annual waste disposal rate of 250 kg per person by 20xx, with a 10% incremental reduction each year thereafter.

About right Senior levels of government should take a more proactive role in the reducing the amount of waste generated by packaging and durability of goods.


About right Sounds good but, must be reviewed regularly (yearly) with contingency for improvements.

About right Thanks to blue box program, Pacific Mobile Depot, and composting, our 3-person household only fills a garbage can once every 3 months or so.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this target. It is ambitious but achievable with widespread organics recycling.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this target. It is ambitious but achievable with widespread organics recycling.

About right The CRD and member municipalities should enact bylaws controlling the use of product packaging. The local governments should develop a waste-plastic production facility that turns regional plastic wastes into building materials, such as tiles for cycle tracks and benches for parks.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 349

About right The market will determine this.

About right The region needs better education programs to help people achieve this goal.

About right

This is achievable with adding more items to be collected by the CRD recycling program, such as styrofoam and soft plastics and more grades of hard plastics. Reward programs for businesses that reduce wastes, be it supplying for free or offering a discount on re-use containers and not using disposable takeout containers, from coffee shops to restaurants. Rewards to businesses that try to generally reduce packaging or offer ways for consumers to get it recycled. London Drugs has a program that takes the old electronic or appliance for recycling when people have bought the new electronic or appliance with them, and they offer recycling of the packaging like the styrofoam, soft plastic and cardboard from the new purchase as well. Greater composting options for all, especially those without yards from curbside pickup to community-based local garden plots. And it should be recognized if a local neighbourhood develops local composting programs with near 100% engagement they should be able to opt out of the eco-footprint of curbside recycling or composting and the associated tax/charges at the residential level.

About right

This is an area that I feel needs more public info and promotion. I still see too many people griping about the inconvenience of reduced waste. The public needs to be made aware of the advantages of this movement and the advancements made in the field to get the majority on board with any forward movement.

About right This is easy for an individual to achieve, but they have to care. Personal choices hold a lot of weight with this target, so education programs are key.

About right This relates too to packaging and stores as well as educating the public.

About right

This seems reasonable based on the current rates. However, measures to help people reduce waste need to be developed. Currently, I take my plastic bags and styrofoam to plastic recycling at Reynolds School parking lot on the fourth Saturday of the month. I pay to have these products recycled. Ideally there would be point of sale charges on these products to cover the expense of post-consumer use disposal.

About right This should be easy.

About right This target is acceptable.

About right This target is acceptable. It is ambitious but achievable with widespread organics recycling.

About right This will be difficult to achieve without stronger provincial legislation regarding packaging and more effective planning for use of waste.

About right Those of us who have very little garbage should have reduced garbage rates. The size of the new containers is ridiculous. I put out garbage once a month and should be reward for it.

About right Use waste to generate energy.

About right Waste disposal and solid waste should be dealt with in a central Island facility, fed by rail (E&N), which can take solid waste from most communities on the Island to a central facility mid Island.

About right We may need to become more odour tolerant. Composting may smell at times.

About right We need programs for renters that allow for easier for recycling and composting.

About right We need to get merchants to play the lead role in reducing wasteful product packaging and implement a requirement of all merchants to accept the return of packaging and or spent products for recycling/repurposing of every item they sell.

About right Weight does not seem to be the biggest issue, it's volume. Some of the most troublesome waste is styrofoam which is light.

About right What happens when Hartland is full? Is there a plan?

About right Yeah we could all do to produce less garbage. Encouraging personal composting is another way to cut down on waste volume, though I feel Victoria is already pretty good about this.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 350

About right Yes!

Too high 250 kg per person is still a lot. With the right incentives (reduce packaging, make stores responsible to take back packaging) a lower waste rate can be reached.

Too high A target of 200KG per person should be achievable. One way to do this is to change packaging laws. Too many products, especially consumer and durable goods, and even some food stuffs, have far too much packaging!!

Too high Again, improve the language of your statements. Over what duration is this target to be achieved - monthly, annually, or what? If the duration proposed is annual, then the number is far too ambitious. If by month, then not ambitious enough.

Too high Another plan to move operating cost to households what's the plan BC Hydro building a high efficient burning to handle waste at Hartland providing electricity and steam heating for locals to tap into.

Too high Anybody should not have that high an amount. This should be far more reasonable.

Too high As we now recycle, and comport kitchen scraps, such a significant reduction may be hard to achieve, so would suggest a 300kg per person goal.

Too high Bigger and Bigger Gov, get out of the crapper.

Too high Businesses should be required to provide services for recycling packaging and given incentives for doing the recycling and/or reducing packaging. The more waste a person produces, the more they should pay.

Too high Can do better.

Too high Could be half that.

Too high

Does CRD have control over manufacturing & packaging? I think not. CRD is one tiny little body in a great big world of industry. CRD needs to figure out how to dispose of our waste. Particularly BEFORE putting out mandatory separation of waste / organics for only some of the municipalities only have it all to continue going to the same landfill. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST. I go back to my comment on amalgamation.

Too high Eat vegetables...from your garden = no waste at all...oh, but where will the condo owners grow vegetables?...

Too high Educate public and businesses to reduce waste at the source, Only 3 P s (pee, poo and toilet paper) down toilet. Also ,low flush toilets. Businesses donate left over food/drinks to food banks....

Too high Everyone must compost, find ways to reuse goods(rags from old clothing, shred styrofoam for plant pots...) recycle paper,metal,plastic, and protest excessive packaging by removing and leaving it right at the point of sale, and buy from bulk bins refilling their own reusable containers.

Too high How will you regulate that. I see the makings of a Disaster.

Too high I am shocked at the current level - This must include industrial waste. We need to lower the amount.

Too high

I am very impressed with new waste disposal practices that being adopted. I have clicked 'too high' only because of my personal experience. Only after really making an effort to reduce and recycle, my garbage has decreased from 2 big cans of trash to 1 or 2 small bags per pick-up period. That tells me, others could realize the same success rate. I think overall, individuals could do a better job of reducing their waste disposal rate. Perhaps more education and easier accessible information on the CRD web site might help.

Too high I believe that we have to aim for zero waste. Re cyclopedia is a good start and obviously there is much much more work to do. One day we will be mining the landfill. Education is the answer here. Not policy.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 351

Too high I think we can challenge ourselves more than that.

Too high

I would like to think we can do better, but then this points to an earlier comment on GHG reductions. Consumption is not part of the greenhouse gas emissions, and understandably so because we as a society cannot dictate what people consume. The result is that we cannot dictate what people dispose. Construction wastes can be limited - as seen in the Living Building Challenge as rep beyond Leed Platinum - In Seattle they allow 5 LBC projects a year with relaxed building code regulations for the purpose to experiment with newer building systems. The result is the materials are regionally sourced (thus causing a demand for recycled materials), and the buildings have to be designed for safety and the ability to be deconstructed. Such experimental concepts as this could go a ways to enhance the recycling, and the feasibility for future generations to re-use materials that are safely accessed from building built today. Moving forward on multiple small food scrap composting stations that fit the OMRR criteria, so they are easily accessed by the local farms is another aspect that could reduce the GHG associated with a central system that moves materials out of a community and then back in.

Too high If 250 kg includes yard waste I can't meet the 250 kg goal.

Too high If people are able to recycle and compost, there's no need to make any waste at all.

Too high I'm assuming it's by year (need to make that clear).

Too high Is that '250 kg per person' PER YEAR?

Too high

It's difficult to imagine how much waste 250kg is--one hell of a lot of plastic or a couple of old appliances The CRD may not have the ability, but as much as possible put pressure on retailers and manufacturers to cut back on packaging, and engage the public in the struggle, by leaving the packaging in the store to motivate retailers to reduce it. Post stories by people of the first time they had the gumption to make the store take the packaging back.

Too high

Legislate against unnecessary packaging. Eliminate non-biodegradable packaging and containers. Find an alternative to styrofoam in all its uses. Encourage back yard and municipal composting. Develop fuel and energy producing processes that consume current waste products including sewage.

Too high Let's be more ambitious.

Too high More public education is needed. Use regional waste management.

Too high Need a plan to deal with existing landfill and disposal of organic waste issues. Existing practices and facilities cannot cope with this target.

Too high No you want to control our bowel movements?

Too high Not realistic. Too high a target. We have no control of manufacturers and sellers. Again seniors can physically only do so much.

Too high

Not sure how the CRD controls waste. The drive has to start with the public demanding manufacturers use less packaging and be efficient at the start. The CRD has little to do with that. Other than punishing people for over consumption - and how do you do that? - there is little you can do.

Too high Not without much more feasible policy, control on packaging and regulations.

Too high Or less.

Too high Penalties and incentives to reduce waster even more.

Too high People can cut back on their garbage. They've done it other places. They can do it here.

Too high

Producer responsibility leading to packaging abolition for food and all other goods. Reducing animal-dependency for nutrition will eliminate tremendous amounts of packaging. Locally resourced content laws for grocery stores will reduce packaging. Again, carbon-neutral valuation of food processing and transport will eliminate packaging.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 352

Too high REFUSE and REDUCE.

Too high Ridiculous. Massive Illegal dumping will be the result.

Too high Seems far too susceptible on socio-economic bias. The wealthy will do what they want and the (former) middle class will be guilted into carrying the bill.

Too high Seems high to me. In our household we are already at least half this.

Too high Set an ambitious target, such as 50% reduction within 5 years. Many people have much lower rates. Increase product stewardship (reuse of pallets etc.).

Too high Should be lower than 250kg.

Too high That's still a huge amount of waste. Consider adding things like Free Stores. Education campaigns around food waste, recycling. Make it EASY.

Too high That's still about 5kg per person per week. My partner and I easily keep our garbage disposal to an average of about 500gm per person per 2 week pick up cycle, without even being obsessive about it.

Too high The science is changing and the technology for waste management is advancing. Keep watch for innovative solutions not evident at this time. Furthermore, avoid "knee-jerk," top-down approaches that do not address the need for a responsive communications and business plan.

Too high

The target is too high, that is to say, we should be generating even less waste to the landfill per person. We have gotten people in the habit of using the blue boxes. Even if it’s not an efficient system, having changed people's habits that much is something to build on. Projected population growth means that a decrease in per capita rates of 32% over the next 23 years is only an 18% decrease in the total generated and destined for Hartland. Seems pretty unambitious.

Too high The waste disposal rate should be much lower. Businesses selling goods in the CRD should be required to use less packaging to make this possible for the consumer.

Too high This is a ridiculous program. Check the other programs up Island or in other cities. This one is very badly thought out.

Too high This is about cradle-to-grave legislation: suppliers must be responsible for packaging, and their choices must be reflected in the price. This is especially true for industrial and municipal waste.

Too high

This is the wrong way to go about it. It is obvious on garbage day that large numbers of people are already way below the target due to conservation lifestyle choices, composting, or whatever while a few people haven't got the message yet and put out overflowing bins and extra bags. The right answer is not to target averages, but to reward the people who are already there and target efforts, including education, on the people who aren't. By now in our region this truly a "point source" issue and needs to be addressed as such, not by average targets.

Too high Too expensive.

Too high Too idealistic!! This has the sounds of socialism.

Too high Unless the entire population is institutionalized, there is no realistic way to enforce such a goal.

Too high Unless you intend to change the retail Economy and packaging- then waste is as low as it can get.

Too high Virtually everything is now recyclable. Educate people more and make it ever easier to do the right thing.

Too high We are far too wasteful as a society. We need to increase public education, and lead in changing values to reduce waste. This is an enormous task, but can be done.

Too high We do not need to generate so much garbage.

Too high We have to reduce our waste BIG TIME.

Too high We must learn to produce less waste. Again, educate consumers to require better packaging and buy less. Discourage the sport of shopping. Community must not be created in malls.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 353

Too high We need to further decrease the disposal rate to at least 200 kg/person.

Too high We should be able to achieve better than this.

Too high We should be able to do better now with composting.

Too high

We've done a good job of water-awareness, but waste awareness is totally different. The challenge with waste is that there are few options to purchase items that come in minimal packaging. To achieve waste-minimizing the CRD will have to work more broadly with other levels of government, UBCM, and FCM to address over-packaging.

Too high

What is the context here - it is an arbitrary number - what else can be eliminated? We in Metchosin already are seeing garbage dumped in the ditches and bush because people can dispose of it easily. All this will do is transfer the problem to the rural municipalities. Perhaps you could consider incinerating the waste which could generate power (co-generation). I see no basis for the number in the background - a blue sky number.

Too high Who writes this stuff?

Too high Why is garbage disposal offered weekly and recycling only every 2 weeks....

Too high Why? Get the hell out of my business.

Too high You guys are nuts!

Too low 0.68 KG a day?? We need to produce that much garbage? If we compost and recycle you conceivably can produce far less garbage a day. For a house of 7 people we might produce 1kg a day and we could do better for sure.

Too low

Address condos and food scraps. Condos are no longer an anomaly. Blue Box service needs to be provided for stratas for food scraps, or at least for strata buildings that have about the same number of people as a large extended family in a single family house - say 9.I have to double our 6 unit strata's waste hauling cost to take care of food scraps (which we don't have much of) , and the waste goes to Vancouver! This entire topic in CRD management needs a lot more attention, and real world tryouts of how strategies work.

Too low Ban plastics. Change packaging laws.

Too low By "too low" I want to encourage even stronger effort toward waste reduction.

Too low By when?

Too low Citizens have had opportunities to reduce consumption and increase recycling/reuse. If programs are to be put into place (such as the recent composting policies in Victoria) they need to be gain maximum value and shoot for higher targets.

Too low

CRD has lots of recycling options and information, but unfortunately it is still highly inconvenient as each item goes to a different location and often there is a cost associated. There should be a one-stop recycling location near the city.. and this should include a free zone where people can pick up gently used items.

Too low Create incentives for people to create less garbage.

Too low Curb the use of pre-packaging blister packs.

Too low Education, education, education...but be fair...I do one bin a month. That's not a lot...I recycle, compost, but everything I buy is "still" over packaged! What to do? How do you expect me to reduce when my choices force me to waste???

Too low

Effective efficient waste management programs will accomplish a higher target. current local composting has proven to be a nightmare, so breaking down the contracts into smaller more manageable parts will prove less onerous. it would also encourage farmers to use compost instead of soil supplements.

Too low Expand the landfill while we still can. It's pathetic. The CRD can't even take out the garbage anymore.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 354

Too low Find a way to eliminate plastic in the grocery stores. Even with cloth grocery bags, plastic is a huge waste.

Too low Food scraps composted on site would reduce this figure. Jora Composters will make Compost in Victoria 12 months a year. All food scraps can be composted in these units and will be compost every few weeks.

Too low Go world-class with waste diversion. I want to see us hit 85% diversion. Keep doing those awesome anti-consumerist ads that I saw a while back about buying experiences and not stuff.

Too low I cannot answer this without additional context. What are leading munis shooting for? I know many European countries are closer to 100% diversion, including incineration, and that in California some cities have 70-80% diversion rates so this seems low.

Too low

I currently pay for garbage and compost pick-up at the same rate as my neighbours. However, I put my garbage out to be emptied approximately 3 times per year. I put my compost out every 2 weeks, with a small bag in it of things I don't compost at home. While I recognize that services need to be paid for, why not have a system where producing less garbage has a financial incentive?

Too low

I do think a limit is important. During what time period? And by when? End the privatization, including Public Private Partnerships, of public services such as sewage Pursue waste management strategies that provide farmers and food growers with access to the region’s organic waste materials. And participate in development of waste management strategies that provide farmers and food growers with access to the region’s organic waste materials. This a good proposal and should definitely reduce waste, and move away from the practice of some municipalities of transferring the waste outside the region The goal of achieving a sustainable waste system that deals with climate change issues. Such a system would require tertiary treatment, eliminate all toxins in the biosolids, produce and utilize large volumes of gas from the biosolid treatment process, and recover and use the purified water as well. ; DND lands must be returned to the jurisdiction of the regional district and perhaps the site could be used for a sewage treatment plant. Also, DND is planning to dump its waste into a nearby lake. Another good reason for returning DND to local control.

Too low I don't have a number in mind but could we do better by improving local composting opportunities?

Too low I think it needs to be made clear this is 250 kg /per person /per year.

Too low I think people are already primed to do much better than this.

Too low I think we could do better.

Too low

Ideally, I feel we should all be producing far less garbage. I also believe that the CRD should create facilities to process our compost here in the island, rather than shipping it to the mainland for processing. (Yes, we're reducing the greenhouse gas of methane by composting, but we're now doing so by adding the carbon emissions involved in transport of the kitchen scraps to the mainland.) I'd also like to see CRD take a firm "no" stance on single-use plastic items like plastic bags, which take centuries to disintegrate and wreak havoc on wildlife in the meantime. This is unacceptable when plastic bags are easily replaceable with cloth.

Too low If 90% of our waste can be diverted, and if CRD has just implemented an organics ban, wouldn't it follow that we should be able to reduce our waste down to 36.7 kg/person by 2038 (a reduction of 90% against our current practices)?

Too low

If we can also reduce our consumption emissions (buying less consumer goods) we can reduce this even more. All clean organics should be diverted. Backyard burning should be banned. All clean organics should eventually end up back in the soil for carbon sequestration. Sewage sludge is different again as it is very toxic.

Too low If you lower it to low much the extra waste just end up on the street corners.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 355

Too low I'm sick of social engineers.

Too low Implement soft plastics collection, incentivize waste reduction practices.

Too low In 25 years we should be able to reduce waste generated per person per year to much lower than this.

Too low Increasing recycling and reusing support as well as educational programs could result in a much smaller per capita waste footprint. Commercial waste is also a major contributor to the waste stream. Much of it (food etc.) is not warranted and can be redirected to help those in need.

Too low Is this an annual rate?

Too low It should be a user PAY SYSTEM, IF YOU CREATE MORE WASTE you should pay more.

Too low It's a start.

Too low It’s not about cutting down all the time, it’s about educating and providing viable ways for avg. families to create less waste. your little buckets for compost are pathetic! Create a three tub garbage system for houses like universities have.

Too low It's too easy for people to throw away garbage and I know that we probably have half as much garbage as many people do.

Too low Let's strive for "zero waste" & eliminate non-recyclable or non-compostable items.

Too low Little information about why this is the 'right' target or how it would be attained.

Too low More easy recycling for metals, batteries, and food waste.

Too low More education is need to get the current and the target weight down.

Too low More integrated solid and liquid waste management, more effective composting and resource recovery of water.

Too low More recycling, it's not hard.

Too low My wife and I generate about 1 kg of waste to the landfill per week. If we can do that, everyone can.

Too low Need more aggressive waste reduction targets, with a goal of zero waste.

Too low Need to reach for nero-zero waste, otherwise we will run out of space for our waste!

Too low Need to reassess this issue, maybe add septic tanks hooked up to sewer to act as pretreatment plants as new homes are built.

Too low Needs a serious re-look but how?

Too low

Not sure what this looks like in practical terms. Ideas: It would be great if the root issue of waste could be addressed.. in the wasteful packaging and disposable products. If the CRD could come up with a way to reduce or create a disincentive for this kind of waste (at purchase) that would be a step in the right direction. One huge problem in my area is people dumping their garbage in the woods on our rural roads. Many in our neighbourhood have been witness to these activities and have had to deal with cleaning up the garbage that is dumped on our properties and along our roads. We need assistance in collecting and disposing of this illegally dumped garbage, and we need to have thought put towards how to end this problem by creating alternatives. Dumping garbage in the forest is not the way to reduce the waste at the regions dump.

Too low Not sure what this means but 250 kg per person seems excessive.

Too low

Oh, for heaven's sake. How about we try for "don't leave the water running while you brush your teeth." WE have to do better than that. Here on Salt Spring we are in jeopardy of losing our Recycle center. People are dumping their kitchen waste or worse still, burning it because there is no composting system available here. Garbage continues to be dumped into the woods, on back streets. Need specifics on programs. Developers continue to burn cords of firewood in burn piles as their method of disposing of "waste". We need to start identifying "waste" as unused resources!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 356

Too low Or too high? That is too much waste, should be less. You should not be able to throw away more than what you weigh. You weigh 150lbs, that’s all you get to chuck out.

Too low

Over what period....a year? Reuse and recycle ideas could be posted on your website....and displays of recycled goods could be put up at libraries...as well as classes offered. The CRD is doing a good job of handling waste in a responsible manner....but even more awareness of individual ways consumers can shop without accepting so much packaging could be emphasized.

Too low

Packaging and garbage is incessant in this consumer based society, and recycling is CRITICAL for any target. Too little is being done and the cap proposed is too small. I say this seeing our tiny amount of garbage being picked up every 2 weeks. I'd say your target should be 1/3 of your proposal based on our experience.

Too low People should be encouraged to eliminate all non-recyclable packaging.

Too low Proper use of our waste - recovery of resources.

Too low Recommend 100kg/year, and need to work with major suppliers and distributors to change supply and packaging schemes.

Too low Reduce, recycle and recover resources from solid waste. In many countries virtually nothing goes to waste. Here we live in a disposable world. Unfortunately we can't continue to dump or materials.

Too low Reducing waste is an admirable initiative. If it's reasonably possible, a lower target would be better.

Too low Sanctions should be put in place for companies that encourage waste.

Too low

Since I work in garbage and recycling I know what a sad target this is the best you can hope for if you do nothing at all important. Food scraps obviously. What is the next largest segment? Blue box paper, which has been collected for decades. We need to try something different. I would suggest you start by requiring all newspapers and flyers to move to a subscription model. No more mass crap.

Too low Tax products and packaging that can't be recycled. Perhaps it shouldn't even come to the island if it needs to end in a landfill.

Too low That’s still a lot of waste. We should be aiming for 100% recycling or composting. Regulations can really help here.

Too low That's still a lot of waste - surely we could reduce more.

Too low

There is no such thing as waste, only resources in the wrong place. We should be looking to recycle all spare household and business items by 2038 through preventing them getting into the system in the first place, heavily penalizing grey bin versus blue or green bin and offering clear and easy solutions for recycling of many more materials than currently (e.g. NY's polystyrene cup ban, plastic bag bans, etc.).

Too low This can be improved upon.

Too low This is a big one, not just for the reduced waste now, but also the training of new generations that low or no waste is the norm.

Too low This survey is hard to understand. What is the timeframe? 250 kg per year? By what date will we achieve the target? Our household produces about 50 - 70 kg per year for two people.

Too low This would be considered "low hanging fruit."

Too low Too much fast food and unsustainable food sector garbage going to landfill.

Too low Total recycling and elimination of waste must be the target.

Too low Unless you get Manufactures to reduce packaging, there will be no goal reachable.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 357

Too low Unrealistic. Stop shipping my kitchen waste away to compost elsewhere. Return the local efforts needed to locals. Stop financially penalizing me for composting in my own back yard. Education badly needed here. Penalties for companies who pollute or create unnecessary packaging.

Too low

Very little information is provided on how this is to be achieved on a local level. Much non-recyclable waste arises from global commercial practices (such as excessive packaging and non-repairable durable goods) about which local governments can do little. On the other hand, the largest single component of human waste by weight is recyclable wastes for which greater stimulation of positive individual action by way of incentives and education could have a significant effect.

Too low

Waste is structured into our consumption. Pass regional laws that reduce "waste" at source (packaging, plastic bags and bottles, etc.), require merchants to assume responsibility for packaging, and redefine "waste." Why are things being made that become "waste" after their function or purpose is fulfilled?

Too low We all make a ridiculous amount of waste. Too much consuming. Not enough contentment with what we have.

Too low

We allow way too many things into the waste stream and do not make good enough attempts at reuse and repurposing. The CRD should consider offering exchange stores or free stores for used goods in reusable condition. Way too much ends up in landfill or “recycling” when it could be refurbished and reused. This is particularly true of electronics, building supplies, and clothing. Things like thrift stores, Restore and others are good attempts but more is needed. Much of the discarded electronics, which use a great deal of energy and resources to create, are still working or have minor issues with them. These items should be repaired and repurposed, or resold to cover costs of teaching repair services. The technical schools could generate income taking in old electronics, repairing them and reselling, while learning valuable skills, keeping the goods from being lost to “recycling”, providing low income people with usable goods, etc. I fully support the upfront eco fees on most goods of this nature.

Too low We can all do better and force manufacturers and retailers to get greener packaging.

Too low We can do A LOT more to reduce waste on an individual level, but there needs to be a huge investment in education and also in mandating local shops to do their part (e.g.. all plastic bags are taxed).

Too low We can do better if we expand on those materials that we recycle in the CRD.

Too low We can do better than that. We all know it. We don't need so much stuff. Start building things to last, and encourage fix it shops etc. and we can easily get down to 200kg/person.

Too low

We can do much better. However, when the CRD tightens the use of Hartland Landfill the rural areas get an increase in illegal dumping. There has to be a recognition that any savings at the urban end puts a cost on us. Better CRD Bylaw enforcement, rural roadside dumpsters and more roadside garbage clean-up are all needed.

Too low

We can do so much better about not buying needless stuff with tons of packaging some of which is not recyclable. We're moving in the right direction with home composting and garbage reduction but I think people really need to be educated about the land fill and how its filling up and we live on an island. An effort is being made in the schools but folks in general need to create LESS GARBAGE!!!!

Too low

We can get to almost zero waste - but that will take massive educational efforts - maybe fines (high) or charges (also high) for putting out trash. More recycling (like PMD does). Vendor take-back programs. "Leave the packaging at the store" campaigns, Neighbourhood Donation/Yard Sale events (like Fairfield/Gonzales held in May, 2014).

Too low We must waste less. There are obvious ways.

Too low We need focus on reusing both solid and liquid waste for energy and water recovery.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 358

Too low We need to do more than just create waste.

Too low We should be able to do better.

Too low

We should be able to reduce waste by 50% per person in 25 years. However there are lots of factors, like amount and type of packaging, that are out of the control of the CRD. There is considerable scope to encourage reduction in food waste by grocery stores, restaurants and home owners.

Too low We're too greedy and soft on ourselves.

Too low

What happened to the existing CRD goal of zero waste? The 250 kg goal is only a 32% improvement. We should stick to the 100% zero waste goal, and do whatever it takes to get there. San Francisco and Vancouver are both streets ahead of us, recycling 75 - 80% of their wastes, compared to our 42%.

Too low What is best practice on this one? What is realistically achievable? Not enough info in backgrounder to answer.

Too low

Who produces this much waste? Especially with food scrap diversion already in place to mitigate the per capita numbers? The answer here lies in increased education with CRD folk, quality of regional leadership, and political will in line with ethical and moral will. Studying the issue of food waste will undoubtedly be enlightening, especially as it relates to food security/scarcity/rights. Think of how much useable grocery store and restaurant food is tossed b/c of current societal values - a brown spot on a head of lettuce, throwing brewed coffee away 10 minutes after it was brewed, etc. This is a huge issue, and one that can tie in with spin-offs in that policy area, such as backyard chickens, composting, soil development, etc.

Too low

With education, people are capable of far greater reduction. Businesses must be educated as well and take responsibility for their waste stream contribution. We need to be exceedingly bold in this regard. Zero waste community initiatives are the only real alternative in my view to making people pay attention. Enormous potential to make significant change here with bold moves.

Too low With recycling, composting and thoughtful waste reduction through purchasing, we can do better.

Too low Work towards Zero Waste. It can be and has been done all over the world, including North America.

Too low Would like to see even more diversion.

Too low Yes, we need to reduce waste.

Too low You need to realize that all the crap going to the landfill came from a store. Selling waste (shoddy goods and packaging) needs curtailment, even a regulatory prohibition. People just don't get it!

Get on with high tech waste treatment facilities. Encourage compost toilets in lower density areas. Don't FUCK UP establishing composting facility - because that's what CRD staff did with the one in Saanich. we need compost for farmers, urban gardeners, parks.

Achieve a waste disposal rate of no greater than 250 kg per person This target is acceptable. It is ambitious but achievable with widespread organics recycling.

Any reduction is good, don't know enough to be able to assess what is achievable.

Deal with waste better than burying it. Use it for energy and recovery.

Don't know.

Don't know.

DREAM ON.

Get away from separation of garbage. Very costly to implement it and a lot more work to each household.

Great ideas to continue. How about developing policies which encourage local manufacturers to put pressure on suppliers to reduce excessive wasteful packaging, and by encouraging those local manufacturers and producers to themselves use responsible, forward thinking packaging methods.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 359

I am not sure what this translates to but I like reducing it. Is it a yearly number?? If so, maybe it is too high? How would you know how many people live in a house to monitor it? Can we raise the amounts collected and returned on bottles and cans? that would be a good incentive...

I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. WHEN.

If that is a viable number. I don't know enough to know if this is so. Waste reduction needs to be encouraged at the packaging level. There is SO much in grocery stores for example that is packaged in non-recyclable, and excessive packaging. As far as compostables, the large scale one was too stinky. How about supporting farmers in the area to have many small/supervised/well managed composts? People could just drop off at their local farm. This would need to be subsidized.

IF we get the stores to stop producing waste packaging, if we find some effective way to channel our vegetable / plant waste to compost for farm land.... not ship off to be someone else's problem.

I'm not sure how big 250 KG is. LBS would be easier. Ramping up the recycling possibilities for recycling such as soft plastics, etc. would be helpful.

Is this an annual figure? Good luck in persuading people to consume less! At least they're getting better at recycling cardboard and other packaging - I’m continually amazed to see how many blue boxes are filled to the brim on recycling day!

Many others are adopting a visionary zero waste target, why not CRD?

No idea if this is good. Based upon my own use I recycle and compost so have no pickup but I live alone and am careful. The number just doesn't mean much to me but cutting back is always good.

Not paying attention; no other comment.

Press the provincial government to make manufacturers and retailers responsible for packaging by taxing non-compostable materials heavily.

Reduce waste and recycle is good. I cannot relate to the 250Kg specification.

Solid waste must be handled on an Island Regional level. We need a central thermal generating plant, probably central Island, fed by rail (E&N) from Victoria and all other communities along the line. Setting a disposal rate per person will not determine how this waste is handled or disposed of.

Sorry your survey is just too long?

Target businesses (local, national and international) which 'over'-package their products. Everything from groceries. Most products are over-packaged and or made too large for the product as a sales gimmick to make an item look larger. A very small example is the cereal box I just emptied. The box was about 1/2 full when purchased. Once business gets on side, then consumer will follow.

This is about 2/3 of current levels and with consumption levels continuing I doubt if this is possible. We do not have "a mend and make do "perspective in this culture.

This is not very well communicated. How much is 250 kg per person? Needs an example that people can relate to.

This is useless since I cannot keep the targets Backgrounder open. I am quitting.

We don't have much expertise in this subject, but more recycling opportunities would help. For example, once or twice a year collect metals and hazardous waste in a variety of neighborhoods-within reach of most people. We don't help the environment by driving to Harland with a few toxic items.

We MUST reduce waste.

We need to go to tertiary treatment. To do otherwise is phenomenally expensive for an end result that doesn't do what needs to be done.

What does that mean? What you want to consider is localized organic recycling such as digesters in every garden for a very low cost better than trucking organics away. You could also set up communal organic digesters within the road right of ways.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 360

What's the timeframe on this? Annually, the course of a lifetime? Needs refining.

Who cares, the garbage is the garbage, "You are going to start telling people that you throw out to much." STOP TRYING TO BUILD UP YOUR CASTLE.

Without becoming one of your specialist in waste management, common sense prevails. Are we taking care of our waste in a sensible way now. Do we have proper disposal sites for toxic chemicals, paint, oil, pesticides, prescription drugs, perhaps you should concentrate on educating the public and create collection centers for safe disposal. I understand that it is not what comes out of us that is creating a problem for the environment but what we are putting down our drains and what industry is releasing into the environment.

Zero waste targets?

11.0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TARGET

a) What do you think about the emergency preparedness target?

By 2018, 100% of municipalities have completed and tested an Emergency Response Plan for a

Catastrophic Earthquake.



Too high 22 3.6%

Too low 79 12.9%

TOTAL 611 100.0%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 361


About right As long as the emergency response agencies have a reliable and common communication system and they work together efficiently.

About right As long as this includes the testing of all infrastructure.

About right As soon as possible would be good; helping residents with suggestions and education around earthquakes as well.

About right At first blush I though achieving 100% in 3 years is ambitious, but if it's doable, then why not!

About right Better get on that. tick tock tick tock.

About right But how will we function during and after the big one? How can we given that we have 13 municipalities and 1 CRD with confusing lines of communication and authority.

About right Can that be done sooner? How about this year?

About right Couldn't hurt eh.

About right Definitely a good idea. I really have no idea what to do should an earthquake occur, and that’s a little scary.

About right Do we have an early warning system like the old fashion air raid sirens? If so who has ever heard of it.

About right Does need immediate attention though, as who knows when 'catastrophic' one occurs.

About right Emergency Response Plan for a catastrophic earthquake is very important.



About right Excellent. Please do this as it is core to the CRD mandate (and all the containing cities mandates).

About right Good stuff! Problem is, it is unlikely that all residents will be at home when the shaker strikes. What about bridges and under passes, old commercial buildings?

About right Good.

About right Good.

About right Great! It is important to support our communities emergency preparedness programs.

About right Great! Very important.

About right Hopefully, not too little or too late.

About right How about also including public education on how to prepare ourselves/our homes, etc.

About right I am hoping this exercise will involve those noble scions of modern-day capitalism, the insurance companies.

About right I hope the earthquake can cooperate and hold off that long. It is one thing to plan, have we accounted for that reliable water supply? Should the region buy de-salting equipment for ocean water??

About right I really hope nothing happens sooner!

About right I thought this had already been dealt with. Locally we have a great preparedness system and neighbourhood pods.

About right I would like to see some Emergency Preparedness info meetings for Langford residents.

About right Ideally, yes.

About right Important target, much needed.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 362

About right

In addition to an emergency response plan, communities also need an emergency mitigation plan, that discusses how they will protect themselves from impacts, rather than just respond to them, once they have happened. Additionally, I think the timeframe of this target may be unlikely.

About right Incentivize personal emergency preparation.

About right Includes Tsunamis right?

About right Interesting that we want to be 100% prepared for an earthquake, an event that we cannot control. But we do not want at the same rate to threats that we can control (air and water quality, quality of life and climate change).

About right It shouldn't be just a "response" plan. There should be some consideration for planning for mitigation, especially land use and transportation.

About right It will probably take about three years to do this, especially if the plans embrace inter-municipality activities (as they should!).

About right It's coming - and we had better be prepared.

About right It's shocking that this isn't already in place.

About right I've tried many times to find SPECIFIC info about tsunami and storm surge areas for where I live (and came up short). That info just has to be made available to communities to disseminate.

About right Keeping in mind much more than "only" catastrophic earthquake.

About right

Leadership before and during and emergency is an important role for the CRD. As the EMBC relies on municipality to be responsible for their emergency, with the help of EMBC. As municipalities rely on mostly volunteers. This means communication and education to the public to do their part; that should be part of your plan too.

About right Let's hope it does not happen before then.

About right Let’s hope the big one does not hit before then!

About right Let’s make this happen. Consider the devastation of Christchurch NZ. We seem to have our heads in the sand.

About right Long overdue.


About right May need it sooner.

About right Meh.

About right Metchosin has an active group and with readiness through our EOC.

About right Necessary.

About right Need to make sure municipalities are acting together with a regional disaster plan.

About right Needs doing.

About right Offer premade kits, one 'element' at a time [so we can afford them]. Encourage citizens to try out their kits on 'practice day'. We all need to be part of the ERP.

About right OK, but maybe the time has come to address fire.

About right Over the years all the prepared emergency plans get lost, let's keep the new ones alive.

About right Personally I find this low, as I produce nowhere near this amount of waste. However it may be that some residents need time to reduce.

About right Practically speaking, this is probably right. Should have been in place by now, but since it's not, 2018 seems reasonable.

About right Practice makes perfect however none of has really any clue what is really going to happen when the big one hits.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 363

About right Provided these plans are doable and are constantly improved and tested through living drills.

About right Raise more awareness of what such a plan looks like.

About right Realistically, the entire population of able bodied people needs to be ready.

About right Really?

About right Should be sooner than 2018.

About right Sooner is better- what is CRD going to do about all the building that will crumble in an earth quake?

About right Sooner would be good...but we need to educate, plan, practice...so it seems reasonable.

About right Sounds good and it will be interesting to see what comes out of such an evaluation.

About right Super important!

About right Supplying water after the event should be addressed in 2015 - it is difficult for individuals to store enough for 3 weeks.

About right That's a good one - thank you. Can't be too low...

About right The 2018 target date is appropriate.

About right

The annual great shake needs to be more in the public's face. There should be speaker-equipped trucks driving through the city at the exact hour posing the question: "if the ground was shaking right now, what would you do?" Would you have food or water for tomorrow?" Scary - maybe for a moment. Irritating, yes. Provocative – definitely.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this goal.

About right The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter supports this goal.

About right The big one's coming they say...

About right The capital region and cb government are not prepared. Who really is in charge? Mayors , police, BC government? Where is the money for repairs and restoration ... The money must be earning interest now and quickly assessable for all sectors of the region.

About right The RSS can and should alert municipalities as to the need for attention to this preparedness. It needs to provide examples of such plans for varies municipal needs.

About right The sooner the better.

About right There are other major calamities that may be more likely than earthquakes. I live in Metchosin and the fuel load has not been higher in anyone’s “living memory”.

About right This also very achievable just look at Otter point - Al Wickheim's work.

About right This is important.

About right This is something the CRD can help with.

About right This should be related to understandings about likely earthquake areas. People who live where earthquake damage is unlikely should receive a benefit for intelligently locating themselves out of danger.

About right This target could be achieved sooner, and the sooner the better.

About right This target makes sense.

About right This target makes sense.

About right

This target seems acceptable. However, I continue to be surprised that East Sooke does not have a neighbourhood response plan; where neighbours in a specified area meet and discuss how they might help one another in such an emergency. We have had a few very good / excellent information meetings at the Fire Hall, but there still is no community plan that I am aware of. Where do folks go if their house falls down? Is there a community stash of food, first aid supplies, etc. Our plan seems inadequate. I keep hearing that other CRD communities do have neighbourhood response plans.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 364

About right This would be much easier and cost effective if we only had one or two municipalities!!

About right Very important target. I know most municipalities (city halls) conducted emergency preparedness exercises at least on an annual basis. And that is a good thing.

About right Very reasonable and doable.

About right

We need a requirement that all buildings be earthquake safe including older buildings that need to be upgraded. Do we even know if our schools and government buildings are earthquake safe? How can you hope to keep people safe in an earthquake if the buildings fall down around them?

About right We need to establish a regional medium urban search and rescue capability along the lines of the Victoria and CFB Esquimalt teams.

About right Why not, they’re great at wasting money at everything else.

About right With the 13 municipalities in the area, I think all of them need to come together to deal with this type of problem.

About right Would like to see an earlier date for completion.

About right Yes very important.

About right Yes!

About right

Yes, since we do not know where the earthquakes may do the greatest damage, we need inventories of what industries could be damaged and what actions would be required in those cases, as well as how utilities will be dealt with to reduce injury and losses. A coordinated effort of fire and rescue departments, proper communications and protocols, and again, plans for possible oil spills on our coasts.

About right Yes. In schools, in offices, in malls, in homes, etc. Everywhere. There needs to be a solid plan. Especially at community centres, hospitals, fire halls, police stations, recreation centres.

About right Yesterday was the day for this...

About right Yup. A catastrophic earthquake is very likely in the next 0-200 years. I would add that catastrophic climate change is happening now as is mass extinction.

Too high At what cost?

Too high Can this not be achieved sooner

Too high Fear Fear Fear, wasted money, the Fed Gov and the USA will come to our rescue.

Too high

Good to aim high but recovery with a mega-thrust or mega-subduction earthquake of 9.0 Richter lasting for anything more than 45 seconds will likely destroy every bridge south of the Malahat. This is an impossible target to achieve in less than three years. How about starting an education program with basic actions to get people ready for a catastrophic earthquake. Start by telling them not to depend on cell 'phones to contact emergency responders because 1. it's unlikely there'll be cell 'phone service and 2. emergency providers will be responding to more urgent calls than those related to individual needs. Tell residents what a catastrophic earthquake will do - likely no services for up to 12 weeks - and that they (we) need to be prepared to deal with that. Work at the local level to provide for widespread support. Don't expect municipalities, the CRD, PEP (or whatever they're called) to be able to deal with a catastrophic earthquake. Will the CRD and municipalities be prepared in three years? I truly doubt it.

Too high Great goal, but I doubt you can meet it. 2020-2025 is more realistic. Probability of a catastrophic earthquake in next 300 years in ~100%, probability in next 3 years is <1%. The GHG issue is more pressing.

Too high Municipalities will likely need more time. Give them to 2020.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 365

Too high Need an area-wide plan that is followed by every municipality, not the piece meal programs that now exist. The Saanich program is excellent, the Victoria one abysmal - there needs to be a set standard.

Too high Once again too idealistic due to the fact that we already have too many municipalities and each task force will require the finances to sustain any emergency implementations.

Too high Only the municipalities really at high risk should rush into this. Better to have some highly prepared and others not, than all semi-prepared.

Too high Should be completed sooner.

Too high There's no excuse for not having these plans in place right now.

Too high

This is a ridiculous concept when there are limited cash resources, and upgrading costs so incredibly much. This is about fear and votes. The chances of a "catastrophic earthquake" are slight. If you want to save lives, get people out of cars and stop them drinking so much. But maybe those are challenges that are much more difficult to address.

Too high This timeline seems too ambitious. Give them to 2020. Emergency response plans (i.e. what will do and how will we cope) are a big effort.

Too high

This whole process was critiqued by the auditor general: Catastrophic earthquake: B.C. not prepared, says report: Auditor General Russ Jones says Emergency Management BC had not made progress in 17 years www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/catastrophic-earthquake-b-c-not-prepared-says-report-1.2585860.

Too high UVIC gave us a 12 per cent chance in 50 years your plan needs a realistic target 3 years target to short if people can't reach a target it' soon forgotten.

Too high We are spending FAR too much money on this project. GREEN, clean and AFFORDABLE energy is more important to most families.

Too high

We would have to be naive to expect the municipalities to come to our aid in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. One only has to remember the role that CFAX played in the 1996 (?) severe snowstorm. Government was late to the party, and there is no reason to believe it would be any different now. The same is true in most parts of the world, the bureaucracy is just not equipped to respond effectively.

Too low 2016. Really, if you can't develop an Emergency Response Plan in under 24 months you are not taking it seriously.

Too low 2018? I moved to BC in 1999 and they were talking about earthquakes then - 15 years on and we are still working on response plans?

Too low A response plan does not take three more years, and certainly should not given that we live on a fault line.

Too low

ALERT: The wording of this target is inappropriate. All municipalities have already completed and tested emergency response plans that address catastrophic earthquakes. They are required to do so by provincial law. However, there is a great need for a plan to enhance collaboration in the Capital Region. The Target should read: "By 2018, prepare and test a catastrophic earthquake plan for region-wide coordination and collaboration of emergency response and recovery." Consult Travis Whiting on this issue.

Too low As with the hazards question, with the 2020 target, I think that this should be done asap, and integrated with the earlier-mentioned work -- tsunami as well as seismic events. There may well be a shared-service possibility here, to get all municipalities capable of delivering this.

Too low Asap.

Too low By the end of 2016 maybe... come on now... this should have been done years ago.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 366

Too low

Catastrophic earthquake: B.C. not prepared, says report: Auditor General Russ Jones says Emergency Management BC had not made progress in 17 years http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/catastrophic-earthquake-b-c-not-prepared-says-report-1.2585860.

Too low Continued education of regional citizens.

Too low Does this mean most individuals in the community will have been educated about Emergency Response Plan?

Too low Earlier would be better say end of 2016.

Too low Earthquakes, tsunamis do not operate by a calendar.

Too low

From the example of Christ Church, it is apparent that the necessary capacity for horizontal coordination that a major earth quake will require is completely absent. If you aren't going to address this, do a more honest job of telling people they are on their own and what to do about it.

Too low Good luck with that. They should be ready now shouldn't they?

Too low Have to start to get into all condos and apartments to discuss methods of survival this should be mandatory.

Too low How about the following: "By 2018, the CRD and municipalities will have in place a coordinated Emergency Response Plan for the region, delineating responsibilities for both the CRD and the municipalities in the event of a catastrophic quake or other major catastrophe".

Too low

I am extremely worried by the limited number of road access routes into and out of the Westshore, particularly since both the Old and New Island Highway connections could be severed by fallen overpasses. I also feel that the local traffic calming initiatives need to follow stricter guidelines to ensure that appropriate emergency access exists to all regions, and traffic calming measures will not impede first responders in any life-or-death situations, should a major natural disaster occur. I know we all hate ratrunners, but I'd rather know the paramedics can reach me if I need them than worry about someone using my street to commute every day.

Too low I am horrified at how little priority this risk is given. Example: It is only logical that schools will be community shelters in case of a disaster, yet the government has invested zero dollars in preparing schools to fulfill this use. The buildings may stand, but that's about it.

Too low I find it shocking, being geographically located where we are, that this is not already completed.

Too low

I still have no idea about what will happen in an earthquake and where we would all go? There should be more do it yourself training by emergency responders to the public. In large strata corporations, most people don't know how to shut off water or gas. A lot needs to be done with educating strata owners or the strata managers being more educated to pass along the info. I had to call the police to my building because my car was broken into. They said sorry your building does not exist, it is a gas station.??? Who updates maps???

Too low

I think that it could be achieved earlier The best preparation for emergencies is prevention Under the UN Convention on Reduction of Disasters (1994), governments enlarged the concept of natural disaster prevention to include na-techs technological disasters and placed an emphasis on the imperative of developing: “global culture of prevention as an essential component of an integrated approach to disaster reduction", and acknowledged that disaster response alone is not sufficient, as it yields only temporary results at a very high cost. We have followed this limited approach for too long. ... prevention contributes to lasting improvement in safety and is essential to integrated disaster management? The convention also affirmed the following commitment: to developing disaster prevention is also closely linked to the precautionary principle which reads: where there is a threat to the environment lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent the threat. In the CRD there are other activities which could result in a disaster (I) War games such as


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 367

Exercise Trident Fury must be discontinued by 2015 (ii) the intrusion into Canadian waters by US. Nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels contravenes obligations to prevent disasters, commitments to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, must be discontinued in 2015 the berthing of nuclear powered and nuclear-arms capable vessels in an urban harbour. (III) Oil tankers along the Juan de Fuca must be discontinued in 2015 There is a need to endorse the anticipatory principle: the anticipatory principle is a pro-active measure to ensure that substances, processes and activities which are harmful to the environment are prevented from entering the environment, and to ensure that costly subsequent means of restoration are avoided, and that irreversible environmental degradation are avoided. adverse effects include, but are not limited to: toxicity, bioaccumulation, bioconcentration, persistence, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, reduction of carbon sinks, increased greenhouse gases, increased human-induced climate change, reduction or loss of biodiversity, as well as heat, light and electro-magnetic radiation, atomic radiation, and hormone mimicry (Chapter 12, Agenda 21, UNCED. For further principles to prevent disasters see principles of compliance http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10074:principles-of-compliance-mandatory-international-normative-standards-mins&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216.

Too low I would like to see our communities working with our National Defense Teams. The army here in Victoria is also working on this and I never see us working together.

Too low I'm surprised all of our municipalities don't have this already?

Too low It should have been in place 5 years ago.

Too low

Japan in 2011 proves we need to have a Tsunami practice this year. Current district plans are too optimistic and have not drilled down to the level where we could even have a practice. We have Fire drills, why not Tsunami drills? In Japan a lot more people and destruction was from the Tsunami than the earthquake.

Too low Living in East Sooke, if we snapped off at Roche Cove, no one would know what to do! Not much input in our area??? Makes one wonder as this has been on the table for years!

Too low Need emergency response plan for oil spill / marine disaster - we are the stewards for the coastline of the southern tip of Vancouver island.

Too low Need to plan and have places to house and assist everyone.

Too low

Not good enough at all. Salt Spring and Metchosin have shown what is possible, so let's learn from them, and set this goal instead: By 2018, 100% of community pods within municipalities have completed and tested an Emergency Response Plan for a Catastrophic Earthquake.

Too low Not soon enough!

Too low Planning should be immediate; by 2018 results for improving responses should be in place.

Too low Seriously? We were doing that decades ago. What happened? Did the CRD's bureaucratic machine swallow all our efforts, or did someone or a series of someone’s try to reinvent the wheel to 'put their stamp on it'?

Too low Should be completed by end of 2016 at the latest.

Too low Should be sooner - are there interim plans in place to put into effect before this 2018 proposed deadline?

Too low Shouldn't take 3 years to get here.

Too low Sooner than 2018.

Too low That should have been done already! Come onnnn. We live on the ring of fire!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 368

Too low

The CRD, and its population, is still very unprepared to help itself for the 6-8 weeks (given the damage that the heavily-populated Fraser Valley will incur) of sustainability and self-help that will be required when and immediately after a major earthquake occurs. Much more than a simple plan completion and testing is required. Full implementation of all municipalities' Emergency Response is required.

Too low The sooner the better - this is also urgent.

Too low This should have been achieved already.

Too low Three years to come up with a plan for a potential catastrophic earthquake seems like a ridiculously long time.

Too low Too late is the answer.

Too low Too slow.

Too low

We are in the most active earthquake and tsunami area on the planet - Our present emergency planning is woefully inadequate - It is not public knowledge what the (very expensive) Pacific warning alarm system is or sounds like. How difficult can this be to just let the public know??

Too low We must also have plans for oil spill in the strait of Juan de Fuca , ( evacuation plans etc.) if the Kinder Morgan Trans Mt Pipeline expansion is allowed to go through.

Too low

We need a single unified response plan for an earthquake. One mayor in the region has to be the boss that can make any and all decisions. One fire chief has to be in charge of directing the emergency response in the region. Furthermore, to achieve this, the CRD has to take over all fire services so that we have a single fire department from Sooke to Sidney.

Too low We need to this ASAP!!

Too low We require a regular region-wide emergency response exercise to better the outcome of Catastrophic Earthquake/ Emergency Response outcomes.

Too low When the Big one comes will there be enough people left to help the injured. What about transport, food supplies medical treatment facilities. Probably not.

Too low When the Big One comes, do you really think there will be enough people to help. First off wouldn't you be looking after Family first.

Too low Why does each municipality in the CRD have separate emergency preparedness plans? Totally unlinked with the others. This is madness!

Too low Why not by 2016?

Too low Why not next year? How could we justify this if an earthquake happens in 2016.

Too low Why wait 3 years? Do it now!

Too low

Wrong focus. Preparing to respond to a catastrophic earthquake is the wrong approach. We should be exploring and investing in mitigation strategies. We know what we are expected to see in terms of strength of the earthquake, we can predict what this shaking will do to our building stock and our life supporting infrastructure. We should be focusing on hardening our buildings and infrastructure to be able to survive the earthquake. Money invested in these areas will save lives and lessen the impact to our citizens, as well as shorten the recovery from this event. Developing and testing a plan to respond without identifying areas that we should be addressing through mitigation strategies is foolish and a feel good exercise at best.

Too low You should be including other natural disasters like flooding that can cause blackouts.

If a tsunami hits, I'm gone, so is my house - there's nothing anyone can do about that. As long as authorities leave it to the individual, not much will get done. A public outreach, centred on every two blocks in residential areas, would be a good idea to get people together, provide information face-to-face.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 369

By 2018 municipalities have completed and tested an Emergency Response Plan for a catastrophic earthquake This target makes sense.

About time don't you think?

Again, responses don't match question. Too late. Why should it take three years?

Apparently there aren't any.

DREAM ON.

Enforce the regulations. For example, forbid the storage of hardware items and other heavy things, including books, on high shelves, in public areas. Require public areas to make exit signs easy to find and in several languages. Try to imagine being on one of the top floors of the Bay Bldg. if the lights suddenly went out. People would run over each other in total confusion.

HA HA HA SLASH AWESOME.

I have no confidence that government can do anything useful in an emergency. People should accept that they will be on their own in an emergency.

Not sure - I know the army is prepared.

Provide and promote (and fund) policies which encourage community and neighbourhood associations to make use of (and develop or refine for distribution, if necessary) practical, sensible emergency preparedness. Identify and promote the neighbourhoods who are successful at this as role models for others. The goal is to enable neighbourhoods to have plans in place which can be activated in emergency, thus reducing the strain on the overall emergency resources. I don't think this is too hard, it's more a matter of linking up what's already there or there in shell form.

Regardless of your Preparedness, Regardless of the money spent, When the Catastrophe happens, nothing you did, could do, or could have done will prevent even one loss of life. Advise, cajole, encourage, but STOP thee, leave it alone and deal with the Catastrophe when it happens.

Saanich spent $750,000.00 on an Emergency Response Vehicle which is really nothing more than a toy. In the event of an earthquake or tsunami it could very well be rendered completely useless. Complete waste of taxpayers' money.

Short term target in long range document. Belongs elsewhere. That said, communities should ALREADY have completed this work. Disasters wait for no one.

This should be subject to frequent testing and adjustment. As a resident, I see no evidence of adequate preparedness. Is this a case of neglect and post-event regret?

This target should be achieved by 2016. We need to be prepared now.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 370

12.0 ENERGY TARGET

a) What do you think about the energy target?

Improve region-wide energy efficiency of building stock by 50% (relative to 2007 levels).



Too high 38 6.6%

Too low 166 28.8%

TOTAL 576 100.0%

b) Please explain or add other comment

About right

A laudable goal and one we should all sign up for, but with the realization that this will accelerate the destruction of much of our affordable housing stock. Labour and other costs mean that retrofit is often not viable in the market, leading to teardowns and replacement with unaffordable new housing stock. Even if a retrofit is done in place, unless there is significant volunteer labour or sweat equity, the resulting dwelling becomes unaffordable to more people. Policies must be crafted with awareness of these unintended impacts. The BC Building Code changes are taking care of new or major renovation construction, hence my focus above on how the older building stock is addressed.

About right A quite laudable target, and very likely achievable.

About right About right when considering major renovation/building renewal. Also wonder if there could be a community-based measure to incent solutions such as community energy systems?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 371

About right Acceptable and achievable if higher densification targets (and appropriate changes in building codes) are achieved. Note that apartments and row houses have substantially higher energy efficiency than detached dwelling; ditto smaller dwelling units.

About right Again, ambitious but achievable IF land-use is tailored for compact sustainable communities!

About right Agree with this target. It is highly ambitious, and even if all new dwellings are in compact settlements with high energy efficiency, the target will be tough to achieve. What mechanism(s) are recommended?

About right Also should have district energy production targets.

About right

Although the construction sector resists change as much (or perhaps more) than other sectors, it has the capacity, today, to build far more efficient buildings. Local and international examples demonstrate such buildings are not expensive. In addition they benefit both the quality of the indoor environment and the local economy through construction related jobs. Both new construction and retrofits must be addressed to achieve targets and much can be done through the development and permit approval process.

About right Ambitious.

About right As long as this is achieved through incentives, and not added costs to business or additional tax collection from residents to retrofit buildings in advance of normal life cycle maintenance.

About right But again, the market will prevail. Government has only a limited role here.

About right By when please. No date just a dream.

About right Can additional incentives be made for residential retrofit? Or is this too small of the overall problem?

About right Could be higher, but again will depend on other levels of government for tax breaks and funding of such programs.

About right CRD needs to provide leadership in this area.

About right Doing better could be challenging and will require significant changes to building stocks. Support from other levels of government are critical to meeting this target.

About right Efficiency is important.

About right

EXCELLENT FOCUS. Work with local governments to introduce incentives for heat pumps, insulation, lighting, etc. Furthermore, work towards phasing out ALL oil heating and existing oil tanks. This is a serious environmental problem that will become chronic as these tanks rust out and leak over time.

About right Feasibility??

About right For new construction?

About right Given the age of buildings and our low growth rate, this is reasonable but slightly disappointing.

About right Good.

About right Grants to bring older buildings up to energy efficiency standards.

About right Great idea. What is the end date?

About right Homeowners should have financial help from Government to put solar energy equipment on their homes.

About right

How? Historically, incentives to retrofit (rebates) have come from the province or federal government. This should probably have the disclaimer that so many other sections have, i.e. "Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government".


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 372

About right I am not sure we have the density here to sustainably support district heating/cooling. However, for all buildings in the CRD, we have to improve energy efficiency. How will the CRD do this?

About right I am not too sure how being more energy efficient will be helpful in the face of a major natural disaster.

About right

I did not know that the CRD was responsible for the BC Building Code. I would suggest that the majority of all new construction is built to the BC Building Code and is very energy efficient. Existing buildings met the code of the day and there is no requirement in the BC Building Code for these buildings to meet the code of today for energy efficiency like there is for some life safety areas of the code. I would think the CRD should be actively lobbying the BC government if it wants to see existing buildings brought up to today’s code. The government could add a requirement to meet the code of the day for energy efficiency. Although I would think there would be a large resistance from owners of these older buildings that would need to be addressed. I think the programs offered by BC Hydro and the federal government in the 80's would be a better approach. But of course we were in an era of high energy costs when those programs were brought in. The cheap price of fuel these days may not make the cost recovery from energy loss upgrades financially attractive when compared to the cost of the retrofit.

About right I have fried hard and done pretty well, but have pretty well run out of financial ability to do any better.

About right I think this is about right but could possibly achieve 60%.

About right I was an insulator for 35 years so I know a thing or two about this. Good luck.

About right I would like to see more programs in place that encourage insulation etc. The federal and provincial government-run these programs inconsistently.

About right I would like to see new high-density residential construction incorporate ground-source heat pump, especially when green-blue space is being provided as amenity.

About right If the GHG target is 61% by 2038, how far of the way will this target take us to achieving this GHG target? In considering these targets, it would be useful to know how these energy targets will contribute to the region wide GHG reduction target.

About right In this climate, this seems okay. In my view other things, like food security, seem way more important to invest money in.

About right Incentives should be offered to make this happen.

About right Independent energy-efficiency assessments should be required as part of all real estate transactions, and government programs in support of upgrades could easily be funded through taxes on such transactions.

About right Insulation doesn't come cheap. Hard to promote this with cheap energy, as the rule.

About right Is this to be done through new buildings or retrofits as well? Needs 2018 target.

About right

It is disappointing that no more specific measures are proposed. For example, in gas service area there could be a drive to eliminate oil furnaces, thus reducing GHG. The gas distribution program seems to have stalled, would there be merit in subsidizing its extension to reduce oil and propane consumption and reduce GHg. In addition we sit at one of the most southerly points in Canada, in a relatively sunny area, why not a drive to have photovoltaic panels installed in the region, both on private and public land.. if this were done, the drive to ZEVs would make more sense.

About right It seems that people forget how much energy can be saved by keeping homes and offices cooler. What about education?

About right It's about right for existing buildings. New ones should be way more energy efficient.

About right Need more info on how for this one.

About right Needs incentives for efficiency improvements.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 373

About right New buildings should be much better than that though.


About right No idea what this means...

About right Not clear how you can help old buildings become more efficient. It is time to require all new buildings to be LEED certified to the highest levels and all house to be passive solar (which costs only about 10% more) to accomplish.

About right Not sure I can really comment on this section as I don't know all about it.

About right Obviously a greater % is preferable but again this seems do-able while still needing lots of effort/requiring lots of change. This also creates jobs, boosts the economy as it is being done.

About right One value that the CRD can bring to this issue is purchasing power... The CRD can make much larger purchases of items that are more energy efficient on behalf of the community that will greatly accelerate their adoption and spread throughout the community...

About right Probably OK, but a lot of research needs to be done.

About right

Seek changes to local building codes to encourage mandatory inclusion of sustainable energy options for all new construction projects throughout the CRD. E.g. Solar, wind, water energy generation options for all new home construction All public buildings to incorporate energy generation features Examination of local water/wind resources for development of community energy generation projects.

About right Subsidies and education help tremendously in continuing efforts to retrofit and restore rather than demolish.

About right Sure, sounds good.

About right

The CRD has little control over individual houses and renovations. the goal may be good, but it has to be looked at with a financial eye to ensure that the costs for energy efficiency make sense with the tax payers' dollars. The CRD does not create income, it only costs money and it is time that politicians and bureaucrats realized that. The CRD does not have any ability to have various municipalities cooperate on energy systems.

About right The higher the better.

About right

This could include other energy management targets, including improving the efficiency of public services, industrial operations and transportation. In particular, efforts to measure and promote energy efficiency should recognize the energy savings provided by smart growth development policies which reduce the amount that people drive.

About right

This is a lofty goal (assuming you are targeting 2038). You will need to plan for, and set intermediate targets to prevent 'one big leap'. You need to balance this against affordability. District energy systems requires considerable thought. They are not proven...Any solution must be sustainable and economically proven from the start using low carbon sources. However, 'don't jump on the band wagon'! Doing so shall preclude the development of net-zero buildings, in other regions the viability of a district energy system is only achieved through mandating connection - which precludes developing a net-zero building as these need no additional heat inputs.

About right This is ambitious, but should be achievable if higher densification targets (and appropriate changes in building codes) are achieved. Note that apartments and row houses have substantially higher energy efficiency than detached dwellings; ditto smaller dwelling units.

About right This is appropriate, but it depends on private initiative. Building more houses with improved windows is great, but if the houses are built in a remote area, it doesn't solve the problem. Land use has a much greater effect.

About right This is the most important goal of the entire plan.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 374

About right

This is totally reasonable considering the technologies now emerging. Solar hot water, greywater heat recovery, and rainwater management should all be mandated on new stock, and existing stock should receive good incentives for becoming more self-sufficient. I think a difficulty here will be designing public education programs so that the individual, rather than just commercial areas are targeted.

About right This needs to be a major investment and done well.

About right This plan is great. We just need to have the willingness and foresight in all jurisdictions to vigorously pursue the stated goals.

About right This seems realistic. Good luck!

About right This target is acceptable, if ambitious.

About right This will be expensive and require strong regional encouragement for municipalities.

About right Try to get to the 50% target by 2025, then we can keep going to better efficiencies by 2038.

About right We need a region-wide policy that requires all buildings to be pre-plumbed / pre-wired for solar heating.

About right We should provide (or lobby the Province to provide) assistance (perhaps in the form of tax incentives) for moderate-income homeowners and owners of multi-family units and strata councils to improve energy efficiency.

About right Well, if it’s achievable.... I do think we most definitely underuse alternate sources of energy. Esp on farms...

About right Who is going to do this in absence of provincial and federal programs to retrofit existing stock?

About right With flexibility to increase if rate of climate change proves to be faster than expected.

Too high 35% seems more doable.

Too high A pipe dream and prohibitively expensive. Maybe YOU should wish for unicorns and rainbows too.

Too high Allow this process to evolve based on market driven factors.

Too high At what cost is this going to cost us the taxpayer.

Too high At what cost? Who's going to pay to refit, rebuild, etc.?

Too high Can be done with new construction, but retrofitting existing housing stock will be very expensive and legally cannot be imposed.

Too high Could be very expensive, the region is already unaffordable for families and new residents.

Too high For new buildings this is easily achievable. Retrofitting and building costs are far too high to achieve this on existing building stock without large senior government subsidy.

Too high Good target, but difficult to achieve without senior government programs / subsidies. 50% is not realistic.

Too high Housing stock turnover is much too low to support this. Retrofitting simply isn't going to happen.

Too high If growth in new housing in the Westshore is encouraged (see earlier) this will be more achievable. Core area upgrades of existing stock will be hard -- and depend on Fed/Prov/utility involvement.

Too high Is this target really reasonable attainable without replacing many homes at an increased net harm to the environment? How did you derive 50% as being the target? Nice idea if it is really reasonably possible.



1214220002-015-R-Rev0 375

Too high Now you are thinking like an organization from the desert climates of the prairies. The other side of energy efficiency is unhealthy houses. We live in a damp climate. Houses must breath or go moldy and sick. If houses breath, they are not energy efficient.

Too high Seems unlikely this will be achieved.

Too high Set a target for energy efficiency of new building stock that is very high and a more modest target for existing building stock. I wouldn't want to encourage the demolition of the old buildings that give this region its character.

Too high

The whole stock by 2038? Unlikely. Buildings last a very long time. Unless there are still major opportunities for low hanging fruit (insulation, equipment efficiency, etc.) this is not going to happen. This is partly why the EV target is too low. EVs won't be easy, but they are far easier to get on the road than it will be to renovate or replace that much of our building inventory in 25 years.

Too high This is a function of who will invest. Out of CRD control.

Too high This is going to be hard to do. We don't have severe weather so there are limited savings from using more insulation and wearing sweaters can just do so much. Increasing green energy especially heat recovery is the most promising route.

Too high This runs the danger of raising already unaffordable housing costs.

Too high This seems very ambitious. And expensive. But certainly building codes should require new construction to be much more energy-efficient.

Too high This would mean so many demolitions, can't be effective. You would loose on one side what little you gained.

Too high To force builders to these standards is to increase the cost of purchasing or renting these buildings. This in turn increases the cost of affordable housing.

Too high We are not in an energy crunch.

Too high What are the impacts on affordability? This is something that should be dealt with provincially.

Too high With what? Mercury filled light bulbs? Government incompetence again. Let the free market take care of it.

Too low "Improvement" is an unquantified term. It seems logical to try to improve the energy efficiency of everything we use, including our "building stock." On that basis the target would have to be 100%.

Too low 50% is too conservative.

Too low 75% at least!

Too low A lot of work is needed here on many levels.

Too low A massive program is needed - a Roosevelt-style New Deal for non-fossil energy, efficiency and conservation. 50% would low by an order of magnitude.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 376

Too low

Active transportation, such as walking, cycling and transit will have an influence on simultaneously reducing GHG emissions and minimizing energy use for travel; The solution is clear. We need to shift our societies and economies off fossil fuels and on to 100% clean, sustainable socially equitable and environmentally sound renewable energy. There is urgency to this, because we need to make the change within a generation. Getting to 100% clean energy will require massive change, but this change is entirely achievable - we have the alternative energy technology needed to replace fossil fuels. Investments in socially equitable and ecological sound energy and divestments of fossil fuels will have a significant impact on the energy targets Innovative: Is this decision/investment innovative? Will it provide new solutions to address problems? Will it lead the way for others? Will it stimulate economic activity that is cleaner/greener than would otherwise be the case? These are important questions. There must be investment in socially equitable environmentally sound energy funds , such as solar and wind, and transportation funds, such as public transit, and divestment of socially inequitable and environmentally unsound practices such as geoengineering, energy, such as fossil fuels, biofuels, and transportation such as personal automobiles. Investments must be only in funds that have both a positive and negative screens that would comply with the stated vision of the promoting of socially equitable and environmentally sound renewable energy and transportation. it would be unconscionable to invest in the greenhouse producing energy or transportation The CRD and member municipalities have a long history of taking action to reduce GHG emissions and energy use and the RSS sets out a program to build on earlier initiatives. In the Capital Region, GHG emissions come from the transportation system, the heating, cooling and lighting of buildings, and waste (Figure 7: GHG Emissions Sources). Key RSS climate-related actions focus on: â€¢ Reducing energy demand (e.g., increasing transit and active transportation, multi-story buildings) â€¢ Increasing energy efficiency (e.g., improving building construction, district energy systems) Increasing building and infrastructure energy efficiencies is fundamental to achieving significant GHG emissions reductions. Energy recovery from waste allows for closed loop systems that can reduce GHG emissions, and increase energy efficiencies. Eco-industrial developments further contribute to waste reduction by creating environments that support synergies between businesses. For example, one business will use waste from another business and transform it into useable products. Eco-industrial developments also foster new business opportunities. Full-cost accounting for new, retrofit and upgraded infrastructure and facilities takes into account on-going and long-term costs, such as operation and maintenance expenses. This provides a sound basis for comprehensively assessing the costs and benefits of building “green” (i.e., energy and water efficient). 1.1.3 Pursue opportunities to create public/private partnerships to establish clean district energy systems for new development and retrofit projects. PPP have generally been disappointing 1.2.3 Develop programs to support the use of alternative renewable energy generation technologies and clean district energy systems. 1.2.4 Support energy retrofits that incorporate green building standards in the design and construction of CRD buildings and support green building construction standards for privately-owned buildings. 1.2.5 Develop renewable energy public education and outreach programs to reduce GHG emissions. 1.2.6 Provide input to approving authorities on measures to mitigate potential community impacts of proposed renewable energy generation projects in the region. 1.2.7 Adopt OCPs for the JdF EA that facilitate renewable energy generation projects on Natural Resource Lands that address environmental and community impacts. Local municipalities, provincial and federal agencies and public utilities are requested to: 1.2.8 Support the use of renewable energy generation technologies and clean district energy systems.

Too low Again we should hold senior governments to task to insure that energy efficiency is a national and provincial priority.

Too low Again, a great start, but not consistent with the scale of change we need to see. Please don't water this down! This also needs to be considered in tandem with access to housing, reducing poverty, etc. There are great examples of programs that combine these initiatives.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 377

Too low Again, there are tremendous gains to be made here in terms of reducing energy use. I hope the CRD will increase this target.

Too low Agree for existing stock. However all new stock should do even better both through better design AND smaller buildings. Land use bylaws can restrict building size. This also increases affordability. Size matters!

Too low Aim higher! Surely this is an area where governing bodies have more ability to determine for themselves.

Too low All kinds of examples out there and growing, we should easily be able to exceed this rate and do better in energy efficiency of building.

Too low Always too low for this kind of stuff. We have been asleep at the wheel for too long. Time to smarten up.

Too low

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter endorses this target but feels it is both important and feasible to move faster, and to describe specific means of achieving the target. In the U.S. a task force of the General Services Administration (the administrative body for federal agencies; www.gsa.gov/) recommended that at least 50% of the entire federal government's building area achieve net-zero energy status by 2030. The CRD to promote and support mandatory efficiency labeling for buildings. We encourage the promotion of the concept of a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO), introduced in San Francisco in 1982, under which a seller, before transfer of title can occur, must have an energy inspection verifying that all applicable conservation applications have been installed to meet or exceed California's Title 24 Energy Codes.

Too low

BCSEA, Victoria Chapter endorses this target but feels it is both important and feasible to move faster, and to describe specific means of achieving the target. In the U.S. a task force of the General Services Administration (the administrative body for federal agencies; www.gsa.gov/) recommended that at least 50% of the entire federal government's building area achieve net-zero energy status by 2030. The CRD to promote and support mandatory efficiency labeling for buildings. We encourage the promotion of the concept of a Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO), introduced in San Francisco in 1982, under which a seller, before transfer of title can occur, must have an energy inspection verifying that all applicable conservation applications have been installed to meet or exceed California's Title 24 Energy Codes.

Too low Blah, blah, blah...

Too low By when?

Too low By when?

Too low Can only be done by firm building code regs - let’s do it. BC Hydro should have made this a priority ahead of overspending on high tech meters.

Too low Cob housing! Living buildings! LEED is not good enough, we can do better!

Too low Conservation of energy in buildings through LEED designs and retrofitting is one of the "low-hanging fruits" available to us immediately. This is not an ambitious target.

Too low

Considering that I think the overall GHG target is too low this obviously has to rise since it is 36% of the total.....I think the target ought to be at least 75% and I think this is an area where the province and Feds have to be pushed to offer incentives through the tax systems to encourage voluntary change......we ought to look to the EU for some of the plans they have engaged in to deal with this issue.

Too low Coupled with transportation, this represents almost 75% of GGEs at present. We need more aggressive targets for both.

Too low Energy efficiency is a win-win: consumer saves money and has more comfort, conservation of resources, local jobs increase.

Too low Energy targets should be aggressive. This is among our greatest challenges, along with habitat conservation.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 378

Too low Force builders of new homes to build them with energy efficiency...have you seen those chip-board mcmansions going up in Langford?

Too low Go big, be smart.

Too low Higher target!

Too low

I am not sure what specifically this target is referring too and so it could be interpreted in many ways. Are we saying on a like-for-like basis we want building using 50% less energy or less grid energy or producing 50% less GHG's from their energy? Existing building stock is hard and expensive to retrofit so this target is probably realistic.

Too low I believe we can achieve higher energy consumption targets than this for both new and existing construction.

Too low I HAVE HEARD ALL THIS BEFORE. ALL YOU CAN GET TOGETHER IS ANOTHER WAR.

Too low

I have worked in this field, so I recognize how hard it is to get people to actually bother. But for 100% GHGs reduction by 2040, we need 100% reduction in the use of oil and gas to heat buildings by 2040. In our mild climate heat pumps can do the job that's currently done by oil and gas. We should aim to end all oil-fired heating by 2025, and get all oil-fired tanks out of the ground, and then to phase out all gas-fired heating by 2038.

Too low I think that the target to improve efficiency needs to be acted upon starting now and having 75% being completed by 2038.

Too low I think we should be able to double the energy efficiency of building stock in 25 years by retrofitting with energy smart lighting and appliances and improving insulation and heating in older structures.

Too low If possible, increase the amount of building stock to 60-70% if possible This will provide more jobs to the region as well.

Too low If this is a 2038 target it is too low and should aim higher.

Too low If you have 25 years for this it should be higher. Technological improvements, such as LED light bulbs, should make a major improvement without much effort. It is recognized that federal and provincial programs to encourage energy efficiency have a role here.

Too low Improve region wide energy efficiency by 100 percent. This should not be relative to 2007. Good grief that is past. Let's get it right for today.

Too low Including energy-efficient heating, electricity production, etc. is cheapest if done at the building stage so the target there should be 100%. Renovation targets might be much lower. Create networks of local builders and energy-utilization innovators to help build markets for new devices.

Too low Increase conservation, increase energy efficiency - more deeply and faster. This helps GHG reductions, need for additional infrastructure, etc.

Too low Individual homeowners will set higher individual targets based on fuel and energy costs; the target is way too low.

Too low Is it being too optimistic to hope for a 75% improvement of energy efficiency of building stock?

Too low Is this to include the energy loss of buildings being torn down and disposed of??

Too low It is in all our interests to aim for the lowest possible energy use, consistent with an acceptable life style.

Too low It would be nice to see specific mention of equal improvements in efficiency, or specific mention of rental stock.

Too low Least cost / end use planning and networking for better utilization of distributed local energy generation systems can achieve broader efficiencies than a mere "building" oriented target.

Too low Look to the First Nations ideas for better energy efficiency.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 379

Too low Make energy efficiency upgrades mandatory for land lords who own and rent out old buildings. Upgrade windows, insulation, etc.

Too low More energy efficient products are being developed all the time and at a faster rate than in the past so there should be a push towards adoption of best practices ASAP.

Too low More innovative energy-efficient infrastructure is needed.

Too low Need stronger incentives for energy efficiency in existing buildings and stronger legislative requirements for energy efficiency in all new construction.

Too low Needs to be higher. (I just heard the federal gov't is introducing a tariff on solar panels... perhaps the CRD should begin their own solar panel production ... creating sustainable jobs for the future.

Too low Not sure about the balance between retrofitting and new buildings. New buildings should be Leeds Platinum tending towards zero energy; different targets for existing building stock. The retrofitting in particular is a great jobs creator.

Too low One easy way to create work, save energy and try to become carbon neutral.

Too low Probably to low considering footprint of buildings.

Too low Provide a Solar Program with incentives for hot water like Colwood did and also provide incentives for solar and wind energy.

Too low See comments, we need to be before 2007 technology is here and now, why wait.

Too low Solar is already becoming very viable, and with incentives from BC Hydro could take off in a hurry. Likewise ductless heat pumps seem to be making rapid inroads.

Too low

Solar, wind and energy storage technologies are improving yearly and they have the potential capability of being a valuable source of renewable energy in the future. This should be monitored and their adoption by municipal and other government agencies encouraged as a means of making the general populace aware of their potential.

Too low Subsidize solar to make it higher.

Too low Target date of 2038 is too far off.

Too low That will assuredly fail to get us to an appropriate greenhouse gas target.

Too low The goals for transportation are so ambitious - why not equally ambitious here?

Too low These are easy wins, we need to be more ambitious and seek more extensive programs, ranging from revolving efficiency investment funds, low interest loan guarantees, etc.

Too low This can be a great way to create local jobs -- more and sooner.

Too low To meet the targets for 2040, we have to aim higher.

Too low Vancouver is going much higher with the VBBL so it seems we would be locking ourselves in behind the curve.

Too low Was 2007 a year of great energy efficiency of building stock? Why use it as a baseline?

Too low We can do much better.

Too low

We do not even make proper use of building materials and system available today in new homes to mitigate energy waste now. Yes, we need to retrofit old structures which waste energy sources, and convert to higher efficiency and non-fossil fuel related sources where we can, but we also much start encouraging more use of heat pumps, geothermal, solar, wind and tidal power where possible in new homes and complexes. Also, there are fuel membrane power units for homes using methane gas from landfills and compost facilities which are small and economical for complexes. Incentives may be required in the beginning. BC Hydro needs to be more on side to make these upgrades more accessible without jumping through so many hoops. Rental properties also need incentives for upgrades.

Too low We need to move faster.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 380

Too low We should be able to do better, but Stratas and home owners will need support.

Too low You need a date associated with this.

"Pursue opportunities to establish clean district energy systems" ABSOLUTELY YES. There is a huge potential to do this with the sewage project. And we are very close to squandering that opportunity. DES provide long-term low-cost environmentally-sound, GHG reducing solutions. Do it.

Improve region-wide energy efficiency of building stock by 50% (relative to 2007 levels) This target is acceptable, if ambitious.

Depends on energy costs required to retrofit buildings, etc.

Depends on timeframe, but seems pretty aggressive. We can get there AFTER the earthquake removes all the inefficient buildings.

Do you have the authority to create the necessary incentives?

Energy and heat recovery.

Geo-thermal, wind and solar work well... energy-efficient houses that are too sealed can have lesser quality air a judge in Ontario just ruled that thousands of not-so-'smart meters' be removed because they pose a fire hazard.

Good grief, how long does this thing go on for?

Great idea.

How to enforce that?

I have no idea what that means by 'building stock'. Why can you CRD folk not speak English when you are asking for feedback. Enough of this planning gobbledygook.

I need to inform myself before commenting.

I'd like to see even more support for renewable energy sources i.e. solar hot water tanks, etc.

I'm not sure.

Improve by 50% by what date? Without a deadline this is meaningless.

It would help if the building code were changed to allow for energy-efficient house building such as cob, straw bale, etc. I believe these are currently prohibited within the CRD. Even having a composting toilet is only allowed if the house also has the plumbing in place for a water flush toilet.

Need a timeline.

Not sure.

People should choose for themselves how to heat their houses. District energy was a staple of the old Soviet Union. No wonder the CRD likes it.

See previous comments on efficiencies. As long as they don't create more energy consumption indirectly because of the means/material production required to achieve these targets.

STOP SPENDING MY MONEY, STOP MAKING EMPLOYMENT FOR YOURSELF. Make suggestions regarding the new technology, but keep your hands off.

THAT’S ENOUGH.

This "Building Stock" concept seems unwieldy and necessarily counter-intuitive. Any responses to this question are probably skewed by the questioner's disregard for plain English. You get a * on this one!

This target can only be implemented with grants and subsidized programs, people cannot be forced to improve their homes if they cannot afford it, maybe the provincial and municipal building stock and public buildings and hospitals need to be a focus.

We need GREEN energy. We need Wind Power and LEED buildings.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 381

13.0 RATE OF PROGRESS

a) Do you support the aim of getting halfway to the proposed targets by 2020?


No - that's too fast 81 13.9%

No - that's too slow 189 32.4%

Yes 313 53.7%

TOTAL 583 100.0%

b) Please explain and, if desired, add other comments:

No - that's too fast 2020 is in less than 5 years. It will take the CRD at least a year, likely longer to adopt this RSS leaving less than 4 years. Your own document states most of these targets are currently static. IMPOSSIBLE. You can't even plan basic utilities well.

No - that's too fast

2038 is 25 years away and the proposal is to get 50% there in the first 5 years or 20% of the plan time frame. The presumably slow down. This is unrealistic - either we are serious about these goals and our pursuit of them should continue to accelerate over time, or the planning horizon really isn't 25 years. I would prefer honesty to aspiration. realistically the latter part of the 25 years is a big unknown so it might be more honest to set targets for 2020 and maybe 2025 with an explicit review and update process at 5 year intervals.

No - that's too fast 23 / 2 = 11.5 + 2015 = 2026.

No - that's too fast A more measured approach would be needed to alter behaviour, investment and development to see improvements.

No - that's too fast Big deal if you get there, then what. If you do not want to live here move. Too much regulation coming!!!!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 382

No - that's too fast Can't reach that in time.

No - that's too fast Costs MUST BE REALISTIC.

No - that's too fast Depends on the political situation, and how much people really believe the importance of some of the targets.

No - that's too fast Doing 50% in 5 years and 50% in 18 years seems a bit lop-sided. Achieving targets must be linked to budget considerations so the tax payers can survive the goals.

No - that's too fast Five years is too soon, concentrate on achieving goals.

No - that's too fast Halfway in 7years of a 25year plan seems ambitious. If it is possible, we should do it, then adjust our targets for the better.

No - that's too fast I have to say "No" because I don't agree with all the targets as per my notes. I say "Yes" though to those targets that I have agreed with.

No - that's too fast I like the ambition, but this seems unrealistic given the rate of progress related to some of these goals (e.g. emission reductions) in recent years.


I see very little prospect that we can agree on a set of priorities, or develop and agree on a plan to achieve them by 2020. I think it is more realistic to aim for more modest goals with the hope that if they can be achieved it will encourage co-operation and support for longer term goals.


I think that the long target date ought to be 2030 15 years out and that halfway ought to be 2022-23. If there is a concerted effort to get the province and the Feds on board with infrastructure financing then possibly 2020 is fine for halfway however the other ought still to be 2030.


I think the RSS needs to be achievable. The targets are ambitious to be sure, and frankly cannot be half way achieved by 2020- particularly the energy, GHG and vehicle targets. It is irresponsible to publish another plan that just pays lip service to big ideas, without identifying for the public and decision makers what resources will be required to meet these targets. I would be curious to see the costing analysis that has been completed that accompanies this plan, and if politicians will be given this information, when voting on whether or not to adopt the targets, as proposed.

No - that's too fast I would suggest 2025. It would be nice to see how working towards achieving these targets are linked to the CRD budget each year. Who is going to be measuring? What is frequency?

No - that's too fast In 5 years get 50% along a 23 year plan? It would be wonderful, but it’s unlikely.

No - that's too fast In some cases, I support higher targets; however, assuming that we can achieve 50% of the targets in the first 5 years of a 23 year plan seems unrealistic.

No - that's too fast Is the CRD made up of airhead Pollyanna’s or Draconian overlords?


It is too simplistic to think given the diversity of areas and ambitious nature of the targets that you can make that much progress on all of them by 2020. Changes to technologies will play a huge, but unpredictable roll in the timing of some of these initiatives. Also government doesn't work that fast. You want to have ambitious targets, but it will take time.

No - that's too fast It’s a cost factor, the middle class are the ones who will take the initial hit for all these alleged improvements. And as you stated earlier CRD wanted more full time jobs but who will pay the type of money you need to make to live here comfortably.

No - that's too fast LET IT HAPPEN IN ITS OWN TIME.

No - that's too fast Let us know the cost of this - it is a dream not reality.

No - that's too fast Let's realize that the benefits of radical sustainability change will take time to implement.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 383

No - that's too fast Love to get there, but highly unlikely in this chaotic political environment.

No - that's too fast Major building projects cannot complete fast enough to get us halfway to targets in the first 6 years. 10, perhaps.

No - that's too fast Make the targets more realistic and make changes in areas that are the responsibility of regional government.

No - that's too fast Math seems a bit odd, half way to target in less than a quarter of the time? Is this because the first half is easier to achieve?

No - that's too fast Maybe 2025 would be more realistic.

No - that's too fast Most of the goals will be achieved in the second half.

No - that's too fast No, mainly because I don't agree with most of the Vision Statement and I don't understand many of the targets.


No--I'm against making 2020 too firm a target--that trying to make progress too quickly may result in the target itself becoming the focus instead of what is needed to make real progress more slowly. A more meaningful target could be to be able to report three (or however many) achievements in the past year. Not necessarily large in terms of numbers, but also significant in terms of effect---getting a law or regulation changed, for example.

No - that's too fast Nothing the CRD does is fast...I would be amazed if 1/3 would be accomplished by 2020.

No - that's too fast Plan without cost is a shot in the dark taxpayers are scared of the dark.

No - that's too fast Population is less than 400,000 and growing slowly. Business climate is not robust. How does the tax base afford all this? Are there financial targets in the background that all funnel into impact on taxes? Need these items cautiously evaluated and prioritized.

No - that's too fast Put dates on each target and then judge each as they are all different and some are more achievable than others. Each have a different priority as well.

No - that's too fast That's 6 years away, and there are an extra 18 years after that. Given the lifetime of capital equipment, I think the 50% target should be pushed to 2022 or 2024.

No - that's too fast The assumption that we can achieve 50% of the targets in 20% of the time, might imply that we're aiming either too high or too low.

No - that's too fast The better question is - How about answering all the questions I have posed and explaining what the plan is to have all the necessary Senior Government support and funding in place BEFORE targets are even considered.

No - that's too fast The CRD has no control over most of it.

No - that's too fast The expectation of achieving 1/2 of the targets in the first 5 years of a 23 year plan is unrealistic and will likely fuel significant cost expenditures attempting to meet an unattainable goal. 2025 would be much more realistic.

No - that's too fast There are some very ambitious targets set that will be difficult to be half met by 2020. If a target seems too difficult to achieve people may give up.

No - that's too fast This is 2015 already.

No - that's too fast Too costly, better to plan and implement as needed.

No - that's too fast Unless of course there is lots of grant money.


Unrealistic to do that in 5 years - this is an effective argument for the dissolution of the CRD! This survey, to this point, is self-serving - framed to get the desired responses. Consider the mess the CRD Parks have made of their mandate - even eliminating the garbage cans to "stop people putting household garbage in them" has simply transferred the problem of garbage dumping on the outlying communities.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 384

No - that's too fast We are behind schedule, but the opposition that will mounted and the lack of effort by implementers may make too hard a target unattainable.

No - that's too fast Would be nice but perhaps unrealistic.

No - that's too fast You are so incredibly incompetent you should do nothing. Ever.

No - that's too slow "Put the Last First"-Robert Chambers.

No - that's too slow 2020, 5 years. It’s a tough goal. I would say it’s too fast for several sectors. Some of the sectors it’s very doable. Let’s refine the goals sector by sector.

No - that's too slow 2030 instead of 2038.

No - that's too slow Allow for more highrises asap.

No - that's too slow As explained previously.

No - that's too slow As usual, allow at least 20-40 years for anything to get done in the area.

No - that's too slow Be more aggressive. I think the public is ready to support that.

No - that's too slow Because these targets can provide numerous benefits, I hope we can achieve them as quickly as possible!

No - that's too slow Climate change has already begun - this is not an incremental change but is liable to occur as a violent shift - there is an urgency to act NOW.

No - that's too slow Climate change is not going to be put on hold for slow progress.

No - that's too slow Climate change is not going to WAIT for us. Every ounce of energy should be put into this by the CRD.

No - that's too slow Every new report on climate change seems to report that the negative impacts of climate change are coming faster than previously thought. We need to be taking strong action quickly to stay ahead of the game.

No - that's too slow Explained above, throughout the survey, ad nauseam.

No - that's too slow Faster the better...

No - that's too slow

For some targets, they must be met yesterday (i.e. much smaller percent of new growth outside dense settlements) if they are to be met by 2038. Municipalities within the Growth Containment area should agree to restrict new developments in "green field" sites until their existing areas are at high density. This means Langford stopping denuding and blasting hills and mountains to put in unsustainably suburban sprawl. There are other examples. Think Sooke.


I don't think, as a planet, we have the luxury of time anymore and, since we are a pretty well off region, we could speed it up more. Leadership, in my opinion, needs to be bold and provide real leadership. If some people whine and snivel, so be it. Enough people like me and people I associate with, will appreciate the leadership and support you in moving faster.


I support the fastest way possible, that is cost effective, to make a change in a positive way to the way we live. The CRD is a beautiful place to live and people need to realize how fortunate they are and that we need to work harder to keep it this way and improve it for future generations.

No - that's too slow I think that certain Targets should be emphasized over others. For example I believe there should initially be a great emphasis on growth management.

No - that's too slow I think these targets need to be worked on immediately, hopefully we can see changes in the next year that will help us reach the targets quickly and efficiently, rather than pushing the responsibility to follow through on them to the future.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 385

No - that's too slow I’LL BE DEAD BY 2038.


If I look at any other sustainability targets, they are NEVER met. The goals must be more aggressive. Also CRD must be working with province, country, world. As you have mentioned before, there are many outside factors. I don't see where there is a component of this that works with other jurisdictions.

No - that's too slow If we are going to save ourselves from disaster, we must institute a well-focused all-out effort on the scale of the WW2 contest. Weak efforts will fail to provide us with a long term future.


If we are serious about making changes they have to be really obvious and people have to be just a bit uncomfortable before they see that there is a better way to do things. As a teacher, I call this process "over-learning". Very often people give up on really good ideas or changes because it feels uncomfortable or like they are going to lose something. Being committed as a community to making the changes gets everybody past the hard part sooner and on to feeling pride as being part of it.

No - that's too slow I'm somewhere between "yes" and "too slow". The plan is not clear. Each target should have its own specified timeline. The initial phase must be the implementation of growth management/containment strategies.


In some areas it is too slow, others too fast, but overall too slow. Waste should be faster, Zero emission vehicles should be slower, moving to biking, walking and busing is dependent on having denser cores, so there is a "Cart before the horse" issue here, but this one should be faster.


It would be of much benefit to have these targets met sooner - but this may not be possible given the magnitude of the issues- raising awareness and engaging communities in tangible ways may be of benefit to the time lines. Recognized that persons who are marginalized in any way- may have more to offer if they are offered supports so that they might offer their services, input and perspectives as well as moving away from survival mode.

No - that's too slow It's best to complete the most while those who spearheaded the project are involved and the comments are still very relevant. A lot of these measures will also benefit our economy and the sooner we achieve them the better.

No - that's too slow It's only one metric, and there are countless others that may help or hinder the CRD's efforts. Why not try to get ahead of the curve?

No - that's too slow It's painfully clear at this point that humans can't possibly work fast enough to stop killing the planet. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but let's call it like it is, shall we?

No - that's too slow It’s probably too slow given the current state of the environment- but also given the current state of culture- probably about right. CRD could use a more target and strategic education/ propaganda plan.

No - that's too slow Land-use, ecological health, social health, environmental change... etc., these are all incredibly important issues that need to be addressed now so more resources are important to move responsibly.

No - that's too slow More speed is required so changes commence asap. We do have technology and expertise - need less studies etc.

No - that's too slow Most of the targets are solvable by technology that already exists. Get on with it.

No - that's too slow Move in line with speed of climate change.

No - that's too slow My theme throughout this form is that we need to push harder to work beyond reasonable and accessible targets in order to achieve goals. The same 'fantastical thinking' got us to this point, and it can get us out.

No - that's too slow Need to deal with sewage and run off issues more quickly.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 386

No - that's too slow Needs to happen yesterday.

No - that's too slow No comments.


Obviously, CDR cannot do everything at once. If it were up to me to triage targets in order of importance I would suggest: Growth management: need regional plans for when, where and what density of new growth will occur outside of GCAs Implement GHG initiatives objectives as quickly as possible Define density targets as soon as possible (Objective 3.1.8): establish settlement patterns and density distinctions between RSA, Natural Resource and Rural Lands Policy Areas.

No - that's too slow Of course, you can only do what is politically possible, not what is truly needed. But this is a time for boldness, and confronting the mistakes we have made and changing our ways.

No - that's too slow Only as sources of energy dry up or become too expensive will change take place.

No - that's too slow Our CRD is supposed to model ways we can reach these targets. People won't insulate their homes and choose to drive less if we don't see our local governments doing the right thing. Make it easy for people to do the right thing.

No - that's too slow Please ensure the costs of achieving these targets are fairly distributed among those who move here after current residents have borne the expense. Please ensure that the "public expense, private profit" dynamic doesn't apply here.

No - that's too slow Please see comments above, the timeline for the targets should have been communicated clear at the beginning.

No - that's too slow Recognition of the complexity and interdependence of all these issues; it might be advisable to proceed in an integrate way rather than in the traditional linear sequential way.

No - that's too slow See comments made on Number of Households etc.


Seriously, how motivating is that ... "we're halfway where we wanted to be...?" Let's just DO IT! We live in the most beautiful place in all of Canada - and if we can't commit to protecting and preserving it - there is no hope for the rest of the country... TAKE LEADERSHIP - ADOPT A GRAND VISION - MAKE THE CRD the CANADIAN MODEL of HEALTHY, SUSTAINABLE, COMMUNITY LIVING.

No - that's too slow Sewage targets must be dealt with much more quickly because of the federal and provincial funding requirements. We need to lay a good foundation of tertiary sewage treatment with the funding available for the current sewage project.

No - that's too slow Since the proposed targets are mostly unambitious, moving towards them quickly (i.e. by 2020) is the least we can do and opens the possibility of achieving much more than targeted in the remaining 18 years.

No - that's too slow Some of the targets aren't the best metrics as they don't actually measure what you are trying to achieve or are out of your control which makes them not worth measuring. See Additional Target Suggestions below.

No - that's too slow Some targets are achievable more quickly. Initial and ongoing emphasis should be on implementing the policies on growth management as they are the foundation for the RSS and a sustainable region.


Some, such as #9 should be continuously met; others have target for 2020 or earlier #8, #11. And others need to start now if the 2038 results are to be achieved (for example, density targets are unlikely to be achieved if excessive sprawl is allowed in the early years. Early slackness will require increasingly draconian measures later to make up. CRD and member municipalities need to bite the bullet from the start, not think they can defer the hard stuff to later, when it’s too late).

No - that's too slow Targets need to be sorted out and deadlines set for each as some are more easily achieved then others.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 387


The CRD has been very impressive to date on a whole host of issues. The DRAFT itself is refreshing to read, and really sets the cultural story of what we need to do. I understand the balance between setting harder targets, but really do think that we need to get there quicker.

No - that's too slow The information is in. This is TOO SLOW.

No - that's too slow The next five years are CRITICAL YEARS for the CLIMATE. We have to pull out all the stops (because we have been going backwards for too long now.) BE BOLD!!


The order of targets for many of the above questions should be - 1. getting the Island rail system into operation 2. adjust BC Transit bus routes and schedules to provide best possible service to and from rail corridors 3. start the Westhills commuter rail system - once the track is at Class 3 and with continuous rail 4. construct the Regional Rail system as per the ITO phase-map With this done, a whole new look at many of the aspects of this survey will need to be undertaken.


The rapid and increasing destruction of the planet along the impending catastrophes of climate change require that we address the restoration and preservation of the environment immediately and allow the human species (who are integrally linked the environment) to continue to thrive on the planet as well.

No - that's too slow The Roosevelt New Deal's goal was full economic security employment for every last person without delay. That's the shift in commitment we need for ending climate change.

No - that's too slow The sooner the better. The world will be a very different place by 2038.

No - that's too slow There isn't time to wait. This region has the potential to go faster: we have the land, the knowledge, the people and the willingness to do it. Push us - we'll be there. It's after the war.

No - that's too slow These plans will gather dust, stay on shelves or buried in computers unless we get to work immediately to implement and realize the benefits.

No - that's too slow This is meaningless, as you can get most of the way to the less important/useless targets by 2020, but have made no progress on the others.

No - that's too slow Time is of the essence.

No - that's too slow Too many Mayors and Directors making decisions. Clean house first, then maybe you can make your 2038 deadlines! Who came up with this date anyways.

No - that's too slow Transportation- we need to build an high quality, high comfort (separated from traffic) cycling network within 3 years to get people to see a true alternative to driving their cars.

No - that's too slow Water supplies , landfill capacity, food sustainability and environmental encroachment are all concerns that need to be address immediately.

No - that's too slow Way too slow, the climate is changing RIGHT NOW, so action needs to be taken RIGHT NOW.

No - that's too slow We don't have that kind of time at our disposal, sadly. And the reason why is that we have been dawdling for the past 25 years. A bad habit that seems to be still quite alive and well.

No - that's too slow We have no idea whether our efforts will be enough. The rest of Canada are likely to be slow because there is a lack of leadership from the top at the moment. We might as well lead the pack and be aggressive about it or we're all going down.

No - that's too slow We know that changes on the scale we need cannot happen linearly. We will need to make several HUGE expensive changes in order to allow the many smaller changes. Doing this earlier will be much easier than waiting.

No - that's too slow We need the CRD to show leadership and I think people here want positive regional change as soon as possible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 388


We need to ACCELERATE the change. Modifying the mindset of folks is critical. We need to speak the language of sustainability and resiliently. We need to lead with this info. It needs to be part of every action we're taking. We need to ask the important questions when we're considering actions.

No - that's too slow We need to try harder and provide incentives for compliance -make good habits for our citizens.


While 2038 is the overall timeline, each target should have its own incremental or more fine grained timeline as some targets are achievable more quickly. Initial and ongoing emphasis should be on implementing the policies on growth management as they are the foundation for the RSS and a sustainable region.

No - that's too slow With the breakthroughs in solar and batteries even this year, you should start immediately. Step 1. Get rid of all of the old noisy stinky diesel engines in buses and replace them either with modern silent clean European diesel engines, or with electric.

Yes 2020 is ambitious, however make it any later and we'll quickly feel too complacent.

Yes A big and early push will create a critical mass of enthusiasm for meeting the target.

Yes Again, if that’s not putting overt hardship on businesses.

Yes Ah now you say what the target date is.

Yes Although this is slow, it would probably be optimistic to expect it.

Yes

As 2020 is only 5 years away, yes, I support that target, but we have to speed up considerably after that if we are to meet the targets required to be at zero emissions by 2040. A huge part of this is going to be educating the population and overcoming resistance. Victoria is lucky that so many people are informed and you will have a huge number of people on your side. But there will still be resistance when push comes to shove. You need a multi-faceted approach to educating the population about the 2040 imperative. Use the NGOs like Dogwood, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, LeadNow, BCSEA and others to get this message out. They will be very happy to help. Make the message simple and make it clear: Zero by 2040 is NOT a choice. Adapt or die.

Yes As said earlier, I hope authors know how much progress we have made with the RGS since 2003.

Yes At a minimum. And some will be higher and some will be lower. I'd like to see a standard like this set for each of the key target areas.

Yes But again, amalgamate asap as the citizens have said. keep services public so costs and widespread benefits can be controlled and achieved.

Yes But each target will need its own timeline, some are more readily achievable than others.

Yes But see my comments WRT a few that should have more immediate attention.

Yes Change takes time, to have achieved 50% in 6 years would be amazing.

Yes Could some targets not be achieved sooner?

Yes CRD rarely does anything within the time frame they plan, so I think the target is fine, but I do not expect it to happen by then.

Yes Depends how it’s implemented. How do people really learn, adopt behaviours, become resilient? For pioneers, get out of the way. For Settlers, help em along. For prospectors, make it stylish!

Yes Depends on the target. Targets have to be high enough to mean something, not dreamy impossibilities, but not so slowly incremental that they don't accomplish much.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 389

Yes DON’T PUT OFF CHANGES UNTIL IT BECOMES AN IMPRACTICAL LAST-MINUTE RUSH TO REACH THEM.

Yes

Each target should have its own incremental or more fine grained timeline, as some targets are achievable more quickly. Initial and ongoing emphasis should be on implementing the policies on growth management, as they are the foundation for the RSS and a sustainable region. BCSEA suggests that CRD target new development and promote in every way possible innovative design processes such as “passivhaus” design (http://passiv.de/en/) for both single family as well as multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs).

Yes Final target should be sooner – 2030.

Yes Five years is an ambitious target but needed due to lack of planning in the past.

Yes

For such long term targets, you have only two milestones: the ultimate goal, and this one, for 2020. No project manager would wait until the halfway mark to see if the project was on time. So I would suggest, at a minimum, quarter way marks as well, plus annual checkpoints.

Yes

Generally yes but there are targets that are higher priorities than others - emergency preparedness, food security, curbing sprawl and dealing with climate change and sea level rise - all have different time frames. Setting 2020 as a benchmark year is too general for most - remember the CRD will be dealing with municipalities most of which are rugged individualists.

Yes Getting half way there in 5 years would be admirable, but why then would it take 18 years to go the same distance again?

Yes Global economic forces may limit growth, and any increases to the interest rates are going to pummel the housing market.

Yes Good to 2020, but interim targets should be established by backcasting so we know where are in relation to each goal at various points in time, especially maintaining the growth management goals and not allowing creep.

Yes However, it would be useful to identify the aim for each separate target.

Yes I have no idea what is reasonable.

Yes I support getting halfway to the proposed targets by 2020. However, we are nowhere near to achieving many of these targets (for example the energy targets).

Yes I support the aim, but suspect it would be more achievable for some targets then others (and probably in some municipalities than others!) As I said earlier, getting momentum will be the difficult part and once established change may come faster.

Yes I support your aim of halfway by 2020, however, I do wonder if it is realistic that half of a 20-25 year plan could be achieved in less than five years?

Yes I suppose. You sure do give yourselves a lot of wiggle room and time.

Yes I think 2020 looks achievable. If you art too aggressive, people will shrug the whole initiative off.

Yes I think it'll be a scramble with mixed success, but I think we need to try.

Yes I think that's reasonable. We need to put in consistent, steady, well researched effort in on a daily basis.

Yes I think this seems to be realistic - 5 yrs. from now.

Yes I think you should set explicit goals for 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035 and enlist the help of people like David Suzuki and Guy Dauncey and the scientists they rely on to help you figure out these kinds of specifics.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 390

Yes I think you will have to work harder and be smarter at convincing people to support you in your efforts.

Yes

I want to say it's too slow.. but given that 2020 is only five years away, that would be amazing progress compared to how dismally most large institutions manage this. But why should it take another 18 years to make it all the way? If CRD thinks it can get halfway by 2020, it should be able to get all the way by 2030.

Yes I would like lots of intermediate checkpoints. else 2038 feels a lot like "forever" (and certainly beyond my lifespan).

Yes I would like to see us achieving our emission reduction targets much sooner than 2038.

Yes If we can do it good on us.

Yes If we do not set a halfway target with this level of ambition, we will never reach our long term targets. We must be proactive in making the changes we wish to make in this district.

Yes If we don't set ambitious goals, we don't stand a chance of achieving anything. The first 50% will be easier to achieve than the second. Having said that-there is only 5 years, so we had better get moving.

Yes Implementing policies on growth management should be immediate because without compact communities nothing will change. Servicing should not be extended. That would make a mockery of the word "Sustainable".

Yes Is it realistic for some?

Yes It is easy to say yes, but the question is way too general. Some targets will be a lot harder to achieve quickly than others.

Yes

It really varies across the targets: some of these require long lead times to be transformative; others need direct immediate action. I'm not sure this is a useful question. Certainly aggressive plans need to be in place for each within a few years, such that every opportunity to advance them can be seized.

Yes It's ambitious, given our current wasteful and consumption-driven society, but it is a worthy goal. We need to set strong goals and push ourselves, as time is not on our side.

Yes Move faster!

Yes Need a series of targets, 2018, 2022, 2024 - with ongoing reporting.

Yes Only if we start right now will the plan be taken seriously. Why wait?

Yes Particular emphasis might be placed on those initiatives that will contain urban sprawl. These will be crucial to achieving the others.

Yes

Please don't stop working until you figure out how to balance the requirements of both environment and humans. Perhaps we need fewer humans..... All First Nations in B.C. had Population controls in their communities--and they survived here for neigh unto 10,000 years without wrecking the place. Rapid growth is good for what? Commerce? Maybe we don't need rapid growth. Maybe we can enjoy "life in the slow lane". It's what most of us choose when we want a holiday--a break from the stressors of "getting and spending". Don't make such glib assumptions about what we all need and want to be "happy".

Yes

Provided that we have done 100% of the planning by 2018 so we can actually get to 50% by 2020. Shelf ready plans for grant funding, re-zoning, creation of regional transit authority, implemented the PST tax for rapid transit, begun our land bank for agriculture etc. etc.

Yes Realistically I have no experience to decide what is a realistic time line. The sooner the better so setting a target will at least give an idea of what is being achieved.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 391

Yes SEEMS A LITTLE FAST.

Yes Some of the targets will be easier and faster to achieve than others. Strong emphasis on growth management is essential to reaching sustainability and this needs a framework for enforcement.

Yes Some will be faster, some slower.

Yes

That gives us a good amount of time to work out kinks in the first half of the operations. If we retain this goal it is entirely possible we will achieve the second half faster than by 2038, which can only be a good thing. It’s also a realistic goal considering the wider context of climate change.

Yes That seems reasonable and realistic. Make targets too soon, and we will fail. Too late, and measures will get postponed because of budget pressures. Half in the next 5 years ensures that we get going.

Yes The 1st 50% should be easier than the remaining so it should be done faster. Having a close target date will motivate/ get things going much faster than a date further out.

Yes

The final chapter is called "Implementation", but there is nothing at all in it about implementation. It's just about amendments. So we need a new chapter that IS about Implementation, and each of the targets needs to be revisited, with tangible actions to achieve 50% progress by 2020 - within five years. If we let it drift, we'll get to 2020, and very little will have changed, and the CRD will have ]egg all over its face.

Yes The first 50% will be the easiest and will show the level of commitment to the plan.

Yes The time to act is now!

Yes The wheels turn slowly and attitudes need changing before behaviours change or physical changes can be made.

Yes There is no reason why this should not happen.

Yes There should be separate dates for each target as some are more readily achievable than others.

Yes This is a lofty goal, but I hope it's achievable!

Yes This is a very big menu, and achieving progress depends on an altered culture and structure of regional government. If shared services, collaboration, integration and best practices start to get embedded in the culture, progress may happen faster than we think!

Yes This seems reasonable if we all work together.

Yes Too much talk and not enough action.

Yes Unrealistic in most cases.

Yes We have to start somewhere and though I am strident in terms of doing more than what is targeted in most areas, I feel that this is a good place to start and begin dreaming and visioning together for a better place for all sentient being on this island.

Yes We have to start somewhere. If we aim for 50% we might not make it but it’s necessary to start.

Yes We need to front-load these actions, implement as soon as possible. At 2020, then re-evaluate based on success and seek more ambitious targets.

Yes



1214220002-015-R-Rev0 392

Yes


Yes


Yes

While I do support this aim, it is a bit high and will require a lot of work and public education missions. Getting the public on board, and making it feasible for them to do so is essential. Additionally, it is incredibly important to make sure industry and large corporations are held to the same or higher expectations. Yes the bring in jobs, but they have a lot more money and it is much more financially feasible for them to contribute.

Yes

While I support accomplishing these targets going half way by 2020, I question the ability to do so. That is only 5 years from now, and some of these targets will need time to educate people and have them get their heads around them. Further without knowing costs, there could be a backlash by taxpayers getting there. People are going to need to be shown the benefits not only on paper, but through small but real changes, and some experimental programs. Also, I have no expectations that each of these goals can be met in a formulaic, even manner. Some will start slowly and speed up over time while other may move quickly and then hit snags while getting the last few percent in place. As the sewage treatment fiasco has shown, the general population needs to be on board, engaged, aware, kept in the loop, asked for feedback, and the process needs to be transparent.

Yes

While I support the aim of halfway by 2020, I am not sure if this is realistic. As it is 2015 and the RSS is still a draft document, I am unclear about how it is possible to achieve 50% of proposed targets in less than 5 years. A major municipal effort is needed to be put towards creating policy and legislation to support these targets to make it possible to meet them in that short time frame.

Yes With enthusiasm and wise guidance, that makes sense.

Yes Would like to see faster adoption but, given past performance, this is a good aim.

Yes Yes, faster is even better, but if half way can be reached by 2020 that is good, as the sooner the RSS can be implemented the sooner it can effect meaningful change in our communities.

A COMEDY I GET IT.

Anything that will mitigate our impact on climate change should happen as quickly as possible, as well as anything that will move us forward in terms of food security. Policies around strong and compact urban containment boundaries should also happen sooner rather than later.

Each target needs to have its own incremental or more specific timeline, as some targets are achievable more quickly. Cannot answer this for all targets in the same manner.

Each target should have its own incremental or more fine grained timeline, as some targets are achievable more quickly. Initial and ongoing emphasis should be on implementing the policies on growth management, as they are the foundation for the RSS and a sustainable region. BCSEA suggests that CRD target new development and promote in every way possible innovative design processes such as â€˜passivhaus’ design (http://passiv.de/en/) for both single family as well as multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs).

Experience dictates that setting such long-range targets is an exercise in futility and spending a lot of time writing and meeting about it will not help. Ten-year plans make sense because there's some degree of certainty.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 393

I don't like separating the targets with the timeline. I am disappointed with the layout of this survey!

I have no faith that the CRD can do it. The RSS has taken far longer than it was supposed to; likewise for sewage treatment. It won't happen.

It depends on the target, baseline and associated growth rates for each area. While 50% by 2020 is possible for some targets, it will not be for others. Please revise your questions to reflect this reality.

Maybe, a lot of these questions or plans have to do with the economy at their present time. But the overall intention is good.

No comment.

No, most of the targets are crap. Any movement toward those is too fast.

Not sure the targets are progressive enough or far reaching enough...so something, anything would be better soon than later.

Perhaps each identified target should have its individual timeline.

That depends on the target. I don't think this question makes sense.

The present Urban Containment Boundary in Central Saanich should be maintained and not expanded to the west in the Keating Crossroad area up to West Saanich Road, as has been proposed by CS council. The water runoff that more development here would add and the loss of agricultural land are 2 main concerns with any urban expansion.

This is tough. My feeling is that targets and timelines should fall just a little bit farther than we can achieve. Between too easy and despair-making.

This target should be judged according to the individual subjects.


While 2038 is the overall timeline, each target should have its own incremental or more fine grained timeline as some targets are achievable more quickly. Initial and ongoing emphasis should be on implementing the policies on growth management as they are the foundation for the RSS and a sustainable region. Also, the targets for achieving natural areas need to be much sooner as natural areas with trees will serve to help with climate change.

14.0 ADDITIONAL TARGET SUGGESTIONS

Are there any additional targets you would like to suggest? Please list the target topic, and if possible,

what would be measured, and what would constitute success by 2020 and by 2038.

2025

(I) Implement selection forestry by the end of 2015 See #2 in Other Issues (ii) to submit a proposal for the CRD o become a UN Biosphere Reserve within 3 years See #8 in Other Issues (iii)Help Victoria Council work towards enshrining the Right to a healthy environment See #6 in Other Issues.

Have a regional sewage treatment plan developed and ready for 2020 .ensure we have a well-established and managed urban forest plan -now- current canopy and count of green spaces every tree cut 2 are planted .have dedicated bicycle/walking routes in all neighbourhoods not just shared car roadways.

I want a lot more attention paid to food security, encouraging farmers, protecting farmland NOW, not in 5 more years. Get on with light rail!


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 394

1. Maintaining the JdF forest and coastal areas through the 120 ha. minimal zoning, thus providing the region's greatest contribution to carbon sequestration. Some sustainable economic activity should be encouraged. 2. Expanding the lands adjacent to the JdF provincial park as buffers. 3. Increasing the parks acquisition fund and adding parkland and wildlife dispersal corridors in the JdF, and elsewhere in the CRD, where feasible.

2020 - have the first stage of a rail based arterial network in place and the rest in planning - have the first stage of renewable energy grid in place and the rest in planning 2038 - have the total transportation network energy grid implemented in stages over the previous two decades.

2020 everyone graduating from public schools is educated about what wild and cultivated plants can be eaten and how to cook. Walking trails with soft well-draining soils and wood chips replace cement walking paths within 2 km of all public schools, community centres and municipal offices. 2038 everyone in civil society knows what can be grown and harvested here and how to cook. Walking trails with soft well-draining soils and wood chips replace cement walking paths within 10 km of all public schools, community centers and municipal offices.

A car free zone in downtown Victoria by 2018.

A clear target for increased agricultural land use, both in urban and rural areas, is needed.

A good target would be writing up these proposals in a way that is more understandable by the general public. Did you know that newspapers cater to a Grade 5 reading level in order to keep it simple? Perhaps you could consider doing the same.

Absolute carbon neutrality with all existence elements: electricity, heat, water use, fecal matter and urine, transportation, work week length, packaging, food, clothing, all other consumables 2020: identify carbon content of function, commodity, compound and process 2038: be well underway toward abolition, substitution and transformation of function, commodity, compound and process.

Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, in each Municipalities Growth Containment area, which is the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit. This to be done before approving new subdivisions on greenfield sites. Also, keep an eye on water pollution.

Actively trying to attract green companies. Limiting incoming materials to the ones we can recycle (we are an island and PEI does this) A skylight rebate program(instead of cutting down trees) to enhance urban forests and ecosystems. Climate monitoring and sharing information. By 2018, every citizen will be aware of how close we are to meeting our targets and what else they can do. Every citizen will have access to local and global information on progress.

Add to local urban green enhancements through: Planting of more trees in urban areas, so as to act as carbon captures and enhance community well-being. Offer subsidies for alternative options for individual transportation modes (electric cars, bikes etc.). Remove "paved over" public places and replace with landscaping that captures water run-off. Even city sidewalks could benefit from this.

Affordable housing living wage.

Again, I believe community building initiatives need to be given more consideration. collaborative environments are the future of cities, and the more that that can be supported and promoted by the region through design of communities, land use planning, and normalizing collaboration and communication, the more prosperous the region will be as a whole.

AGAIN, STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOM. If you see something, then ask for a discussion, but DO NOT GO LOOKING.

Again: I think there needs to be more language around food security: how are we going to "grow" enough farmers to contribute to our food security, and how will they access land? I also agree with the Consortium who shared their views around density targets [my amendments in CAPITALS]: In particular, a regional process for determining when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area will be available for development is needed. There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is EVEN CONSIDERED: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area and (2) there has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social, AGRICULTURAL and economic sustainability factors. Targets that can


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 395

address these two criteria include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit, in each municipality in neighbourhoods within the Growth Containment Area Additional policies include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare in each municipality’s Growth Containment Area before EVEN CONSIDERING new subdivisions on greenfield sites Undertake a region-wide evaluation of density targets and identify where new growth may be appropriate based on environmental, social, AGRICULTURAL and economic sustainability factors before considering the expansion of any Growth Containment Area. Targets around environment quality such as water pollution, and an evaluation of the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita are also needed.

Almost every target here depends on having a green economy, and it is embedded in the vision, yet this category for targets is completely missing. We need to export sustainability related services, create new innovations in technology and design, if we are to get out of poverty and have the tax base to afford these changes without moving backwards with an economy that takes from the environment. We have the opportunity to be a leading green economy worldwide. Where are those targets? Suggestions: - Entrepreneurship level - Number of new, green startups - Service export level - Number of green businesses, due to certifications (VIGBC, etc.) - businesses with sustainable purchasing policies - number of carbon neutral businesses - Green tech companies I understand this data does not have a baseline/benchmark, but no better time to start than the present.

Already stated my concerns.

Amount of food grown on island. Amount of energy generated on island.

As I mentioned, subsidies for solar panels on ordinary houses; incentives towards buying electric cars; help with small scale farms; restarting VIA rail for commuters from Colwood, Langford etc.

Aside from what I've already mentioned herein, I'd like to see some specific initiatives for creating more business opportunities and objectives for attracting capital to the Island.

Begin to implement shoreline building requirements based on rising water levels.

Better environmental quality targets needed (water pollution...parkland.

Better regulation on aging septic tanks. Better stormwater management in anticipation of sea level rise. Dedicated research toward where land use and conflicting interests have spoiled traditional ecological harvesting practices (shellfish, etc.) and arable land. Crackdown on pesticide use for big agriculture and incentivize regional small-scale organic farmers.

Better regulation on aging septic tanks. Better stormwater management. Dedicated research toward where land use and conflicting interests have spoiled traditional ecological harvesting practices (shellfish, etc.) and arable land for organic farming.

Bring back the galloping goose ....shutting down a train was a backward move ....

Building codes and by-laws need to be amended to make solar power, passive solar design, composting toilets, cobb, straw bale, grey/rain water systems and other alternative (energy efficient) housing more easily built.

Building codes that encourage efficiency.

Change the zoning to allow smaller lots by dividing existing lots, allowing building of smaller more efficient homes. having higher density in core, making transit, and everything more efficient. Allowing more townhome type developments as well. and more low rise apt buildings with common facilities. Target: higher density Measure: population increase Success: many more lots created in Saanich Oak Bay etc... Cheaper housing available, more users for transit, schools, rec centres, easier waste collection...

Concentrate more on the environment and base our decisions on science.

Consider adding in a happiness target, and use the happiness target as a basis for measuring sustainability. Also - clearly measure and report current sustainability metrics, to enhance conservation efforts by the public. Reduce within the sustainability strategy the value of monetary economics, and base sustainability instead on how well the population is and can be in future.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 396

Consider research and incorporate how arts and culture influences and infiltrates development and social wellbeing.

Containment of Tanker and bulk carrier traffic past our doorsteps. This is much more serious if we want to maintain and improve ocean environment goals.

Convert all storm drains into 'bio swails'. Treat all surface water to improve the health of our streams and beaches.

Co-ordinate with all Island districts to protect all lakes, rivers, wetlands, streams and creeks from any and all development to ensure a healthy ecosystem and clean water for all. ASAP.

COSTS: Contain tax increases to no more that the inflation rate.

Create a local small scale composting system for every area perhaps linked to the group mail boxes proposed by Canada Post. We need to keep everything small and local and be responsible for what goes in our homes and what leaves them. We need to stop shipping our needs into and out of the CRD area.

Create a regional transportation authority ASAP. Implement tertiary liquid waste treatment. The draft RSS skips around these two important matters.

Cultural norms and expectations need too shift in order to achieve deep-seated changes like these. It naturally makes sense there will be resistance. Mitigating this change is up to our political leaders. Do it!

Currently the CRD is allowing the degradation of parkland by permitting adjacent properties to be high density housing development. Bear Mountain is the worst example, but certainly not the only one. I'd like to suggest a target of 100% of parks to have a buffer development strategy by 2020. Integrated transit should have a target. E.g. bus to ferry to bus transportation from Victoria to Vancouver. The target should be something like "Integrated Transit requires only 15% more time than car travel". It's important to look at integrated transit goals, because real people aren't measuring their satisfaction by a single leg of the journey. I think there should be a mental health, or if you prefer, a happiness/satisfaction goal for the region. This needs to be on the table.

Democratic Participation. This is a key measure of engagement, and many of these goals can't success without public engagement. So I'd add a target of 65% for voter turnout in municipal elections by 2038.

Develop a region wide standard of density targets and identify acceptable areas for growth based on environmental, social and economic sustainability before any expansion of growth containment area Environmental quality including healthy watersheds, wildlife corridors and clean air is a responsibility of the CRD.

Develop long-term capital plans to reduce infrastructure (mostly Victoria and Oak Bay) deficit by 2020. Have 50% of infrastructure deficit reduced by 2038.

Dismantle the CRD by 2018 and in get back control to municipalities reduce government foot print by 30 percent.

DO SOMETHING, NICE BRIDGE.

Douglas Street - LRT - Enough said!

Eco, green or sustainable leadership is what I want from the CRD and with tools like LEED, EnerGuide Energy Star and the new Vancouver Island Green rating system, we can measure performance.

Economic sustainability - should especially apply to governance of CRD, finding efficiencies in CRD budget so it is more sustainable without excessive tax burden on taxpayers.

Economic sustainability. The CRD should stop wasting it's time on academic exercises on subjects over which it has little or no control. It should concentrate on coordinating subject of practical mutual interest and need to all regions such as policing. What Sooke wants is none of Oak Bay's concern and vice versa.

Economy and jobs - measure median income and growth in middle-income private sector jobs. Wellbeing - measure high school graduation rates among disadvantaged peoples. Wellbeing - measure what percent of people have a family practitioner.

Education. Let the children teach the parents. Save our farm land.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 397

Electric two & three wheel vehicles. Embrace them for they are the future of personal (i.e. 1 & 2 person) transport in the CRD. Force the Fed/Prov government to import higher powered versions, license them, and insure them. Free parking anywhere for electric vehicles. Tax holiday for retail distribution of electric bikes, motorcycles, and lightweight 3 & 4 wheel vehicles.

Elimination of the infrastructure deficit by 2038 with a target of approved plans and funding commitments in place by 2020. All municipalities and the CRD having climate change adaptation plans in place by 2020 with major priorities of these plans in place by 2038.

Energy, GHG. Reduce the ratio of fossil fuel to sustainable electric energy consumption in buildings by decreasing the price of electricity, by encouraging sustainable electricity projects - particularly hydroelectricity. Halve comparative electricity pricing by 2038.

Enough local organic food to feed ourselves year round. increase the resilience of hospitals, water treatment and other local core services to longterm blackouts.

Extension of water services in Juan de fuca electoral is VERY worrying. The key MUST be not to expand auto-dependent sprawl. as more residences may not include home yardspace, I would like to see goals (with measures such as area planted) for community allotment gardens.

Fix infrastructure before you build. We live in a desirable area but with aging infrastructure.

Food sector is a scam. I just hate being a farmer and hearing all the bullshit time and time again, then being disempowered strategically when I try to develop systems that will support the expansion of my business.

Food security - the region will be __% food secure by 2020.

Food security: percentage of food consumed in the region that is produced in the region.

Food, green jobs, and especially targets related to the marine environment, as after all we live on an island.

Frankly, as a life-long farmer, I consider this whole exercise to be too little too late. There are too many people on Southern Vancouver Island to ever even remotely consider sustainability and most have not got a clue where their energy or food or water comes from and even less know where their waste products go. It is a great shame because if this project had been undertaken 50 years ago, there may have been some hope.

FREE PARKING. DOWNTOWN VICTORIA IS TOO NOISY. WHY DO YOU BUILD THE JOHNSON STREET BRIDGE BY 2038. SEWAGE. YOU COULD NOT GET A REAL JOB.

FULL SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKING BY 2025.

Getting off and on the island as a part of transportation routes for residents of the island. We need basic transportation, not necessary to have a cruise ship experience. Make the city and area a fun place to visit! Encourage fun businesses for the tourist industry and give them tax incentives, revenues can be collected by the visitors. Encourage village life, like the Europeans. Plazas where neighbours can meet for coffee and kids can play. Line the streets with fruit trees, use ALR land for community gardens, and recreation, that way we can use the land and preserve it.

GHG targets (tonnes/yr reduction).

Good quality, full time jobs with benefits. There is a SORE lack of these and there are way too many young people and families who are leaving the region because they are caught between this and obscene housing prices. CRD should address the high cost of living.

Having a position globally...you have none as I see it. Extend yourselves ..educate..inform...be progressive...look at the global picture...the CRD could be recognized internationally for your vision, imagination, and proactiveness...

Health and happiness of population.

Heritage. We need a regional approach to protect / promote our heritage / identity.

Honestly, this survey is so confusing and cumbersome, which of course is reflective of the region in general. Nothing is ever concise or practical and everything is bogged down but flowery language and no action.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 398

How about counting things like benches, boulevard trees and sidewalks wider than two meters? Close Government Street downtown to vehicles. Have every neighbourhood increase its density by relaxing zoning restrictions.

How about reducing the size and budget of the CRD to starve your bureaucracy? Your budget increases every year with ZERO accountability and little relation to actual reality.

I am impressed with what you have done. If it does not fall into some category, I hope use of existing rail lines for commuter transportation will happen and will be supported by the CRD.

I think 2038 is too long. How about 2020, and then 2028?

I think something to encourage car clubs would help people move to alternate transportation - they could mostly live without a car knowing they have easy access to one when they really want it. They would drive less but not feel threatened by giving up their car. Like many of your goals that would require assistance from other levels of government. So something like increasing car club fleets by 50% by 2020 and 200% by 2038. With self-driving cars this might be much easier to accomplish than it currently appears.

I think we need to consider the cleanliness of our oceans-cleaning up the water, sustainable fishing practices, consider the noise and pollution caused by planes and boats on the wildlife (orcas). We ALSO need to think about the waste that is washing into the ocean because of inadequate and antiquated drain systems. This is a BIG problem that has been left for too long so that future generations will just have to pick up the tab-but it is only going to get bigger, and it needs to be addressed.

I think you have plenty to be going on with.

I would like an all-electric, zero-emissions, regional transit bus fleet as soon as possible. Whatever we can do to influence the purchasing decisions of BC Transit in this regard would go a long way to reducing our carbon emissions, and making city busses quieter and more enjoyable to travel in, and live within the city.

I would like to see addictions addressed and animal rights.

I would like to see on site composting introduced as soon as possible. The homeowner would lease a Composter much like the garbage can and the blue box. Imagine the improvement in the Carbon Footprint if the trucks did not have to conquer The Malahat with the greens which would be composted in ones backyard or condo basement. We must think out of the box.

I would like to see targets in reduction of pesticides used, which impact water and air quality. Although there are cosmetic use bans in place, they do not have much teeth and the products are still readily available. I realize it is hard to measure, and set targets. Another related issue I would like to see tackled is quality of groundwater, regular monitoring and standards set provincially. The CRD could perhaps participate in the monitoring function.

I would like to see targets related to local (as opposed to regional) parks.

I would like to suggest that the Board and staff try to get a firmer grip on reality.

I would love to see some targets around health--community and collective--and life satisfaction/happiness. Opening conversation about this would be a way to bring people onside who might otherwise not understand the value of these initiatives.

I would prefer that the CRD stop wasting valuable time and resources on academic exercises like this and target specific, practical hands on solutions for problems that cannot wait for studies and surveys to guide what others should be doing twenty years from now.

I'd like to see 40% of trips made by bicycle by 2020. I'd also like to see plastic bags banned by 2017, please.

I'd like to see a shift in culture. Getting people to sing onto the idea of density. I know, a bit of a broken record- but I see density as the crux to many of our issues. I think the CRD could spear head a density education forum and get people talking about it- with the goal of shifting a greater number of people toward accepting higher densities.

If 50% transit by 2020 and rest by 2038, then ok transit is vital to move fast or faster waste management is important to sustain growth without change in energy needs.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 399

If the infrastructure item, and emergency management, and energy efficiency ones were met, others would follow.

I'm not sure if it would be under Emergency Preparedness, Infrastructure Target or Agriculture Target, but the CRD must start planting huge numbers of fruit and nut trees for GHG abatement, poverty reduction, emergency resources and regional resiliency.

Improve cycling access throughout the region to promote tourism. This topic really deserves it owns specific target. Cycling throughout the region could lead to a major cultural change. We are close with a variety of paths/trails, but it needs a regional oversight to make it happen.

In addition to the protected sea to sea green belt we should establish a community forest like North Cowichan has. Surplus water district lands could be the nucleus of a regionally managed industrial forest that provides jobs and experiments with the latest forms of ecological forestry.

In future the current growth areas should be built to capacity before news ones are even considered for development and then alternate transportation i.e. rail bus cycling walking should be in place first

In today's world this length of planning cycle is not realistic. Too much changes. Even givens such as collaboration are now in a new paradigm. Business at a regional level may not be the correct governance model. No mention of any such review?

Including health targets might be a good idea. After all, many factors affecting a person's health relate to the subject matter of an RSS--for instance, routes taken by bicycle or on foot are reflected in rates of diabetes within a city. You've included targets relating to the economy, regardless of the fact many factors impacting the economy fall outside of the CRD's hands. So why not also health? There is probably a stronger link.

Increase bike paths and encourage more people to ride a bicycle for transportation. We live in an environment where we can cycle almost 365 days per year. There needs to be way more focus on making infrastructure for safe cycling commuting.

Increase cigarette taxes, impose tolls for long commutes from western communities to downtown. Impose high taxes on food producers, vendors, transporters bringing produce from distance, when local products can be made available. Incentivize local production through taxes, subsidies and grants.

Increase number of farmers.

Increased food security as measured by increased number of days local food supply could feed region in event of imported supply disruption.

Increased levels of public transportation. Keeping in mind that we already have too great a gap between the rich and the poor, we need to find ways to include everyone in making this area truly livable.

Integrate waste recovery with sewage treatment with greater resource recovery.

Integrated 911 system. join all the dispatches together by 2020.

It’s hard to take this exercise seriously, as the wish list and targets are expensive, if not impossible.

It's strange that the largest infrastructure project in our history; that has a 2020 deadline; isn't mentioned.

Light rail on E&N from Langford to Downtown by NOW.

Like all planning I think that each year the goals have to be reviewed and re-prioritized in the context of what has been accomplished as well as what is going on in the environment both physical and socio-economic.

Local farming! Food production in small yards, everywhere!

Local food availability.

Local food consumption - please see previous note.

Local food needs a target - the ALR is currently intact & 90% of food is still imported so just having a target for ALR is inadequate. I'm not sure what a realistic target would be, but not very long ago 90% of food was produced locally.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 400

Local food production and farm land procurement targets; this should be integrated with Island Health, and Ministry of Agriculture. A higher level working group should be formed to study how we can maintain current food production and at the same time increase production. Why are most/all of the hospitals and institutions using about 100% food from elsewhere, we do not seem to have even an access point to test and see what the methods and needs are of the institutions.

Local food production? Self-sufficiency Economic development targets What is the vision for the region worth to the soul of this place. What do we want to preserve and/or enhance? What about demographics? What is the long term plan to ensure the region does not become a retirement enclave with no dynamism??

Local ownership of an open broadband network as a public utility that renders the other targeted systems as smart and accessible for citizen participation in adaptive governance. Target; 2020 = 1 gbs, by-symmetrical.

Majorly important areas to focus on: Water conservation Protected areas Species at risk Logging practices Waste Ecological Restoration Local food.

Make a target of 90 - 95% of new development that would stay in the urban areas. Keep 100% of the presently rural communities rural - especially the rural communities of East Sooke and Willis Point and Shirley whom are located quite a distance away from serviced areas.

Make it Fair on the middle income people. Don't make them bear the brunt of the costs.

Make some space for organics to compete with non-organic food. It is crazy that we are still poisoning ourselves just because it’s a bit cheaper. Level the playing field through regulation.

Management of Growth Containment areas with emphasis on the containment.

Marine disaster/oil spill preparedness.

Monitor success of increasing densities in Urban Containment Area Monitor changes due to installation of sewage treatment.

More on biodiversity?

More trees Less building.

My suggestions were included in this survey as I went - please see those sections. Bottom line, I don't think your emissions reductions are sufficiently high enough, and I think your infrastructure measure (e.g. utilities infrastructure) is poor. The measures regarding water and waste and energy could be more inspirational and more clear.

Native ecosystem restoration - from the perspective of getting more native trees and shrubs being planted in urban areas where the historic landscape is gone. For instance having incentives for planting native species in parking lot medians, streetscapes, green roofs, etc. Also, greater credits for NOT cutting down mature native trees when developing. Even planting 5 new trees does not replace the function of the original mature tree. What incentives can start to reverse this trend? Target could be # of trees saved (if we knew how many were being cut in the first place - I don't think we do.) Or Target # of native species planted per hectare or # of m2 per hectare?

Need a recycling plant for ALL stuff to be done on island. Use Edmonton's plant as a good example. Change City preferred supplier agreements and buying policy to be green/sustainable, VOC free, local business/if possible.

Need to do more to support local food production in both rural and urban areas.

No Colwood Crawl by 2020; rail transportation in the next 5 years.

No comment.

No comment.

No comments.

No development outside UCB anywhere in the region.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 401

NO OIL BEING TRANSPORTED THROUGH THE STRAIT of JUAN DE FUCA. NO COAL BEING SHIPPED THROUGH OUR WATERS. SUPPORT for TRANSITION COMMUNITIES/NEIGHBOURHOODS. (Expertise, Grants, etc.). 50% POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY (SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, WIND) ... if Germany can get to 35% - why can't we?

No specific targets but all of these indicators should show declining trends Smaller houses: Size of homes and area per person. Both should decrease. Carbon sequestration: In soils, and in landscape. Consumption emissions: GHG's from the manufacture and transport of all of our material goods. Air travel: 1 average air flight = driving for 1 year. Measurement of regional food produced: Conversation of farmland to permaculture (organic) methods: Creation of an indicator to measure overall wellbeing: includes all the good stuff we want more of like health, education, employment, community activities, volunteerism, time in nature, culture, etc. Actual Progress Indicator. Hehe...best not to call this CRAPI (Capital Region Actual Progress Indicator). In the Highlands we would call this HAPI (Highlands Actual Progress Indicator).

No, I think you've covered it pretty well.

Noise pollution. For instance the leaf pick up vacuum machine. Also leaf blower motors. The city is getting noisier and it is unhealthy to "get used to it". Review routes and times of recycling trucks, and garbage trucks and consider changing large recycling bins to smaller, quieter types as recycling improves. Routes for tourist buses and trucks through residential areas.

None.

Number of doctors per unit of population needs to be addressed and measured. Frequency of use for food banks. Drop in miles driven by automobiles.

Numbers of new businesses/industry created Well-being/happiness index - numbers of people who are happy/satisfied More of a breakdown in the job creation targets by sector and type of work.

Our administration at the regional level is bloated and out of touch with the aspirations of the bulk of our population. Costs rise at several times the rate of general inflation, with the result that CRD government takes a progressively larger share of our economy for questionable return. Much of the additional costs arise from salaries and bureaucratic processes that are too slow and cumbersome, lack transparency and often appear to be captured by special interests. The plan needs to have explicit stretch goals for cost control, efficiency and timeliness on the part of the CRD staff and governing bodies, with independent third party review of performance against those targets and publication of the results.

Percentage of food sold in urban grocery stores originating on Vancouver island. Not sure what the percentage is now, but double it by 2020 and double it again by 2038.

Plan for autonomous driverless vehicles and pathways to follow. Stop wasting so much money on empty buses.

Planting more urban forest and eelgrass beds [2 important resources for sequestering carbon. At least one tree for every person, eelgrass to historic acreages.

Please add a target for restoring critical ecosystem services to degraded areas. We have tremendous opportunities for wetland and stream restoration within our communities for example, that would provide water filtration, sedimentation, storm water flow control and enhance biological productivity as well as sequestering carbon.

Please consider the amalgamation of the many townships and municipalities, into three or four regional centers. A good start would be the consolidation of the peninsula + highland administrative districts by 2020, and the remainder of the present boundaries into 3 others by 2038.

Please make sure there are clear policies and timelines, and timely monitoring, and incentives/penalties for achieving targets overall and in each municipality.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 402

Prepare the target audience for the targets the CRD is proposing? Educate and inform CRD residents as to what the RSS is & how they might be affected and benefit. Local councils have been informed but few residents within CRD municipalities know about the RSS and its potential implications. Have a target of March 1, 2016 to educate the residents of the CRD on the implications, benefits and costs of implementing or not implementing the RSS and have them accept it; otherwise the CRD will be facing a very long and arduous battle to get the RSS approved by local municipalities. And if the current RGS is not going to be amended or modified in a timely manner the targets will no longer be valid as the time frames will be abbreviated. Establish "Public Buy-in" as a target.

Preserve 100% or grow all farmland within a 30-minute bike ride from major population areas. For example, the joy and wellbeing I experience from being able to access the Blenkinsop farmland area is HUGE. I live near Shelbourne and Cedar Hill Cross Road and having this farmland within a 10 minute bike ride is a HUGE quality of life boost. I don't need a car to get my "away from the city" time. Where's the concrete wording on truly scaling up bike lane infrastructure in the region? You want to hit those targets? Let's see important wording like "All major urban centres will be connected by safe bike lanes running the entire length of road by 2020."

Private vehicle traffic. Reduction of number of single occupancy vehicles on roads.

Progress toward amalgamation...governance is a huge component.

Promote compassionate, respectful, spiritual and family and nature orientated communities. We live in a beautiful area...... sustain and enhance it for future generations.

Promoting food security through both community and personal food gardening incentives. Increasing cycling infrastructure. Incentives overall for lower personal and business consumption. Incentives for investment in renewable energy.

Really, by 2020, we have to have made HUGE strides towards replacing transport with EVs and other means. EVs are key. INCENT INCENT INCENT. Make it mandatory for every distributor in the region to sell EVs. Make parking free in the region for EVs for the next 5 years. Make charging stations free for EVs for the next 5 years. Reduce property taxes for people with EVs if they run on Solar panels. Replace all buses with electric ones. By 2038 98% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with the stated aim of zero by 2040.

Recreational facilities - more needed and affordable to all.

Reduce air pollution from woodstoves and fireplaces in high density areas by 50% and 100%.

Reduce car traffic by having more ferry service.

Reduce the amount of food imported from more than 300 km away to near zero. FUND K-12 schools to provide programs in work with students to develop the skills and attitudes to make the plan a success.

Reduce the CRD budget and staff by 50 % by 2020.

Reduce, reuse and recycle staff, offices and supplies instead of expanding them!!!

Reduction of invasive species infestation. I would like to see a ban on sales of invasives (i.e. English ivy is still sold in most nurseries) and complete removal of invasives from crd parks by 2038.

Region wide policies on the following: Invasive plants that spread into wild areas still being sold in nurseries and used in landscaping. We are losing our protected areas to these invasives and it should not be up to community groups to spend all of their time combating this chronic encroachment. Examples include ivy, daphne laurel, holly, periwinkle, St johns wort, archangel, and others. Licensing policy for cats, similar to that of many other cities and communities across Canada: Calgary Toronto, Saskatoon, Creston.... Just to name a few. This would ensure that cats were kept indoors or under the control of their owners at all times, and allow birds and other native wildlife to share the region with us. Dogs: crd dog off lease policy in protected areas is failing these natural areas. Examples include all beach parks, where species that might use the area as a stopover for food and rest during migration are not able to do so unmolested (island view beach, east sooke park, tower point, witty's lagoon, elk/beaver lake, etc.) and all upland areas where wildlife is chased and harassed, and understory disturbance and trampling is chronic. Success in all cases would be a standardized, region-wide policy that mitigated the harm.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 403

Regional cooperation on all matters *or* merging of municipalities where it make senses in order to improve regional decision-making, and delivery of key services to residents.

Renewable energy Localization of jobs.

Representative government would be a nice start. How about electing CRD directors directly, instead of at the pleasure of the Queen (i.e. her elected municipal representatives).

Rural communities like Shirley would like good shoulders on the highways to allow walking and cycling without hazard to life & limb.

Sea level rise family and senior friendly built environment (playgrounds, seating etc.) innovation project and sport excellence leader in renewable energy, wind and solar.

See earlier answers re governance and culture, which I think are fundamental if we are to progress towards these targets. There will need to be some will and leadership demonstrated by CRD Directors and staff in these directions over the next four years.

See earlier comments. Note that I was lucky to copy my comments since it took four tries to fill out the form. Each time it blanked and reset, forcing me to start afresh.

Seriously consider to plan for setting aside rapid transit corridors for the future. It is very difficult to plan for and set aside these corridors and it takes a long time to plan for and then acquire the required corridor lands. A long term visionary plan in the past could have saved a number of corridors that had existed with the various Railway Right of Ways that had been in place. Future visioning on this is required.

Sewage treatment plant operational by 2018. overpass at Hwy 1 and Mackenzie by 2017.

Significantly reduce air pollution from cruise ships and cruise ship buses by 2018. Significantly reduce tour bus air pollution by eliminating or improving smelly old diesel motors.

Social and cultural targets - measures of conviviality and connectivity (face to face / neighbour / community).

Solar energy installation on all buildings as a goal to incorporate into the plan.

Some more concrete targets for local production of food along with measures that encourage people to grow food. For example bylaws that encourage urban agriculture, tax incentives, local meat processing facilities & education.

Some type of amalgamation for the 13 municipalities in the region is the only other comment I have regarding this. It may make things better!

Sorry I don't have any numbers, but forestry and fishing are local industries. We need to have "sustainable" targets or targets to recover sustainable use. I don't think the province is managing these resources well for us.

Sorry, this survey took longer than I had allowed for so I don't have any spare time to think of anything else at this moment. Was it a thorough process that generated the targets you have presented here - if so then not too likely I would be able to think of any others.

Start saving our trees and natural landscape.

STOP IMPLEMENTING UN AGENDA 21.

Stop the raw log export now not by 2020. Hook up community water systems to people that need water at a reasonable rate. We need cheap, fast and run often public transportation from the western communities and Sooke to downtown Victoria.

Stricter laws for people clear cutting their property. 8407 Lochside Drive in Saanichton & 8401 Lochside Drive in Saanichton have both clear cutted their property, and they can get away with it, as the properties can't be seen from the street. Can we add jail time to this offence. It is so unfair to the wildlife.

Success could be granted if you reached anywhere from 30-60% of your goals by 2020, and then only if you reached 70-90% of goals by 2035.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 404

Success is being able to support the regional population in the form of food, water and energy. This may include more efforts that mimic Kimberly's Sunmines, or Gabriola Islanders' effort with GABE energy to have community owned energy infrastructure. I see a prime spot for these energy sources on damaged lands like the Millstream Meadows or new sewerage infrastructure. If new projects and building begin to be net zero energy, and with miniature water treatment systems then we can move that direction. examples to draw from as inspiration of what can be done now include the Bullit Centre (Seattle), Vandusen Gardens (Vancouver), SFU Daycare (Vancouver) and Eco-Sense (Victoria). These examples demonstrate feasible and net zero water, zero waste, and net zero energy examples that exist within today's regulatory framework. It is using distributed systems like this that will help the centralized goals of the region surpass the target set out for 2038. Just saying.

Support local farmers. Measure how much their income is by growing our pure food and how much they have to pay out to housing, family maintenance, on-farm assistance and benefits (health, dental, retirement savings, liability insurance).

TARGET - Please explain what the plan is to have all the necessary Senior Government support and funding in place and relevant research completed and identified BEFORE all these targets are even considered.

Target of 20% increase in locally owned business by 2020, 70% increase by 2038. Target of 40% increase in local production/manufacturing businesses by 2020, 80% increase by 2036 - this is to remove our reliance on importing everything to the island, reduce our shipping off-island of our valuable raw resources, and reduce the major system leak that big-box (non-locally-owned) businesses are on our local economy. Target of 50% increase in small-scale renewable energy sources by 2020, 90% increase by 2038.

Target: All products from sewage treatment will meet their final fate within the region. That is to say, we will not ship the by-products (whether useful resources, or waste) elsewhere. We keep the benefits here, and we keep any detrimental by-products here as well. This will keep the energy costs down, ensure all benefits return to the community, eliminate our dependence on the biosolids industry to deal with our problems, and is the responsible thing to do (i.e. to not export our problems to someone else's environment). Tertiary treatment for the effluent and gasification of the solids is the only way to ensure that CRD sewage waste is completely dealt with within CRD.

Target: Measure sea level rise projections to 2020 and 2038 and start planning for retreat or protection now of low lying populated areas.

Targets are just a bunch of words...actions are what we are looking for...Surveys like this are good for optics...Actions speak louder than these words...

Targets for building schemes that include the need to incorporate transportation, gardens and fruit trees into a planting scheme. Each new single family home or townhome needs to be built with two bikes in the bike storage, one fruit tree, one berry bush and one raised bed. Each new multifamily development must incorporate community gardening into the building concept and offset destruction of green space. For example, green spaces must incorporate native plants and fruit trees. If gardens or natural spaces are destroyed (for example by demolishing single family homes with garden space and replacement with a large structure occupying the property footprint), the same amount of area must be created as green space or garden somewhere else and close by.

Targets should be set to guide growth in rural areas, and those targets should include concepts that are consistent with the "Growth Containment Area" and "Growth Centre" concepts proposed in the RSS for urban communities. This would allow smaller communities to set objectives for local sustainability and support the overall aims of the RSS. Specifically, East Sooke should be defined as a Rural Area (not a Rural Settlement Area), consisting of rural lands which are characterized by low growth and which maintain rural landscape. The Rural Area of East Sooke should be described as containing a Rural Centre which has limited access to transit, emergency services and local recreation. Objectives for rural communities could include the creation of limited mobility hubs with trail systems connecting rural communities, firefighting services that are coordinated and able to protect local and regional parks to name a few.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 405

Targets should be set to guide growth in rural areas, and those targets should include concepts that are consistent with the "Growth Containment Area" and "Growth Centre" concepts proposed in the RSS for urban communities. This would allow smaller communities to set objectives for local sustainability and support the overall aims of the RSS. Specifically, East Sooke should be defined as a Rural Area (not a Rural Settlement Area), consisting of rural lands which are characterized by low growth and which maintain rural landscape. The Rural Area of East Sooke should be described as containing a Rural Centre which has limited access to transit, emergency services and local recreation. Objectives for rural communities could include the creation of limited mobility hubs with trail systems connecting rural communities, firefighting services that are coordinated and able to protect local and regional parks to name a few.

Targets should be set to guide growth in rural areas, and those targets should include concepts that are consistent with the “Growth Containment Area” and “Growth Centre” concepts proposed in the RSS for urban communities. This would allow smaller communities to set objectives for local sustainability and support the overall aims of the RSS. Specifically, East Sooke should be defined as a Rural Area (not a Rural Settlement Area), consisting of rural lands which are characterized by low growth and which maintain rural landscape. The Rural Area of East Sooke should be described as containing a Rural Centre which has limited access to transit, emergency services and local recreation. Objectives for rural communities could include the creation of limited mobility hubs with trail systems connecting rural communities, firefighting services that are coordinated and able to protect local and regional parks to name a few.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this survey. We have many native lands that are not considered here and I would like some targets regarding joint goals with these nations.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter suggests that targets should be added to address the nuances of regional sustainability to improve the measurement of progress as we advance into this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process is needed to determine when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area should be available for development. Two fundamental criteria should be met before greenfield development is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (20 units per hectare; i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area, and (2) There has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur, i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Additional criteria to consider in evaluating the location of new growth should be: water quality and the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets may be appropriate.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter suggests that targets should be added to address the nuances of regional sustainability to improve the measurement of progress as we advance into this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process is needed to determine when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area should be available for development. Two fundamental criteria should be met before greenfield development is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (20 units per hectare; i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area, and (2) There has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur, i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Additional criteria to consider in evaluating the location of new growth should be: water quality and the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets may be appropriate.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 406

The CRD needs a sustainability vision that is communicated to all citizens asap. This needs to be in the form of a serious campaign. The message needs to be that what we are doing now isn't sustainable and needs to change for everyone. People with lots of money are not exempt. We live with many contradictions: it's acceptable to drive an SUV to Costco every week, and it's suicidal to ride a bike down Shelbourne. We talk about building 600 square foot condos above 24 hour supermarkets but do nothing to limit the size of megahouses built by those who can afford them. We need higher taxes on vehicles with bigger engines and on houses over 1200 square feet (unless lots of people live in the house). We need to change policies that discourage local agriculture and urban farming. We need to map available land in the CRD so we know where we can build allotment gardens. Saanich has a plan to have 12 community gardens by 2036. We need to approve sites for 12 community gardens by 2016. We need to do away with single family zoning...in this way, the rest of us won't need to live in 8 story buildings (hubs of density) on busy streets while a few people continue to drive to their exclusive neighbourhoods. We absolutely need to assure there is green space for everyone, walkable sidewalks, cycle lanes and beauty. We need to build a beautiful Victoria.

The CRD should be abolished.

The problem I often find with these surveys and project goals is that it all seems external to each of us. Yes, everyone else should. And then it would all be a better place. It is critical for people in the CRD to recognize these goals require each of us to take action, make sacrifices, be willing to pay the cost both financial and in re-evaluation of our lifestyles, etc. Many feel these goals have nothing to do with them, or that they “don’t have the time” or “already do enough”, or they just don’t care. Social change happens when people feel they belong and are engaged in change. It needs to made easy as possible, economically acceptable, fair, provide incentive and creates excitement. Sadly, I rarely see most of these qualities in CRD programs. Many times I feel like a tool of the system. No one asked me what recyclables I’d like to have picked up from my home, or how they could be sorted. No one asked me each time changes have been made in the program. My basement is still filled with things I have been waiting for the recycling program to take, and which will probably eventually be taken like other products I have been finally able to contribute. Year after year, I request a recycling calendar, and year after year they can’t find my address on the system, and have to mail me one upon my request. The recycling funding formula, using tipping fees, was bound to become unworkable, and I mentioned this to the CRD about 25 years ago. Part of creating community is allowing for pocket social centers. I would like to suggest that building complexes beyond a certain size, whether they be malls, retail or office buildings or residential condo or apartment building should be required to have multi-purpose rooms for meetings, art galleries, recitals, small theatre productions, political meetings, clubs, group meals, and other such uses. These facilities would be accessible from street level without needing to go through private property, would be acoustically insulated, with independent lighting and heating/ventilation, and secure, and would be available to be rented at very nominal fees for public or private use. Perhaps a deposit might be required to protect the property, but these pocket multi-purpose rooms would allow for smaller groups to get together, off the street and plan events. Further, certain areas on the CRD need more art space, with multi-purpose building which would include gallery space, theatre space, classrooms, which again could be rented a very reasonable fees, so community groups and individuals could put on plays, music, comedy, art shows, classes and other programs, without requiring long distance travelling. I do realize some of these exists in schools and recreational facilities, but clearly not enough venues are available currently, or the costs to use them are too high.

The usual elephant, population growth, is present. We live in a miraculous place, and there will be population pressure from within and without. Our culture doesn't have the inclination, nor the CRD, the authority, to grapple with this, but I hope we'll watch for opportunities to ensure that those who are here are well cared for.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 407

There are a number of missing targets that address the nuances of regional sustainability and will be important to identify and measure going forward in this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process for determining when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area will be available for development is needed. There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area and (2) there has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Targets that can address these two criteria include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit, in each municipality in neighbourhoods within the Growth Containment Area Additional policies include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare in each municipality’s Growth Containment Area before approving new subdivisions on greenfield sites Undertake a region-wide evaluation of density targets and identify where new growth may be appropriate based on environmental, social and economic sustainability factors before considering the expansion of any Growth Containment Area. In addition, environmental quality such as water pollution is squarely within the jurisdiction of the CRD, as is an evaluation of the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets on these two key regional sustainability topics are needed. There are a number of missing targets that address the nuances of regional sustainability and will be important to identify and measure going forward in this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process for determining when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area will be available for development is needed. There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area and (2) there has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Targets that can address these two criteria include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit, in each municipality in neighbourhoods within the Growth Containment Area Additional policies include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare in each municipality’s Growth Containment Area before approving new subdivisions on greenfield sites Undertake a region-wide evaluation of density targets and identify where new growth may be appropriate based on environmental, social and economic sustainability factors before considering the expansion of any Growth Containment Area. In addition, environmental quality such as water pollution is squarely within the jurisdiction of the CRD, as is an evaluation of the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets on these two key regional sustainability topics are needed. There are a number of missing targets that address the nuances of regional sustainability and will be important to identify and measure going forward in this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process for determining when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area will be available for development is needed. There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area and (2) there has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Targets that can address these two criteria include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit, in each municipality in neighbourhoods within the Growth Containment Area Additional policies include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare in each municipality’s Growth Containment Area before approving new subdivisions on greenfield sites Undertake a region-wide evaluation of density targets and identify where new growth may be appropriate based on environmental, social and economic sustainability factors before considering the expansion of any Growth Containment Area. In addition, environmental quality such as water pollution is squarely within the jurisdiction of the CRD, as is an evaluation of the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets on these two key regional sustainability topics are needed.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 408

There are a number of missing targets that address the nuances of regional sustainability and will be important to identify and measure going forward in this second era of regional growth management in the CRD. In particular, a regional process for determining when new areas within and outside the Growth Containment Area will be available for development is needed. There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, complete walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Area and (2) there has been a regional evaluation of where new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Targets that can address these two criteria include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare, the density needed to support neighbourhood commercial and effective transit, in each municipality in neighbourhoods within the Growth Containment Area Additional policies include: Achieve an overall average density of 20 units per hectare in each municipality’s Growth Containment Area before approving new subdivisions on greenfield sites Undertake a region-wide evaluation of density targets and identify where new growth may be appropriate based on environmental, social and economic sustainability factors before considering the expansion of any Growth Containment Area. In addition, environmental quality such as water pollution is squarely within the jurisdiction of the CRD, as is an evaluation of the provision of local parks and recreation services per capita. Additional targets on these two key regional sustainability topics are needed.

There are two fundamental criteria that must be met before development on greenfield sites is appropriate: (1) Minimum densities (i.e. the densities associated with compact, walkable neighbourhoods) have been achieved municipal-wide within the Growth Containment Areas and !2) there has been a regional evaluation of where the new growth should occur i.e. where servicing should be extended, taking into account environmental, social and economic sustainability factors. Another note. The whole exercise is useless unless the RSS includes clear timetables of action, and requirements for monitoring performance, and making appropriate corrections as required and unless the policies are tightened up to ensure compliance. The CRD should not approve any amendments to OCPs in the Electoral Area unless they conform to the RSS policies and the previous RGS policy. The RSS should exclude any provisions for "minor" amendments to the GCA proposed by individual developers or by individual jurisdictions.

There is no mention of offshore conservation, for example restoring the herring and salmon stocks and protecting the southern resident orca population. A good part of the CRD is in traditional Lekwungen territory as Songhees and Esquimalt land is known. Lekwungen translates as "Land of the Smoked Herring".

There needs to be more clarify or teeth for specifying new areas within and outside Growth Containment Areas will be available for development. There needs to be a regional evaluation of where new growth can occur, where roads and services should be extended, taking into account environmental and social/economic factors. There needs to be more CRD control over the develop agenda in the various jurisdictions.

These are not targets, exactly, but the whole exercise will be useless unless the RSS includes clear timetables of action, and requirements for monitoring performance, and making appropriate corrections as required and unless the policies are tightened up to ensure compliance. I look forward to seeing what policies actually emerge over and above those which appear in the current draft RSS. Two specific suggestions, 1. the CRD should not approve any amendments to OCPs in the Electoral Area unless they conform to the RSS policies. 2. the RSS should exclude any provision for “minor” amendments to the Growth Containment Area proposed by individual developers or by individual jurisdictions: Any extension should only be considered in light of REGIONAL studies on where the most efficient expansion of Growth Containment can take place (if at all) AND a data based determination that all capacity for accommodating growth within the Growth Containment Area has been exhausted.

These targets are a make work project for CRD, forget the target just do the work. Amalgamate and just have the CRD as gov, that is what you should be working on.

These targets are all useless with the current number of municipalities that have the complete authority to manage autonomous to the CRD. There must be an overall restructuring of these multiple municipalities to provide rational government for Greater Victorians.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 409

Things would work better if we had one big city instead of the fiefdoms we have today.

Think of changes in the next two years - 2038 is a bad dream.

This is a vast topic. it actually leaves room for thinking about values... Congratulations. Some questions to maybe get out some other important matters: Do you have a feeling of wellbeing about your life? "Community?" Country? Feeling that our communities are organized to create health and happiness and that these can be defined by residents--not sociologists and statisticians. Does your local government facilitate community aspirations? Is your local government responsive to community determinations? Do your governments, local, regional, national PRETEND to ask your opinion on important matters and then just do as they please because they are the authorities and have power?

Transit investment, reduction in on-road vehicle emissions, implement sewage filtration of marine toxins.

Transit should not charge fares from riders -- there'd be way more people riding.

Transportation and sewage...two highly discussed topics which need to be pushed forward by at least 2020....or the other goals won't be easily tackled. Can't there be a concerted effort to get a workable agreement between all parties by then?

Transportation: Light Rapid Transit to reduce the need for personal vehicles (in particular for getting to and from work/school) Success by 2020 would be planning and starting to build LRT. By 38 we would have LRT connecting the western communities to downtown Victoria, as well as the ferries to Victoria.

Treat all wastewater to potable water standard by 2025. My own backyard plant could do it 20 years ago, Dockside Green does it now, all new developments should do it and ten years is enough time to retrofit. Sell poop bonds if necessary to fund it!

Try and become (electrical) energy independent of the mainland. Being dependent on an undersea cable is a big vulnerability.

Unclear at this point.

Urban agriculture? difficult to measure (except perhaps chicken permits!) but maybe surveys could determine amounts grown. As a minimum, double by 2038 and maybe 15-20 % by 2020.

Waste - target 100% of communities to set up zero waste committees by 2018 and become zero waste by 2020 Food production - agriculture - target 50% of food produced locally by 2038 - including support to grow, manufacture, process - all within the local CRD. Selling should be supported through gate sales, local markets and within local grocery stores.

Water pollution and storm water run-off from agricultural operations needs to be addressed. Also the CRD could look at the water licensing, which is a provincial jurisdiction, but most streams and creeks are over-sold and badly managed. A watershed management strategy would be useful as the characteristics of water courses will change with Climate Change.

We are surrounded by Indigenous communities that are struggling on the island from the North to the South. The inequities, inequalities in all areas need to be focused and targeted as well as this really falls to us to begin a new relationship of equitable partnership and acknowledgement of the appropriation and dispossession of this island and other lands. We are getting there and well done with Grace Islet, we need to move further to making a new, better and more equitable relationship and I think that this council right now at this time can get us there.

Wetland conservation and protection, improved drainage systems that allow for better water quality in creeks and streams. Consider the wellbeing of, and consider making a policy position for protecting our surrounding ocean.

What about sewage treatment?

What are the targets for FISCAL and FINANCIAL sustainability in the context of government spending? Set some and make them aggressive proactively in the context of rising debt at all levels.

What is the plan for sewage?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 410

What would constitute success??? Seriously. In 2020 walk out onto a downtown street and if you see a starving and/or homeless person and chem trails and over-flowing garbage ....well then that's a fail.

Where are the financial sustainability targets? I watch my property taxes go up, cost of water go up, cost of garbage and recycling go up every year, and I don't get any more service for the increased prices. Where are the zero based budgeting targets? When does the CRD take its responsibility to the taxpayer seriously?

Would like to see preservation of Garry Oak ecosystems specified.

x% of food supply is derived from on-island / Gulf Islands.

xx% of food/meals from local produce/sources. Local = xx km distance.

Yes! 1) Measure prosperity, not jobs as jobs is a very poor metric and not correlated with prosperity. 2) Measure costs and have targets to keep these at or lower than the rate of inflation 3) Measure services that create incentives for people to be environmental and reward them when they do (e.g., don't raise water rates after we have reduced water used) 4) Measure net promoter score of CRD services provided (how many people would recommend services to another person in Canada to encourage growth) 5) For these services in the future, add an 'other' button for each question.

Yes! WE obviously need to move quickly... all hands on deck, let's get this ship moving in the right direction. I appreciate that the CRD seems to be taking climate change seriously despite the climate denyers in the federal government. Happy to be living here!

Yes, I believe there should be specific targets identified for rural areas that parallel those made for urban areas. Specifically, East Sooke and other rural areas contain areas that support contained settlement and that serve as hubs for transportation, small industrial development and services. East Sooke has been identified erroneously as rural settlement, when in fact it is rural lands with a rural settlement containment area located near the current Fire Hall. If the RSS loses sight of the importance of preserving green space and of containing settlement in rural communities, its other aims will be jeopardized.

Yes, to make three municipalities out of the Capital Region - View royal, Colwood, Langford and Sooke as one. - Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Saanich as another and the Saanich Peninsula as the 3rd. This would eliminate so much unnecessary cost and the Capital Region could be eliminated. Just in case you were wondering I was born in Victoria as were my parents - life was much more simple before the Capital Region came into being.

You could also consider reducing electricity consumption. Although produced from hydro consuming less electricity, or shifting loads to off-peak times would reduce our environmental footprint by maybe reducing the need for BC hydro to build new power plants. I see a lot of electricity being wasted: - using dryers instead of hanging clothes to dry, - bad insulation, excessive heating, bad heat management, - bad hot water management - excessive lighting.

You covered a lot of good points. One that's more difficult is changing the culture. Life is too good, people are not willing to change much. I hope we don't need a catastrophic event to get our act together.

You need a target for food. We have the farmers, and the land, but the dominant food distribution system (supermarkets) is actively preventing access. This is a topic that will become so much more important when oil prices, and thus fertilizer prices, skyrocket. How much of a person’s income do you think should go towards getting healthy food on the table? Most of the stuff in supermarkets does not count as healthy.

Your feedback survey is too long. Many people will die of old age before they complete this involved survey.

Youth centre. Our teens spend too much time in malls. Also provide low cost bus and transit passes for low income families so kids can move around freely.

You've put together this survey, so please work it out. Much of this change needs to be legislated by a responsible Provincial govt. Let's vote them in next time round.

Zero killing of deer, bears, and cougars by end of 2015, unless in extreme circumstances. Can we not relocate them? I know this is not the CRD's area, but you have an important voice to bring forward in this issue.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 411

PART D: OTHER ISSUES

1.0 WATER SERVICING a) Should the water servicing policy be changed to allow for potential water servicing beyond the

current growth management boundaries, to accommodate water service throughout all municipalities and to Otter Point, East Sooke and Port Renfrew in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, subject to full cost recovery and alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas?


No 257 48.3%

Yes 275 51.7%

TOTAL 532 100.0%

b) Please explain why or why not:

No

1. I think the growth containment area will need to be increased before 2038 so I don't think this target really applies. 2. I think it is unfairly punitive to suggest that areas close to the boundary should pay the full cost of the water pipe extensions and then lose some development opportunities, or perhaps I don't understand what you are suggesting? 3. I don't personally need CRD waterlines since I am happy with my well water. 4. This whole idea of development in rural areas is another topic. Briefly, I think you are always going to have some folk who want to be able to buy an affordable small (like 1 Hectare) acreage where they can have a goat and some chickens and/or a very large garden and/or a little bit of their own forest and it is better to provide areas for those small affordable acreages closer to town. You don't need 4HA to do these things. If the CRD does not allow some increasing rural development in the areas close to the growth containment area then people are denied the opportunity to buy affordable 1HA lots, in which case the CRD is essentially saying that those buyers need to commute another 30-60 minutes out west where land is cheaper if


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 412

they want to buy an affordable acreage. That just contributes to climate change by sending people further out of town to get an affordable acreage (if the CRD will not allow current 4HA lots to be rezoned into 1HA lots where those 1 HA lots would otherwise meet the requirements of that areas OCP.) In the past some folks referred to 1 - 4 HA lots as "Urban sprawl" but in my opinion that was not a fair comparison? If the CRD believes that 1-4HA lots are too urban then I would ask the CRD to consider how much smaller the average urban lot is in relation to 1 HA.

No

1. The quality of municipal water has been degraded since 1987, and is now much more chlorinated. 2. Besides wells, there is technology to obtain water from air moisture. 3. Becoming more self-sufficient in all requirements makes for a more resilient community. 4. 'Alternative measures to limit development growth' is wholly depending on current elected leaders. Need I say more?

No

A lot of effort potentially. Part of the idea of rural life is being more connected to your environment and being conscious of resources. There are many things that can be done on a local basis to ensure water supply. I think it would be better to spend the money on rainwater catchment and small irrigation and water slowing, retention and soakage earthworks.

No A regional sustainability strategy that focuses on decreasing GHGs, connecting green infrastructure, creating compact communities cannot allow the sprawl of water and sewer into rural areas. People who purchase rural land get what they pay for.

No A SEPARATE WATER SERVICE IF NEEDED.

No

Absolutely not. The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No

Absolutely not. The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No

Absolutely not. The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHSs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No Afraid it will lead to increased development.

No

An objective is to preserve the lifespan of the water supply. How does this help?? Only way I would think this should be considered is if cost recovery included contributing to reserve fund for water supply expansion - why should those of us within the growth boundary pay for those who will not? Oh yes, the developers will howl ...

No As we move out populations do not support costs.

No At what price? And I am not talking about money here.

No Both water and sewer servicing needs to be curtailed to retain effective growth management. Extension into rural areas should be strongly discouraged.

No Development in existing rural areas should be discouraged, not aided by providing services over and above what is currently there.

No Development in these areas should be low-impact and off grid.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 413

No

Discourage building beyond the core current growth management boundaries. If they must build there, then wells or water delivery must be the home owners responsibilities. (And I say this as a person who grew up in a rural area on a farm with well, pond, and water delivery for home and agricultural use.

No Does no one see the hypocrisy in taking water from areas outside of Greater Victoria, then making proposals to limit growth in those very areas?

No Does the community need water or can we be more creative here? What happens with climate change?

No Doesn't fit the overall plan. Water service equals growth, which we should be limiting, and by not supplying water to non-serviced areas insures they will stay relatively undeveloped and rural.

No 'Don't know' should be an allowable response.

No Emphatically no. This is the primary way of assuring against sprawl and spot developments. Do not expand the containment boundary.

No Extending water service will extend the growth boundaries immediately. As soon as there is water there will be development. DO NOT SUPPORT URBAN SPRAWL - extending water service WILL create more urban sprawl.

No Given current technology a modular approach appears to be more cost effective than any type of centralized system, both in water and sewage.

No Given the focus of this plan on sustainability, it would make more sense to promote the use of rainwater capture, wells, and other off grid technology in currently unserviced areas.

No Good luck limiting growth in the long term once water is provided. Why provide this incentive for growth? Water supply is one of the most powerful tools for limiting growth the CRD has - USE IT!

No Growing the infrastructure will inevitably lead to growth in permitted developable areas. Yet the strategy should be to densify and reduce travel etc. Spend the money on addressing the other goals first.

No Growth will not be limited if this expansion were to go ahead.

No Have to set and abide by limits as a sustainable thesis.

No

I agree with this statement: The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No

I am extremely worried that the enormous areas of so-called rural settlement areas in East Sooke and west of sooke with, I understand, minimum lot sizes of hHQ (but 2 dwellings allowed per lot) are an open invitation to suburban sprawl -- with access to public water, the sprawl will only accelerate. If CRD is serious about regional sustainability, it has to put its foot down now. Of course sprawl is popular with the tiny populations in this enormous area -- but to go along with their wishes just means that CRD won't achieve the sustainability targets it seeks -- and we'll all end up having to pay more for extra roads, water supplies, emergency services etc. for a spread-out population.

No I am flexible in this one, but wouldn't this still encourage growth outside of the boundaries, even with the reasons given in the Target Backgrounder?

No I am uncertain how well "alternative measures to limit growth" would work.

No I answered this earlier. In the wrong space, I suppose.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 414

No

I cannot believe that this policy change is being contemplated! It flies in the face of any type of regional sustainability plans and is COMPLETELY contradictory to the spirit and intent of this document! It will only allow for rural sprawl in these areas. Just say NO! Alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas is undefined and subject to the whims of local governments. The purpose of the CRD is to protect natural areas and provide a measure of regional control over development. So step up to the plate! The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No I do not believe in more growth.

No I don't have the information to see the need.

No

I grew up in Saanich and saw rampant growth over farmland directly as a result of sewers coming to the area. If we are planning compact contained growth there is NO RATIONALE for servicing to outlying areas........... The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No

I have checked no for this question, but do feel that there may be exceptions due to urgent need. People usually know that they are moving into an unserviced area, but as climate change affects water sources the supply in unserviced areas may dry up. However, pressure to develop often follows installation of water services, so must be carefully considered on case by case basis.

No I previously addressed this concern.

No

I still believe that develop follows infrastructure. Here in Central Saanich water has been allowed outside urban centres, Senanus Drive is an example. Already there is a development proposal of a bar and grill there, again at Woodland farms there is a proposal for an institutional project. It is water that allows these rural projects to be considered and we cannot continue to build out infrastructure and hope to be able to maintain what we have and address walking/biking/ public transit goals.

No

I suspect easier access to water means a tendency towards expanded building. Official community plans are always subject to change. I'm skeptical about "anticipated to be low growth in future". Remember what caused the formation of the Islands Trust. How many 1/2 acre lots was it they wanted to put facing Active Pass? And after that, two landowners wanted to get changes to allow them to chop thousands of acres of forest lands on Galiano into small lots. That certainly wasn't anticipated.

No I think it compromises protecting those areas from growth.

No I think it just puts the communities in a better position to expand if they want to. I think they should be fully responsible for that.

No I think it should be limited to curb spreading development.

No I think these areas should not be developed further. Rather they should be protected, and not even considered as possible growth areas.

No I vote for maximum urban containment.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 415

No If a new dense cluster was to be recommended outside of the GCA then possibly a mini utility could be developed if there is a source of water, otherwise any other development ought to guide by things like cistern development.

No If limiting geographic growth is a goal, providing utilities to outlying areas will only encourage sprawl. Especially if highways and road links are improved to those areas.

No If the amount of building is limited in these areas there should be no need of an expanded water service. Within townships it makes sense but outside of them the upkeep/maintenance is difficult and expensive.

No If the CRD submits to the notion that "minor extensions can improve the quality of water service and be more economical," then some will consider this a green light to expand sprawl in areas not served by water services.

No

If the services are there, developers will put on intense pressure to turn these rural areas into suburbs. We cannot take this chance. Rural landowners buy and build their homes in these areas with the full knowledge that they will have to be more self-sufficient and not depend on these kinds of services. Responsible use of ground water should instead be encouraged.

No If water is available, development will occur as has happened elsewhere in the area.

No If water servicing is allowed beyond the prev. set boundary's it will result in increased subdivisions in those areas.

No If we really want to contain urbanization then building more water infrastructure beyond the growth management boundaries, makes no sense.

No If you built it - they will come. Not having water or sewers discourages growth.

No If you should to live in a rural area you do not get access to urban services. Those property owners made a choice. Water service will lead to sewer service which leads to sprawl.

No

I'm not necessarily in favour of this. Currently we have the Sooke Lake reservoir, which is adequate for our needs currently. I'm NOT in favour of expanding water servicing if it means building a multimillion dollar water treatment plant for the other watershed CRD bought (Leech River, I think?) which does not have high quality water. I'm not in favour of make-work projects and potential P3 projects such as that multi-million dollar treatment filtration plant that likely would be required. I AM in favour of tertiary or higher level sewage treatment and planning for water re-use for toilet flushing, industry use (non-potable) and similar. This would reduce fresh water demand enough that in time, we could service these outlying areas without the filtration plant.

No I'm quite happy being on well water no use for city water.

No In order to decrease GHGs water & sewer servicing should be restricted to existing urban & serviced communities.

No In order to keep communities contained , water & sewer must be limited to densely populated areas.

No Increased water service would increase the pressure to develop more forest land.

No Increasing the service to more areas could potentially put a severe strain on the existing water reservoirs. As it is right now, we are able to maintain our supplies but any large scale developments could mean a lack of sufficient water supplies in the future.

No It does not make sense to extend water servicing to the Highlands, distant parts of East Sooke or to Port Renfrew from the Greater Victoria Water Supply System. Development in those areas needs to be supported by resources in place (i.e., wells or surface or ground water that is local).

No It will encourage even more growth in an inaccessible and poorly serviced area where self-sufficient types have always chosen to live. [all services not just water]


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 416

No It would lead to re-zoning and increased density.

No It's a good policy - do not change it. Requests/need for overriding the policy can be looked at on a per case basis.

No It's not cost effective to do so given the low improvement density of these areas. Doing so would pass a huge financial burden to those in the affected areas.

No Just like transportation, access to water servicing outside the core area promotes sprawl and is too costly to be sustainable.

No Keep rural areas rural and avoid sprawl.

No Look at local solutions - households and communities. Expansion of water services will encourage growth in those areas.

No

Many areas outside current boundaries are on viable wells. If you build it they will come - we know that - and regardless of alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas we also know that it doesn't happen. There's often no teeth and people make 'exceptions' again and again. So, no, I would not expand water servicing beyond current growth management boundaries.

No

More extension of water system to Highlands (one of all municipalities) doesn't make any sense. If there is a business case to extend water to Otter Point and East Sooke then it should happen. If the Port Renfrew water system needs to be expanded to adequately provide the community with safe drinking water then it should be allowed.

No Most emphatically not! I thought the focus of this strategy was to manage growth not encourage it!

No

Municipalities should not allow water servicing throughout their municipality. They should have to identify, in their Regional Context Statement, a "Water Servicing Area", much as Saanich does now, which is a restricted geographic area (not the whole municipality unless it is already completely serviced) showing where they intend to extend water in the next five years.

No My first response is no because I believe that when services expand growth does inevitably follow. However I do not live in those areas. Better attention to the ground water is in order as well.

No Need to better deal with serviced area before expanding beyond current boundaries. Need to deal with pharmaceuticals, micro-plastics and heavy metals more effectively.

No No - allowing this goes completely against the growth management strategies.

No No further expansion of water or sewage services beyond the existing Urban Containment Boundaries is the only way to contain urban sprawl and related problems.

No No servicing should be allowed beyond the growth management boundaries. Otherwise, the boundaries are meaningless.

No

No though I agree in principle that water is a right, and in the event of public safety it must be considered. In light of the various methods to attain water outside of surface or aquifer draws, the Regional District of Nanaimo has provided a splendid example with their Rain Water Harvesting initiative of 2013. I did try and have the CRD co-partner with the RDN, but was shut down. Ample water is available without the need for excessive infrastructure to put in and service the water mains. As well, pointing to the earlier comment of examples that exist wherein building regionally exist that inspire and demonstrate net zero water and zero waste are great examples to draw from. If funds that were to be put to creating servicing to these populated remote areas where instead invested in creating standalone water structures to service individual or a series of buildings (as described with community energy systems), I see it being more economically feasible.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 417

No NO, NO, NO! Once piped water is provided, developers and local governments of the day WILL find ways to circumvent any and all remaining controls on development.

No NO, this cannot happen as it will lead to urban sprawl and to considerable GHG emissions. Development should stay within existing serviced areas.

No No, this sounds like an excuse for sprawl.

No No, this would encourage more sprawl.

No No. Expansion of services encourages development in undeveloped areas. This increases long term infrastructure maintenance costs and increases urban sprawl and decreasing the effectiveness of all the other initiatives in this survey.

No No. This facilitates sprawl.

No No. We should do anything to enable further development in far-flung areas.

No Not qualified to answer this but on the basis of "small is beautiful" don't see why one larger entity is necessarily a good thing.

No Not sure of detail.

No

Once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region when plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No Only encourages further sprawl development.

No Only increases development.

No Otherwise your policy of limiting development outside the line is meaningless.

No Part of the point of living in a rural area is to be rural.

No Please do a search on "Salt Spring Island" and water services. We can't manage our current affairs much less take on new management areas. What good are "growth management boundaries" if they aren't really boundaries?

No Port Renfrew has its own supply of water. There are other closer supplies for other areas, are there not?

No Probably no particularly if one wishes to contain growth to the urban areas. Once water services are extended there is really no stopping growth. For what it’s worth!

No Protect from growth.

No Provision of water will frustrate growth management plans.

No Reduce urban sprawl by not extending the water lines.

No Remain with growth boundaries.

No Resources will be too stretched dealing with the current boundaries to expand boundaries further at this time.

No Rural areas will be under development pressure in the future. Services, such as water, only add to the likelihood of more development.

No Rural development should be encouraged to be self-sufficient -- this allows for more tailored approaches and reduces energy requirements by eliminating those inherent in depending on outside resources.

No See comments, technology allows more local expansion and waste management allows local resource recovery and use.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 418

No See my earlier answers. Prevent sprawl.

No Servicing these remote area would eventually increase growth in these areas; if they are to be kept rural water services should not be extended.

No Sewage and water must have equal priority.

No Sort of defeats the purpose of urban containment, which I feel is the underlying principal of long term land use planning in the CRD.

No STOP LOOKING FOR MORE WAYS TO COLLECT MONEY. You are already spending beyond your ability of collecting and that cost me money out of my pocket and I cannot afford it!

No Subdivision and increased density will follow.

No Suggesting the above expansion means that you are willing to trash the "Sustainability" strategy.

No That would negate the containment areas. water can hold dense development at bay.

No The availability of municipal water to these remoter areas will facilitate residential development which will also detract from the reducing GHG, increasing traffic.

No

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly opposes the extension of water servicing beyond current growth management boundaries in the CRD. The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas, zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region. Plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas.

No The cost will be way too high.

No The focus should be directed in the core area not the rural areas.

No The growth management boundaries should be just that - boundaries. Something has to enforce them.

No The implication is for extension of existing infrastructure. If this is wrong and your question extends to "servicing" by developing more localized supplies, the answer would have been "yes."

No

The key to maintaining effective growth is to limit both sewer and water servicing. Everybody knows that once servicing is extended into rural areas zoning follows and density increases. Within the context of regional sustainability and climate change issues, there is no justification for extending services. Take a stroll out to Silver Spray. Bringing water to this isolated point is a total waste of energy and resources. And why water store bought trees and bushes when the original natural vegetation WAS stunning.

No The way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. No justification for this, given the attempts to create compact complete communities.

No Thin edge of the wedge, even with full cost-recovery and other measures to limit development growth in rural areas. Example: RM Ottawa-Carleton extended services beyond the 1948 greenbelt leading to further growth and sprawl.

No Thin edge of the wedge.

No This could lead to urban sprawl.

No This current growth management boundaries are critical to achieving the other targets, so they should be respected.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 419

No

This defeats so many policies and targets of the RSS that to even suggest it is ludicrous. The potential to increase sprawl is significant and phenomenal using this approach. Extensions of CRD water should be permitted where a VIHA order requires it but it should be restricted to existing service area. The communities noted are all in the JDF EA two of which are still undergoing OCP reviews (as is Shirley) and this is too broad a question for the RSS to deal with until those OCP processes are complete. No potential water servicing beyond the current growth management boundaries should occur whether within or outside municipalities; establish growth management boundaries and areas where water service is provided and limit the delivery of services to those areas. Only extensions based on the protection of public health should be permitted in emergency circumstances and should be limited to the area immediately affected. Director Hicks should speak with all his constituents about this.

No

This defies sustainability! Area such as East Sooke , where I live, will just get huge pressure from developers ...why?? There is enough space in the urban areas nearby for more growth and density. Some areas of the CRD, close to these urban areas, needs to stay wild and rural. The unincorporated areas become the lungs of Victoria. ...possibly the soul.

No

This is a recipe for urban sprawl. I live in East Sooke and do the drive because I want to live in nature and still be somewhat close to urban Victoria/Langford/Colwood. This keeps servicing costs lower but allows me to live how I want to live. Choice is great for us all. Don't make us all the same. That feels unfair. I think I have the right to live without the development pressure that water brings and the density of housing and so lack of nature that water brings.

No This is counter to the growth targets and limitations I just explicated.

No This is most likely to lead to sprawl growth in these far flung areas.

No This will encourage further sprawl, an economically unviable and environmentally destructive undertaking.

No Unless there is a justified reason it needs to be done for existing communities this will just increase opportunities for development in many areas that it should be restricted.

No Unless they want it and will pay for it.

No Unless you’re also going to commit to providing these services to First Nation communities that need them, this seems like an infrastructure burden that does not align with the plan at hand.

No Unrealistic.

No Use the water to grow food inside the current management areas.

No Water = more pressure on these rural areas by developers! Leave rural rural.

No Water and sewer extensions always seem to result in urban sprawl.

No Water means construction.

No Water service is already being managed very poorly, with rates rising even as consumption falls. Let surrounding communities see to their own needs until such time as our own service is demonstrably managed in a competent fashion.

No Water service is one pre-cursor to development, and I don't trust that "alternative measures" will be able to contain the wants of the developers.

No Water servicing =increased unsustainable development.

No Water servicing encourages growth...so don't do this without very careful strategic planning and assessment.

No Water servicing encourages sprawl. Out-of-containment area growth should look rural, off-grid - not suburb.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 420

No

Water servicing leads to dramatic expansion of population and to the number and size of houses, as we've seen in some of the communities mentioned. A significant sector of this increase has been driven by land speculation and absent owners, neither of which advance the keystone initiative of having a "greater share of the population living in complete communities".

No Water servicing to rural areas encourages urban sprawl.

No Water servicing will encourage urban sprawl outside of the urban containment boundary. We already have too much of this.

No We do not want further water service to East Sooke or our rural areas, water will bring development.

No We do not want to encourage development outside the more populated areas.

No We have to limit growth. We have to increase population density.

No We need to be reducing building development to preserve our existence on the planet.

No We need to contain urban sprawl but halting the incremental creep of services into wilderness, rural and agricultural lands.

No We need to do everything we can to keep growth within the growth centres.

No We need to keep the boundaries. It's hard to resist the pressure, but we need to start thinking on century-level timescales.

No We need to protect our rural areas - this is one way to achieve this - the general existing public should not be paying to encourage farmland etc. development.

No We still have to determine. This needs to occur first. How to deal with existing water services. This needs to occur first.

No Wells are fine.

No Wells work, so did septic fields, so did the high rises in James Bay, so did the rail on Douglas, you want change then you go back to the old, why change in the first place. Reduce gov first.

No

WHAT “alternative measures” can the survey mean? Short of rewriting OCPs and Land Use Bylaws to increase minimum densities in Rural Settlement Areas from their sprawl-inducing current low levels, such ”alternative measures” are hard to imagine. Lack of water where water tables are inadequate, and refusal to grant access to piped supplies, are much better brakes on sprawl than “cost-recovery” (especially when this would probably be subsidized by access to highly preferential local government borrowing rates, underwritten by local governments).

No What about rain water harvesting and conservation and efficiency measures. Expanding coverage depends a lot on ground water resources and percability.

No When do we reach optimum growth? There has to be an end at some point, and I think we have already reached it.

No Why encourage more sprawl?

No Why would expand our infrastructure burden when we can't maintain the roads, pipes, sewers and bridges we have already built?

No Why would we promote growth by the provision of water to areas that are outside of the current growth management boundaries?

No You have to leave some land for wildlife/forests/agriculture. Concentrate development/services in the urban core.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 421

No

Zoning in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area needs to be updated before considering any extension of waterlines in our area. The present zoning predates the incorporation of Sooke and doesn't adequately support the communities' vision re density as described in OCPs. The mantra has been to, "Let zoning and not the Urban Containment Boundary determine where water should go." So, zoning first; maybe waterline extensions next.

Yes As long as "Official community plans place clear caps on subdivision and development potential and Recipients of water services pay the full cost of any pipes or other infrastructure components."

Yes ...with emphasis on ALTERNATIVE MEASURES, including rainwater harvesting considered in a really big and important way, even with subsidies in place of payment for infrastructure upgrades.

Yes Absolutely. Why should residents in these areas have to rely on potentially unsafe water sources?

Yes Absolutely. You talk of growth but are unwilling to provide any services to encourage it.

Yes Access to clean, potable water should be available to all, where practical.

Yes

All households should have access to safe water. This does not necessarily mean the CRD water supply as there are many local providers and improvement districts. There are also wells and cisterns. I believe connecting to a water distribution system is a cost and economic question. However, there should be strong alternative measures to inhibit habitation growth in rural areas.

Yes All people need viable water sources, however, innovative water collection should be explored in the rainforest west coast.

Yes Anticipated population growth Hoped for industrial growth (you wanted more jobs, right?).

Yes As long as a balance of commercial and residential development is maintained and preventing commercial development that is disproportionately water dependent...

Yes As long as there is full cost recovery, yes.

Yes

As long as these new areas used working septic tanks, I see no problem with this. A septic tank system ensures the lot size must be large. However, not Port Renfrew - unless the water came from local sources. Piping from the central reservoir is too expensive and too damaging to the environment.

Yes

As mentioned earlier, construction is a local industry. This industry has to be sustainable. We can't build houses for the sake of construction jobs and real estate sales and then leave the new residences high and dry. Or low and flooded, but that is another problem. So, a robust and forward looking assessment of water supply for rural development outside the present GVWS service area is part of this equation. Island Health may be the party responsible for this?? The CRD working with the province also needs to protect surface water, ground water and aquifers. Basically, no expansion of the "regional" water system unless it matches the planned expansion of transportation routes or unless it serves existing rural residences and users pay.

Yes Basic need that needs to be cautiously managed and shared.

Yes Because some areas on wells are now subjected to development that didn't exist in the past.

Yes Believe in equal access to healthy water - but not sure it can be fully cost recovered ...

Yes But alternative measures to limit development in rural areas have to be meaningful.

Yes But EXTREMELY cautiously. See comments I mistakenly provided in one-previous box.

Yes But only if such servicing includes more protected green spaces; not if it will service and encourage sprawl.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 422

Yes Clean drinking water is a "right", not a privilege granted by planners or politicians. Density should be controlled through OCP's and not water. Same as Metchosin.

Yes

Clean safe water should be available to all. However choosing to live in a remote area should not obligate society to supply all amenities to make life as comfortable and affordable as possible. Given my possibly conflicting statements I do believe clean water is a right as long as it doesn't lead to uncontrolled development in inappropriate areas. Sorry about the above as I'm pretty sure this won't help you develop a clear policy but it's a difficult question on many levels. Maybe each request for water has to be dealt with individually based on need.

Yes Clearing out unsafe, small water systems. Only if cost effective. Not necessarily with Sooke Lake water though.

Yes Climate change may have an impact on these areas that we are not able to predict.

Yes Continued growth outside the growth management boundaries is inevitable. There's revenue to be made and there will likely be greater need in the future.

Yes Cost must be picked up by whoever is doing there improvements, not sloughed off to the other Municipalities.

Yes Cost-recovery measures would have to be much more clearly defined and whether there is an opt-out for individual households.

Yes Cost-recovery required from the users.

Yes Definitely only subject to the alternative measures. However probably a good public health move.

Yes Don’t know.

Yes

DROP THE LAST SENTENCE STARTING WITH SUBJECT TO FULL COST RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT GROWTH IN RURAL AREAS! People have bought land or lots in the rural areas, pay taxes on this land, took out building permits to build houses, only to find out that there is not enough ground water. Why should they be denied water from community water systems at a fair cost. When I hooked up to the power grid I did not have to pay all the way back to the source .Therefore there is no need to charge people that need water the full cost of the line ,they will be paying monthly for that water for as long as the use it just as we all do for electricity.

Yes Ecosystem factors.

Yes Emphasis on full cost recovery and alternative measures to limit development growth in those areas.

Yes Enhancing a policy to allow for potential growth and complexity is prudent and lessons learned in the process may reap benefits now.

Yes Even rural areas need water service, growth aside, to maintain existing systems, and provide for visitor use (viz. parks).

Yes Full service recovery a must.

Yes Ground water is not infinite. Many homes in rural B.C. have no groundwater available.

Yes Having accessible water is important especially if these areas are growing.

Yes Hopefully to control use?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 423

Yes

I am on the fence on this one. Certainly places which have contaminated or inadequate aquifer water need other alternatives. Climate change is altering the aquifer distribution, especially during summer months, where some are drying out are not feeding as they used to. The CRD needs to be aware of this as demand may develop from areas now not served. Also, as mentioned before, those of us in areas without hydrants or stand pipes pay considerably for our home insurance for not having full fire protection, and in fact some house insurance companies will not insure such homes. However, municipal water leads to building and industrial expansion, which might not be beneficial for some areas. That is why I am not decided.

Yes I guess so.

Yes I like the idea of full cost recovery - what a concept! Why not do this for lots of other areas, too. We need to pay for the actions we take - in real terms.

Yes I really have no idea.

Yes I see no reason why Port Renfrew, for instance, should not enjoy sewerage.

Yes I think every citizen on this planet, no matter where they live, should be entitled to clean, free water.

Yes I think it is important that there be feed back to our leaders.

Yes I think it’s fair for everyone to have access to decent water. Just because there is water doesn't mean development. That is ridiculous! That’s like saying if there is hydro lines going by there will be development!

Yes I think it's helpful to manage water regionally and to offer the service.

Yes If it results in efficiencies for the system as a whole and measures are put in place to ensure it does not incentivize further growth outside the growth management boundaries.

Yes If there are areas suitable for building, that do not encroach on agricultural needs, then the answer is Yes.

Yes If they can afford to pay for the infrastructure without cost to other Municipalities.

Yes

If we can reduce water use in the CRD such that we have extra to sell to other regions, and which won't incur the need for the CRD to expand regional water supply areas or reservoirs, then we should look at water servicing agreements that could be a source of income for the CRD.

Yes If you are going to allow clean water you must also offer sewage service along with it otherwise they will pollute the environment with chemicals, pharmaceuticals, toxins and microplastics.

Yes If you can quarantine full cost recovery. The public is disappointed to see that successful conservation has expend up costing us more! That discourages people from being environmentally responsible if their successful efforts are punished by higher costs.

Yes In East Sooke water should be extended to ensure that water is available and pressure is adequate for firefighting (only).

Yes IN TEN YEARS NOTHING WILL BE DONE. THE FAST BUCK SYSTEM IS HERE.

Yes

It is unclear if whether or not these communities are having difficulty getting their water elsewhere. If this is the case, then of course water, as a basic human right, should be extended to these areas. Additionally, if the cost of water would be too high if water lines were not extended, then they should be extended beyond the boundaries. If water lines are being requested for convenience and there are other, local and affordable options that would allow water to be brought in, then these should be encouraged.

Yes It should be expanded based on recovery model and demand. Environmental improvements such as forest management, farm management, etc. should delay need to replace ground water sources.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 424

Yes It's the 21st century and we live in Canada.

Yes Limiting growth should be a high priority.

Yes Makes sense to coordinate with neighbouring municipalities.

Yes No Comments.

Yes Only if those area's want it.

Yes Only if those provisions are absolutely maintained. This cannot make further sprawl possible.

Yes Probably a good idea since so many wells fail and health is an issue.

Yes Recent fire at Otter Point points to the need to have water service available.

Yes Reservoir water or well water?

Yes Restricting water servicing places an unreasonable restriction on growth in certain areas.

Yes

Safe drinking water is important... not so sure about throwing it onto grass or washing cars... Subject to cost recovery YES!! BUT so often developers will use this to get around the urban containment boundary... so use sewers restrictions to limit rural growth development, and loss of farm land.

Yes Seems more efficient. Must still have ways to limit development beyond containment though.

Yes Sounds o.k.

Yes Supply and demand; from what I read earlier in the survey and in the media, water consumption is down, so, supply to more people in the CRD.

Yes Support water servicing but NOT liquid waste systems which permit densification of rural communities.

Yes That's ridiculous and flies in the face of a sustainability strategy.

Yes The alternative would be what?...

Yes The availability of water and wastewater disposal should not be the limiting factor of growth. Engineering is not a tool for steering growth, policy is. The rural areas have to be legally protected with appropriate laws and covenants.

Yes The capital region has more capacity to manage water quality and distribution than smaller communities.

Yes The CRD already supplies water services to the gulf islands, why not port Renfrew, etc. It gives those areas a n increased investment in our community.

Yes The growing population needs to live somewhere.

Yes The use of groundwater for residential use is not a good idea in semi urban areas. But Port Renfrew is too far. Stop at otter point.

Yes There are too many areas (i.e. Otter Point) where the current available water supply does not meet drinking water standards. These areas should be a priority for new water servicing to reduce reliance on bottled water sources, which are much less sustainable.

Yes There has to be some "carrot" to offer to these communities to limit development.

Yes There is non arable land in those areas that are good for development.

Yes There should be adequate water servicing, wherever people are living. Offset by appropriate efficiencies, they don't need to increase overall usage.

Yes This doesn't really affect me so I don't have much of an opinion... I guess it depends on the necessity of water conservation in our region and how aggressively we want to promote rainwater capture and greywater recycling in rural areas.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 425

Yes This is a difficult question as servicing often leads to increased pressure to develop. Any possible extension to servicing should be dealt with on an individual proven need with all other possible alternatives fully explored. Living in an unserviced area is usually by choice.

Yes This looks like a realistic compromise to permit sustainable growth without encouraging developer driven, irresponsible sprawl.

Yes This makes so much sense for just firefighting purposes alone.

Yes Though some believe water is the crack in the door to urban sprawl I don't think water should be tied to zoning. The areas listed above still are on septic systems and I think the rezoning and subdivision should be based on sewage and grey water.

Yes Under the conditions set out for expansion, better planning could be expected from those smaller communities. But, regional growth should continue to respect the natural assets of the region as its primary limiting factor.

Yes Water and waste issues need to be dealt with in all growth areas. They are one of the greatest challenges of our generation.

Yes Water can control growth, responsible water management by the CRD is something I expect.

Yes Water is a fundamental right. If it is currently not offered and citizens have another system, that is fine, but if this current system won't allow for additional withdrawal by incoming citizens in new housing, this housing should not be considered.

Yes

Water servicing should be decided primarily on economic and environmental cost benefit analysis. For example, restrictions that encourage or force property owners to use groundwater from wells that could be harmful instead of allowing them to use Sooke Lake water that is safe, abundant and affordable actually have the unintended effect of harming rather than helping, if the use of water is otherwise consistent with regional and local goals.

Yes Water should be available to those who need it in pre-existing homes, but not to support further sprawl.

Yes

We have a number of areas outside of the urban containment boundary to the west of Sooke that are not wilderness and could house a lot of people. In absence of making these areas be available for more housing, the public will continue to move to the Cowichan valley and commute over the Malahat.

Yes Western communities are @ risk of contaminated wells & surface water as industry & population increases.

Yes Yes but only under strict and enforceable control.

Yes Yes, BUT, subject to NO further development which will ever require further consumption pressures on the current CRD water system.

Yes Yes, why shouldn't the outlying areas not receive the same service as everyone else. In ground wells are drying up in those areas.

Yes You must ensure this does not cause water costs to rise any further! They have already risen way way faster than rate of inflation (or average wage increases) in the 16 years we have been in the CRD.

Don't know enough to answer this one.

I don't have expertise to comment on this.

I don't know.

I don't know enough about this issue to comment.

I don't know.

I don't know. It depends...


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 426

I have no idea. Don't understand enough about it to comment.

I really don't know.

If you do that then you'd better make sure there would be enough water. Back in these pages there was something about not upsizing or upgrading the water supply (maybe I've got that wrong) Should be doing this in the morning when my mind is sharper and I don't want to have a nap.

No opinion, based on the info. presented.

Not sure.

Not sure. Would need additional information.

Perhaps once the electorate have some things fully explained to them, this would be one example of how people could vote on this - and other questions - at the ballot box during an election.

Possibly, it depends what it costs.

Sewage services should be provided at the same time as water services! At the end the black water has to go somewhere, too!

Should the water servicing policy be changed to allow for potential water servicing beyond the current growth management boundaries to accommodate water serve throughout all municipalities and to Otter Point, East Sooke, and Port Renfrew in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, subject to full cost recovery and alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas? Access to water is a fundamental human right for those already here and who are not able to obtain water from any other source but should not be used to spawn urban development that would contribute to urban sprawl and undermine the strong message reiterated in the RSS- the containment of growth within compact complete communities and the supporting green infrastructure. Other issues 2. Selection Forestry Promoting selection forestry Merc Wilkinson’s Sustainable Selection Forestry By Tisha Wilkinson Sustainable selection forestry is a method of managing the forest and harvesting forest products in a manner that conserves forest ecosystems. This method of forestry is a valuable tool and management practice to help ensure we retain for the future the forest resource opportunities we have today. Manage the forest for diversity. This involves maintaining a mixed species forest. The benefits of maintaining a mixed species forest are: Healthy and varied bird populations, which control/prevent insect infestations, Improved soil quality, Soil building species such as alder add nitrogen to the soil, humus building species, such as maple shed leaves that protect soil from evaporation and provides essential organic matter Encourage natural seeding. Identify and leave seed (parent) trees. Parent trees are those that are healthy; demonstrate strong growth, free of genetic defects, and producers of good quality cones. Selective Harvests. Select individual candidate trees to harvest in order to: maintain species diversity, maintain forest stand health, maintain forest stand structure including mixed species and ages, manipulate the forest canopy to encourage and protect productive natural regeneration Sustainable Harvest. Never harvest more timber than the annual growth rate of the timber. Determine and monitor the growth rate as represented by the number of cubic meters of growth per hectare per year. This is used as the basis for the maximum annual allowable cut. Protect forest capital during harvest. Harvesting activities during bird nesting season may be disruptive to bird population. Compaction of soils may occur more easily during certain seasons when the soil is saturated by rainfall. The drop zone must be carefully considered in order to minimize damage to surrounding trees and seedlings. Methods of extracting the fallen tree from the drop zone must be considered prior to felling the tree. The more difficult to extract, the more damage that the surrounding fauna could sustain during the extraction process. Minimizing the collateral damage is key. Protection of soils. Methods of extracting fallen trees should be well planned and executed in order to prevent soil erosion and compaction. Ensure that the top, branches, leaves, needles, rotten wood and unusable portions of the trunk remain on the forest floor so that they are left to rot and contribute to the improvement of the soil. 3. Ending the destruction of traditional deer habitat and co-existing with deer in the CRD I am surprised that this


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 427

issue was not raised. It would have been an opportunity to estimate public support for alternatives to the cull which is now being done in Oak Bay. Oak Bay should not be infamous for culling the deer to save the roses. The current cull in Oak Bay should be terminated and a pilot project of use of Spay vac should be initiated in the event that a reduction of population might be advisable Citizens should be encouraged to plant crops that the deer do not eat and erect fences in key areas. Better placed deer crossing signs ought to be erected in vulnerable areas. The CRD had made the following non-binding recommendations which unfortunately were not followed. 1. Increased signage 2. Reduced speed limits in deer crossing paths 3. Public education 4. To do an accurate deer count In the future after all the recommendation were acted, if a deer count warrants deer population reduction, a program of contraception should to be implemented. Given the cruelty of the cull, it should never be used. Their habitat has been permitted to be destroyed, and as a result they have migrated to the human settlements; citizens should learn to co-exist with the deer. 4. Coordination with First Nations The integrity of the RSS can be strengthened by First Nations participation in the plan development process on a government-to-government basis of mutual respect, cooperation and collaboration. The CRD is committed to striving towards a sustainable future that includes a continuous process of shared learning and collaboration with First Nations to advance initiatives that support mutual interests. To strengthen First Nations Participation, the RSS should acknowledge The UN legally binding Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Given that this declaration has been almost universally adopted, the provisions have the status of being international peremptory norms Article 2 Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Article 3 Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 4 indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions. Article 5 indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state. Article 7 7.1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person. 7.2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group. Article 8 States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: (a) any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b) any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; Article 9 Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. no discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right. Article 10 indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. no relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return. Article 11 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. Article 12 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains. 2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 428

ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned. Article 13 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means. Article 14 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the state without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language. Article 15 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information. 2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society. Article 16 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that state-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity. Article 17 1. Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy fully all rights established under applicable international and domestic labour law. 2. States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, taking into account their special vulnerability and the importance of education for their empowerment. 3. Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or salary. Article 18 Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. Article 19 states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Article 20 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities. 2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress. Article 21 1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. 2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities. For full declaration see http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10079:united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples&catid=74:ijustice-news&Itemid=216 5. Imperative to have Collaboration among Municipalities AN EXAMPLE BOWKER CREEK 100 YEAR PLAN The Bowker Creek Watershed Management Plan (2003) guides all activities undertaken by the Bowker Creek Initiative. Ten key actions have been identified as important first


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 429

steps for municipalities and other land stewards in the next Three to five years, as follows (see Section 6 for details): 1. Review and revise municipal plans to include Bowker Creek goals and actions 2. Adopt requirements to reduce effective impervious area for new developments. 3. Remove specific invasive species beginning to colonize the watershed.4 4. Complete a pilot project to locate and build a demonstration rainwater infiltration/retention structure in each municipality. 5. .Support development of an urban forest strategy in Oak Bay to complement those underway in Saanich and Victoria. 6. Develop a strategy to acquire key properties as they come available. 7. Work with Oak Bay High School to design and implement creek restoration on school district property. 8. Participate in the Shelburne Valley Action Plan process to identify current and future opportunities for creek restoration, rainwater infiltration and/or greenway development. 9. Work with creek-side landowners between Pearl and Trent Streets to achieve the long-term vision. 10. .Continue with restoration at Browning Park. 6. Supporting the right to a healthy environment being enshrined in the constitution See Council of Victoria Declaration http://www.vicnews.com/news/286138241.html 7. Re-instating and expanding Environmental Education in the school system in BC I believe that RSS should come out in support of environmental education in the schools in BC. It appears that, at the moment, there is little environmental education in the classrooms. While education is a responsibility of the provincial government, the CRD should work with the Ministry of Education to ensure that environmental education has a prominent role in the education of BC students. 8 Encouraging Divestment in funds that invest in socially inequitable and ecologically unsound practices Investments must be only in funds that have both a positive and negative screens that would comply with the stated vision of the promoting of socially equitable and environmentally sound renewable energy and transit. It would be unconscionable to invest in the greenhouse gas industries and the automobile industry while advocating a bold vision for addressing climate change. Encourage investment in socially equitable and environmentally sound renewable energy, transportation, and socially responsible ventures. 7. Nomination of UN Biosphere Reserve I believe that nominating the CRD fits well into the vision of the RSS Target Within 3 years, compile background information to apply for the CRD Application for a UN Biosphere Reserve Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal/marine ecosystems, or a combination thereof, which are internationally recognized within the framework of UNESCO's Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB) They are established to promote and demonstrate a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere. Biosphere reserves are designated by the International Coordinating Council of the MAB Programme at the request of the State concerned. Individual biosphere reserves remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of the State where they are situated. Collectively, all biosphere reserves form a World Network in which participation by States is voluntary. (I) Applying the1972 UN Convention on the Protection of Natural and Cultural and Natural Heritage http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf Under the 1972 UN Convention on the Protection of Natural and Cultural heritage sites that are identified as being of universal value are protected (ii) (iii) Implementing Parks Protected Areas and the Human Future: the Caracas Declaration The Caracas Declaration was adopted by over fifteen hundred leaders and participants at the Fourth World Congress on national parks and Protected Areas. (Feb. 1992). http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10073:failure-of-bc-to-abide-by-the-caracas-declaration&catid=89:bc-earth-news&Itemid=213 (iv) BC Government’s Commitment to abide by the 1992 Caracas Declaration In a letter dated March, 1992, from both the Provincial Ministry of Forests and the Provincial Ministry of Environment is the following commitment As we, in BC Parks and BC Forest Service begin to work on implementing our components of B.C.'s protected areas under the aegis of the Commission on Resources and Environment, we will be mindful of this Declaration [Parks Protected Areas and the Human Future: the Caracas Declaration] and its implications. Our objective will be to have a system of protected areas which we are proud to present to the world. Through this intention to be "mindful of this Declaration" the Provincial Government of B.C. through its Ministries of Environment and Forests has recognized the Caracas Declaration and the UN Resolution 37/7 (1982) World Charter for Nature. B.C’s endorsement of the Caracas Convention) and in its participation in the Caracas Congress commits BC to "move from logging old growth to second growth" (Report on


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 430

implementation requirements of the Caracas Declaration, Mar. 1992) Other recommendations By the Caracas Congress on means to fulfill the Caracas Declaration 3.2. Conserving Biodiversity The congress urgently requested that all countries urgently undertake surveys to identify additional sites of critical importance for conservation of biological diversity, and wherever possible, accord total protection to them. Harvesting should be relocated from primary to secondary forests and tree plantations in previously deforested areas; or - where this is not possible - sustainable forest harvesting systems which favour natural species diversity should be developed and introduced. p 8 3.3. Conservation on a regional scale Protected areas have sometimes been seen as islands of nature and tranquility, surrounded by incompatible land uses. But the congress made it clear that such an "island mentality" is fatal in the long run. The congress recognized that it is unlikely that protected areas will be able to conserve biodiversity if they are surrounded by degraded habitats that limit gene-flow alter nutrient and water cycles and produce regional and global climate change that may lead to the final disappearance of these "island parks". Protected areas therefore need to be part of broader regional approaches to land management. The term bioregion was used to describe extensive areas of land and water which include protected areas and surrounding lands, preferably including complete watersheds, where all agencies and interested parties have agreed to collaborative management. Recommendation 3 Global efforts to conserve biological diversity. "the loss of biodiversity has reached crisis proportion and if present trends continue up to 25 % of the world's species may be sentenced to extinction or suffer severe genetic depletion in the next several decades, accompanied by equally significant and alarming degradation of habitats and ecosystems. This loss of biological diversity is impoverishing the world of its genetic resources, its species, habitats and ecosystems. All species deserve respect, regardless of their usefulness to humanity. This Principle was endorsed by the UN Assembly when it adopted the World Charter for nature in 1982. The loss of the living richness of the planet is dangerous, because of the environmental systems of the world support all life, and we do not know which are the key components in maintaining their essential functions. The IVth World Congress on national Parks and Protected Areas recommends that: a) governments make the protection of biological diversity, including species and habitat richness, representativeness and scarcity, a fundamental principle for the identification, establishment, management and public enjoyment of national parts and other protected areas; b) all countries urgently undertake surveys to identify additional sites of critical importance for conservation of biological diversity and wherever possible, accord total protection to them Harvesting should be relocated from primary to secondary forests and tree plantations in previous deforested areas; or, where this is not possible, sustainable forest harvesting systems which favour natural species diversity should be developed and introduced: p. 30 Recommendation 4: Entitled legal regimes for protected areas. Protected areas require a mutually reinforcing system of international and national environmental law for their establishment, maintenance and management. International treaties establish a harmonized set of obligations with regard to areas within national jurisdictions and activities having effect beyond national jurisdictional boundaries. These obligations must be reflected in national legislation; otherwise, the treaties cannot be implemented. In turn, innovative national legislation provides a basis and impetus for further international law. The dynamic interaction between the two levels is thus conducive to further progress. p. 31 (iii) Abiding by the Convention on Biological Diversity In the RSS there are statements related to biodiversity such as maintain biodiversity, biodiversity conservation, biodiversity protection, and ensure biodiversity. There is no mention that BC is bound to discharge obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention was endorsed by the BC is the following: In the Preamble of the CBD is the precautionary principle which reads; Where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat In the operational clause is the following obligations: Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, in particular for the purposes of Articles 8 to 10: (a) Identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use having regard to the indicative list of categories set down in Annex I; (b) Monitor, through sampling and other techniques, the components of biological diversity identified pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, paying particular


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 431

attention to those requiring urgent conservation measures and those which offer the greatest potential for sustainable use; (c) Identify processes and categories of activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and monitor their effects through sampling and other techniques; and (d) Maintain and organize, by any mechanism data, derived from identification and monitoring activities pursuant to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above. (j) To respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (iv) Applying the 1992 World Charter of Nature principles: Convinced that :( a) every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action, All species deserve respect, regardless of their usefulness to humanity... The loss of the living richness of the planet is dangerous, because of the environmental systems of the world support all life, and we do not know which are the key components in maintaining their essential functions. (v) Strengthening enforcement under the Species at Risk Act and registry and IUCN red and blue lists 9. Extended parks 5.1.5 Extend the Regional Parks Land Acquisition Fund beyond 2019. 5.1.6 Collaborate with the public, private and non-profit organizations to identify areas of interest identified in the Regional Parks Strategic Plan and to develop strategies that support biodiversity protection and contribute to a regional ecological connectivity network. Also I support the following 5.1.10 Adopt OCPs for the JdF EA that: identify policies to work with the province and private landowners to protect land identified as sensitive ecological areas, and as areas of interest in the Regional Parks Strategic Plan; and ensure the long-term protection of Capital Green Lands shown in Map 7: Capital Green Lands and Blue Spaces Core Area. Local municipalities agree to identify the relationship between their OCP and the following actions in their RCS: 5.1.11 Locate Capital Green Lands consistently with Map 7: Capital Green Lands and Blue Spaces Core Area. Local municipalities are requested to: 5.1.12 Participate in a collaborative process to implement the Green/Blue Spaces Strategy for marine areas identified as Blue Space Core Area Policy Area on Map 7: Capital Green Lands b

Sounds a bit suspect...need to inform myself.

Subject to cost recovery. We already pay a lot. BE MORE efficient.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter strongly opposes the extension of water servicing beyond current growth management boundaries in the CRD. The primary way to maintain effective growth management is to limit both sewer and water servicing. It is well proven that once servicing is extended into rural areas, zoning follows and densification occurs on a case-by-case basis. There is no justification for extending servicing within the context of a regional sustainability strategy that is focusing on decreasing GHGs, creating compact complete communities, and connecting the green infrastructure of the region. Plentiful opportunities exist to accommodate development in serviced areas. The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter appreciates this opportunity to provide its views on the CRD’s Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS). We also wish to acknowledge the â€˜Consortium on Regional Sustainability’ for its Sample Regional Sustainability Feedback Form Answer, which provided us with much useful information and analysis as we developed our responses to the Draft RSS.

This one is complex and not well thought out The Kemp Lake Waterworks district comes to mind and Port Renfrew. There are probably many more.

Unsure.

What the fuck are you asking. Have your survey proof read first. Assholes.

Why would you want to limit growth in rural areas? If that's where people want to live, who are you to tell them that option is limited?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 432

PART E: GENERAL COMMENTS a) Do you have any further comments on part or all of the draft RSS?

1. I do not see any plan for the improved management of wastewater. While I understand that developing the infrastructure for sewage treatment that goes beyond simple 'dumping in the ocean', it seems to me that such measures are inherent in our efforts to mitigate climate change and protect our coastal ecosystems. Please strongly consider a regional sewage treatment plan that serves to address this problem. Our methods of sewage disposable are outdated and, frankly, outrageous. 2. Nowhere in this plan was there mention of the restoration of natural areas, although improved connectivity of ecosystems and protection of nature is a great first step. Please keep in mind that a lot of the ecosystems we wish to connect and protect are severely degraded and will require huge amounts of effort to address. In the CRD, restoration efforts are carried out, to a large degree, by willing volunteers. This can continue, though support from the CRD and its sub-level governance bodies would be a huge help in this area. I respect that the CRD places importance on our native ecosystems, though I believe that efforts to increase their health and abundance MUST be made. 3. I am extremely impressed by the emphasis placed on enhancing local food systems. In any future updates to this plan, please keep in mind that this is a key area to continue to address. Thank you for your allowance of public participation in this process.

The emphasis of the RSS on addressing the issues of climate change is fantastic. We all have to step up and take part in making the necessary changes. If these changes are well planned, they could result in an increase in real living standards for all. Your workforce numbers are no longer current as the federal government has raised the retirement age to 67 for 2023. The Keystone Initiatives show the vision needed to take the CRD into the future. The complete community concept can go a long way to addressing many issues including clean energy, sustainable transportation, healthy living and senior care. Seniors who engage in their communities and can walk to facilities are healthier and happier. All members of well planned communities will benefit. Changing the transportation emphasis to LRT and other public transit and away from private vehicles especially fossil fuel, look at subsidizing public transit more heavily, even free, to encourage ridership. Provide better Park and Ride facilities and make Victoria core private and commercial vehicle-free. Provide alternative transportation in core region. Why are we not looking at alternative waste management systems for our sewage? Wastewater treatment lagoons and ponds are a low tech and highly viable alternative to the expensive, wasteful solutions currently being suggested for the Victoria region. They are being used around the world including in other municipalities in Canada where high tech solutions have become too expensive to maintain. They allow a distributed system that can be integrated into urban parks. It is critical to aim for as much food security within the region as possible. This requires the protection of farmlands and promoting community gardens and even urban commercial agriculture as is becoming a movement in many countries. Green space is essential for healthy communities and for hazard mitigation. As climate change progresses the danger from flooding will increase. We must move away from developments that destroy wetlands as has happened in Langford region and realize these areas are critical to absorb heavy rainfall. We must also protect the biodiversity of our communities. Active promotion of clean energy through grants and other incentives. Actively assist homeowners, businesses and communities to become energy self-sufficient. This is now possible through current technologies available. It will not only help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but distributed systems can help to mitigate the consequences of major disasters. 67,282 Canadians have joined their local movement and 16 municipal governments have passed declarations recognizing the right to fresh air, clean water, and healthy food. How about the CRD? As part of the RSS we should sign on to the Blue Dot Plan as promoted by David Suzuki in his recent cross-country tour. http://bluedot.ca/ - http://bluedot.ca/the-plan/.

Add light rail.

Again, make sure that there is a clear implementation program (including relevant studies) with timeline, and commitment to monitor and update. Make sure that there are teeth in enforcement. The provisions for making "minor" revisions in the Growth Containment area in the current draft are mostly an open invitation to allowing sprawl through spot zoning. Encourage the Board and Municipalities to get serious about the big issues, even if it means stepping hard on toes of everyone until this sprawling ship is turned around.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 433

Again, set out a BOLD VISION ... for non-vehicle transport, electric cars, waste reduction, environmental stewardship, local agriculture, jobs in renewable energy the people of the CRD want it and will support it.

Aiming higher and not meeting the targets is better than aiming low and barely reaching them.

All in all, a commendable document and good first crack at these issues that affect all of us.

All the fees, water, utilities, huge municipal/CRD staff, is draining taxpayer, making life unaffordable. Smaller is better.

As it goes through the stakeholder engagement process, please don't erode a relatively strong Sustainability Strategy into just a follow-on Growth Strategy - the region and its future residents will need a strong sustainability strategy in place to be in a position to manage and hopefully thrive in the face of climate change. It is the least we can do for them now.

As mentioned, you need to fix the website to allow for people to take their time to respond to the verbatim portions of this survey instead of having them time out and lose everything. I will try to submit another survey with my full responses, if you haven't made that too difficult, but in the meantime, I think this has been very badly designed from an IT point of view. I think you will find it causes people to not provide thoughtful commentary.

Balanced transportation investment REQUIRES cooperation between municipalities in order to partner with the Province of BC and Federal Government to get infrastructure funding for much-needed projects. The current sewage treatment debacle is telling those two governments that we don't know how to spend their money effectively. This cannot continue.

Be bold, this is not a time for pussyfooting around and trying to please everyone. Those that believe serious change is not necessary need to get out of the way.

Beware of biting off more than you can chew.

Climate change and the ability of disadvantaged citizens to cope with the impacts of severe weather and disruption in natural cycles need to be the focus of what we do over the next 5 years in this region. We have the chance to go green with energy production and efficiency campaigns while building a robust and respectful community that pays workers well for doing the work that needs doing, while elevating our homeless and disabled out of third class status by providing affordable housing and a living wage to provide life with dignity, supported and powered by local renewable energy and local food.

Costs to ratepayers must be a factor.

CRD governance should be strengthened relative to municipalities, and include provision of all services, police, emergency, fire protection in urban areas, leaving municipalities to deal with land use issues within context of RSS.

Do not allow Central Saanich to use the current RSS draft as a means of increasing the Urban Containment and industrial areas, without having any public process or required OCP prior to putting this significant change to the CRD. The Central Saanich proposal should be rejected outright, and sent back to the people of Central Saanich for a proper and correct process before it is even considered for submission to the CRD.

Don't do it. Cut your advertising budget, most are wasted dollars.

Dream BIG Start SMALL Begin NOW.

Excellent work so far, especially for such a difficult, complex, and essential piece of work!

Fix the website. Blanked 4 times forcing me to restart.

Food security: "LOCAL" must not be interpreted to mean we can import off-island slaughter house functions onto the island. Otherwise we would clear-cut and pave vast new stretches of island habitat to graze and slaughter "LOCAL" animals just to maintain current levels of animal-dependent diets. Genuine food security means increasing locally grown organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and legumes, while sun setting animal-dependency in all its manifestations. 350,000+ CRD residents cannot eat 2-3 meals with animal products, necessitating off-island importation and factory-industrial slaughter conditions to maintain such high animal-consumption rates. Highly carbon-inefficient, an island based carbon-neutral food system must dramatically reduce the amount of flesh and flesh-based food now consumed.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 434

From a quick review, I congratulate those who have created a great document.

Goals are almost utopian, but I agree with them and will support politicians who back them.

Good construction of the strategy piece, you are moving in the right direction.

Good effort - well done!

Good effort! I hope the CRD Directors' efforts on their Strategic Plan can roll some of these topics in. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Good intent, providing the economy is stable.

Good job! I'm glad to see the CRD actively working on these issues.

Good job.

Good luck and keep working on it. Let's hope this does not end up in a circular file somewhere and that these goals are actually achieved.

Good start. Don't take so long to implement good ideas.

Great effort. Pleased to see the effort made to reduce carbon, be energy efficient, move to transit -- with core growth areas. Thanks for the support comments on CRD Parks, they are essential to our health, and the health of the landscape where we live.

Great start!

Growth projections in all areas need to be as accurate as possible.

I am concerned that the policies and actions proposed won't achieve the ambitious targets, as stated. I have yet to see a report out on the progress to date against the current regional growth strategy. Additionally, the draft of the strategy that has been posted doesn't include any detailed costing analysis. I would be very interested to see what analysis has been done, and know if it is at all realistic for the region to meet the ambitious targets that are being proposed within the RSS.

I am concerned that the Rural Resource lands (RRL) are not addressed specifically in this RSS. I would ensure that these lands are excluded from any development. Furthermore, a good portion of these lands need to be acquired as a climate change buffer. There has been extensive logging that has taken place on these lands. This is the time to ensure that trees are planted so that the trees play their vital role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The RRL Forest needs to remain as a forest in perpetuity with NO change in the existing boundary and NO new settlements in these lands, and NO change in the present 120 ha zoning. This forest has great potential for carbon storage and so keeping the RRL as a standing forest is one of the best things that CRD Citizens can do to address Climate Change. Also, that the CRD Green/Blue Strategy should be extended to the Rural Resource Lands.

I am disturbed that you have presented a re-classification of a community (East Sooke) from rural to a rural settlement area. I do not think my community knows you are even suggesting doing this. I saw nothing in The Rural Observer - the paper that services us.

I am happy that the CRD is employing a long-term strategy, and is setting out a road-map for environmental and community wellbeing.

I am pleased to see ambitious targets throughout the RSS: these need to be maintained, and in some cases if possible extended. However, of course the targets mean little unless capacity is devoted to realizing them, and this responsibilities rests firmly with municipalities, who need to step up to the plate on these challenges.

I am really impressed with this work. Now let's get it approved and start implementing it!

I am shocked but obviously not speechless. Completely overreaching and unrealistic, not to mention not representative of the entire CRD population. The CRD is catering to a limited but engaged minority with this document. Too bad most people are too lazy to pay attention.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 435

I am supportive of the proposed "Future growth area" as identified in Central Saanich. In a district with 60%+ of their land in the ALR they must be given areas for potential future growth to ensure the district remains financially sustainable while protecting the ALR lands.

I am very disappointed that after more than 5 years of work, that the public has such a short time frame to comment. I want you to extend the time frame so more citizens can provide their input.

I am very pleased to see the draft RSS take climate change so seriously. I think that it is an excellent document. Let's do it!

I am very relieved to see this happening and would actively promote any and all efforts in this direction. Well done. We need to do more though. 2040 is zero.

I applaud this initiative, and the general thrust of it, and based on the presentation I saw at a NS Council meeting in January, I have a lot of confidence in the CRD and its Directors, particularly Ms. Bagh. I look forward to the next round of community consultations.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns. We need to do everything we can to preserve this fantastic place we call home.

I appreciate the level of detail - I think access to opposing sides of each point - from researched, knowledgeable sources would greatly improve public input.

I appreciate your making this open for public comment, and comment you on the vision and targets you have set to date. I hope you'll make them even bolder.

I commend the CRD on the RSS and wish them luck in getting the various jurisdictions to buy into your vision. My comments are focused on the future growth area proposed for Central Saanich along Keating Cross Road to West Saanich Road as this directly affects me. Although this major change in my neighbourhood has been proposed by my municipal council I and many of my neighbours have never been directly contacted by our council. What information has been available appears to be contradictory. Some have said both before the last election and since that this will not proceed but at every opportunity to put a halt to this change or at least allow for more consultation and study it's been allowed to continue. This lack of information and conflicting messaging is a cause for a great deal of concern. Additionally, although the RSS is supposed to be a guideline for many decades ahead, if this proposed change is allowed it would appear that there is nothing to stop development happening in the near future simply by applying for a minor amendment. This proposed change in my area is supposedly for industrial growth. However it's plain to see from our present industrial park that business of a more commercial or retail nature often establish there. More likely for the visibility and lower cost compared to established retail areas. This fragmenting of retail explains, along with the general depressed economy, the many empty stores one sees in our commercial areas. Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that this proposal includes the area at Keating and West Saanich that our local Co-op and a previous council attempted to rezone for a commercial enterprise and which was opposed by the CRD, in part I believe because some or all of the land is in the ALR. This future growth area would lead to more commercial fragmentation and land speculation. Those tasked with planning for the future needs of our area predict the need for more industrial land in the decades ahead. Just as one would not expect any one area of the RSS to supply all of the low cost housing needs of the CRD Central Saanich should not be expected to accommodate more of the industrial needs of the future than our size and rural nature indicates. The present Butler gravel pit, approximately 60 plus acres, will be available for industrial use. If included with the vacant and underused land in our present industrial park, I believe this should be an adequate contribution from Central Saanich for the foreseeable future. One further comment regarding land speculation which I assume most people who believe in the principals of the RSS would agree with. Speculation is to be discouraged as it often leads to the degradation of the property through lack of any maintenance, often it would seem in the hopes that this will lead to a quicker rezoning. There have been and are examples of this on Keating already. This proposed future growth area, or pre-zoning, will encourage speculation. I have heard others describe re-zoning as akin to winning the lottery. I hope the RSS is being developed, in part, to prevent anyone gambling with our future. You may be aware that there is a proposal for the acquisition, by Central Saanich, of an area abutting this proposed future growth area. It's locally called Maber flats and seasonally floods making it unusable for agriculture. Maber flats is the natural collection area for much if not all of the drainage for the


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 436

area proposed for a future industrial park. Maber flats in turn drains into Hagen creek which flows into Saanich Inlet. The purpose of purchasing the Maber property is to turn it into a wetland and possibly would include building a large pond or small lake of several acres which would allow for the control of the water flow year round in Hagen creek. Although the best of intentions by man to control nature sometimes don't quite work out as planned the goal seems laudable. However if one considers the proposed new industrial area, and the drainage of our present industrial park, which also drains into Maber flats and combine that with the possible new lake one is left to wonder. Is this new lake for the benefit of birds and other local wildlife, including fish, or is it going to be a settling pond for contaminants from our present and future industrial park? If so this hardly seems to mesh with the goals of the RSS does it? To my knowledge contaminates in this case would settle but they wouldn't disappear. Is this something we want to leave to future generations to deal with? One final note regarding Maber flats. Last year there was an oil leak from a local paving company located in our present industrial park. Although the spill site was some distance from Maber flats the oil did drain into the present drainage ditches surrounding Maber flats. In conclusion I believe this future growth area proposal is simply a method to fast track development. If this area is left as is it will still be available for future development when and if it's needed. Why put more pressure on rural land now? If it's needed in the future for some other use it will be obvious and justifiable to the CRD and a future council at that time and shouldn't be a problem to change then. As long as we're guessing about the future needs of our community I think it's fair to let me make a prediction. Climate change, the high cost of transportation and the needs of people in their own communities could make the importation of many foods we now can afford and find easily available to be prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain. At that point even a small plot of land could be a viable farm. I invite anyone with an open mind to walk through this proposed future growth area before making any decision regarding its future.

I do not believe 'minor' changes should be allowed without public in-put. Changes have been made that our community did not want, and in fact voted against in previous elections. The present policy of allowing changes without public scrutiny is self-serving for politicians and planners. As a citizen with voting rights, I highly object to the CRD deciding how my community should be developed. That is for the citizens to decide.

I don't have any more energy in me for this. I will however, pray.

I found it difficult to set aside the time to complete this survey and I suppose that applies to many people. I have no quick suggestions on how to remedy this other than to, perhaps, allow users to more easily skip to a question of interest and then skip to the end.

I have already said all that I have to say. I wonder how many people will actually complete this ridiculous survey? Please give us some action instead of words. Thank you.

I have concerns with the document given that I do not think the CRD has resources in all the areas that have been identified in this document. I would hope that we will not be creating greater employment in the region by increasing the numbers of employees in the CRD to help us meet the targets identified in the RSS.

I have difficulty with fuzzy concepts like "Total Cost Accounting" The diagram in Objective 6 P101, misses points: traditional accounting misses Operating and Maintenance; total cost accounting misses environmental costs. Also how do you compare quantitative measures with qualitative ones. There are a lot of buzzwords in the document. There is a large emphasis on agriculture, very little on habitat, salmon, forest and wild harvest. In discouraging fragmentation of ALR. What about small farms, farm affordability In who may apply for an Amendment P109. Why only municipalities, What about the JDFEA, Otter Point, Shirley Jordan River, Port Renfrew, East Sooke, Malahat and Willis Point?

I have put a lot of effort into the comments on each question and would encourage them to be included as my response to this question as well.

I live aboard a boat and support a live aboard community. See bcnr.org. (Please) Since living aboard I have been able to stop using a car, exist on 30 amps of electrical power. Use and manage my fresh water at a rate of less than 50 gallons a week for two adults. And our home occupies less than 400 square feet. It is possible to need less and consume less while still living comfortably. Please consider this form of alternatives housing in your planning and make allowances for us. The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority is doing an excellent job of this now and could serve as a model for many other communities and locations within the CRD and beyond.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 437

I live in and my comments refer to the Future Growth Area (FGA) proposed by Central Saanich Council for the Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS). I think that designating this area as FGA is a completely unwarranted action, that is contrary to the whole focus of the RSS. We have many vacant buildings and lots in our existing commercial/industrial areas of Saanichton, Brentwood and Keating. Additionally the Butler gravel pit will provide 65 acres of industrial space in approximately five years. There is no need for us to plan so far into the future. If we do in fact have demand for industrial/commercial space in 20 years, I am quite sure the Council and CRD board of the day will be quite capable of dealing with that appropriately. We do not need to produce a supply when there is no demand. Another concern that I have is the probability of Real Estate speculation, leading to properties being purchased with the hope that they can be rezoned, then letting them slide into disrepair while they wait. The planned FGA amounts to pre zoning. I cannot see why so much should be sacrificed to pave the way for developers and speculators. I have been told that if this goes ahead, nothing will happen for 15-20 years if at all, but as far as I could tell from the documents there is no proviso that stipulates that it can't happen before a specific date or before other commercial areas are exhausted. Central Saanich municipality and the National conservancy are working together to purchase an area known locally as Maber flats and re-establish it as a wetland. This plan is laudable in my view and serves both to improve overall drainage in the area and provide valuable wildfowl habitat. However, the proposed area for the FGA drains directly into Maber Flats as does our present industrial park. I don’t believe that any development should be considered until the effects on the wetland are exhaustively studied. There are also many mature trees in the area which provide habitat for raptors and other wildlife.

I lost my original submission when the computer gobbled it up, so apologize for this haphazard attempt. Time constraints prevent further comments, so please email this back to me, and I’ll build on it later. Thank you.

I put my comments in the Vision section. Keep settlements compact No extension of water into rural areas Establish minimum densities before bare land sites within the GCA are built on. Affordable housing is only going to be achieved in compact complete communities. Any extension of the UCB/GCA must involve a regional assessment of achievement of density targets and where new development is most appropriate. Inadequately links land use and transportation. The proposed plan promotes rural sprawl in some areas. E.g. Rural Settlement Areas south east (East Sooke) and west of Sooke in the Juan de Fuca electoral area is (1) rural sprawl (2) behaves like a suburban reserve but without the services and affordability of transit/servicing. It should be rural resource land and protection. (e.g. Muir Creek) Recent and proposed OCP amendments support this rural sprawl. This appears to seriously contravene land use planning and the RSS. And the RGS. One last point. I have heard from many people that this survey was hard to complete on line, way too complex, not enough time given to submit and many other serious comments. Including why has there not been an open public meeting to discuss this proposed RSS so that more members of the public could have been informed and given the time to respond in an informed way. And with written submitted comments not on a computer. One other comment I have heard repeatedly is if you plan to hold the Public Hearing on the RSS in the middle of summer you will cut out the vast majority of the public. No major public hearings should be held in the summer months of July and August.

I really support the RSS, but I do not want it to facilitate densification in the residential neighbourhoods, especially the historic ones. We have built some beautiful neighbourhoods - we mustn't allow their precious tree canopy and green space to be destroyed by densification.

I support the general intent and approach. I believe that local government must focus resources and energies more directly on areas that it has jurisdiction and significant influence to actually achieve change, and spend significantly less time on areas of provincial and federal jurisdiction. My one main concern is the potential for this plan on GHG emissions to greatly disrupt traffic flow for a marginal increase in transit, bike and walking. This region is spread out, and the demands on work and family life make the car and important mode of transportation. Make driving less desirable will not translate into changes in behaviour in any significant numbers, but will serve to reduce the quality of life in the region.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 438

I think a small niche of farmland protectors, local environmentalists recognizing the need to protect and preserve within the CRD and local government watchdogs have heard about this survey... most others I know have not. And I suspect because the RGS was not well known and the RSS sounds dry and boring and irrelevant. I think there should have been community townhalls across the CRD discussing and advertising the survey. And a mail out to each household. As well an option for a short survey while pushing people where ever possible to complete the long survey. I will be interested to hear the level of citizen engagement on this very important survey.

I think I have expressed them in this survey. Thank you for this opportunity.

I think it is very difficult to ask people about targets, because setting the targets requires certain skill sets that most people don't have. The rationale or the thinking around the development of the targets (rather than the technical calculations) ought to be summarized to give people a better understanding of that rather than the actual value.

I think it should be left open longer. I just heard about today Feb. 11 and I don't think most people have had a chance to give feedback. I also hope there is another type of feedback for people who do not live on their computers. Normally I would have expected something to show up in my inbox, as I am pretty connected but I only saw this on a poster. I would like to tell more people about this but there is not much time.

I think the RGS and the RSS documents are far too restrictive and I have never supported them.

I think this is a good way to go - asking for input. It will need citizen support to reach the targets. They are admirable.

I think this survey is highly organized and well thought out.

I want to congratulate the CRD for taking on these targets and planning for a sustainable future.

I would like to also stress the importance of culture and the arts in our economic wellbeing.

I would like to be able to participate more directly in this process.... Until this point my attempts to communicate with my local officials has been met with disinterest, at best.... My contact information is: Leonard Allan 1672 McKenzie Avenue V8N1A5 250-721-0545 [email protected]

I would like to see the targets set for increasing food producing lands that are based on targets for local food production. I would like to see targets for infrastructure that supports food production.

I'd just like to wish you GOOD LUCK in reaching your targets....

If we want to achieve what's described in the vision statement, we need to take bigger steps. The status quo shouldn't determine the future of our region.

In a number of ways, it has goals that are unambitious compared to what is needed; I also have low expectations that the Capital Region can even meet targets proposed. It’s not clear that operational forestry is encouraged or merely something to be tolerated, even though it should be important to the local economy and is compatible with biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Under agriculture (2.3.3, p 73), it is stated that a land trust will be initiated for making farmland economically accessible. This has never received meaningful public discussion and it is unclear how it would work or who would pay. Instead, state that it will be considered as part of other tools to help make agriculture viable How far is the region from being sustainable at present? If we don't know, how do we know that any of the targets are meaningful?

In Central Saanich, there should be enough space available for industrial growth within the existing Keating industrial area if land was better utilized, especially once the gravel pit is cleared out and the old Mt Newton school demolished. I do not want to see the Keating area west of the industrial area become a future growth area. I would like to see cycling route infrastructure funded so that plans that the CRD developed can be put in place.

In general a good attempt for sustainability. The devil is in the details, so please be careful in how you go about implementing these ideas.

In general I feel the document needs to be edited to make it more readable to the broader population. I am a long term bureaucrat and even I found the document hard to read. Most people wouldn't even bother after the first five minutes of exposure. That being said, I'm glad to see the effort being made to address sustainability.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 439

In general it is not a very easy read, the language is often obtuse and vague and squishy which is maybe perfect for a bureaucracy but may not be helpful in achieving goals or in attempting to measure whether progress is even happening.

It appears that you are creating enough lifetime work for yourselves (CRD) and you seem to be assisting in the growth of government. What is the total cost of this survey when completed and the CRD payroll? How much does the CRD payroll/pensions/benefits increase per year?

It could: - have stronger limitations on development! - have more specific targets on park acquisition, and agriculture protection, such as protection within the GCA where land is most "at risk" - come up with a plan for supporting rural livelihoods, and farmers in food production, where it is extremely hard to make ends meet. - address the root causes of waste, and avoid unintended consequences such as illegal dumping on rural roads. - go after the big polluters when it comes to water conservation and waste production (such as retail shops for garbage, restaurants and grocers for organic waste, and golf courses for water waste). - should have a plan for chemical use within CRD, such as a ban on herbicides/pesticides for both cosmetic uses (includes golf courses), and strict limitations in agriculture (where they should be limited as much as possible). - a ban on GMO crops would also be positive for sustainability and our local food production.

It does not adequately address the JdF EA.

It is a good try at a first draft but requires aggressive rethinking about carbon reduction in all aspects. The CRD could become world renowned for taking a stand on this and showing solid futuristic thinking about region for the years to come.

It is a very good draft document, with generally the right priorities.

It is clearly not ambitious enough. There seems to be no real sense of how seriously out of balance our planet is and that as a rich, conscious and informed citizenry, we are called upon to do a lot more. I also see no word about how to work closely with the First Nations who were the first stewards of this land. I see nothing about tying our regional transit strategy in with a revitalized rail system linking the southern tip of Vancouver Island with the rest of the Island. This is a major gap in the CRD's planning.

It is not going to be easy.

It is stupid and designed to keep the CRD going in a time when we need to get rid of the CRD.

It was a good plan when I reviewed it 3 years ago. Now I'm suspicious. I don't understand the reason for the Employment Centres? is my farm not an employment centre? Is not everywhere a potential employment centre?

It will be good, as long as it is not just more hot air that makes us all feel good about the future and what we are doing. Will this actually result in concrete action? Otherwise, the money should be used to just start implementing anything that we can make progress on. Sorry - these processes over the years have made me so cynical!

It will only be as good as its targets, and if the targets are adhered to . Talk is talk. We need to get serious in the CRD. This survey is a good start.

It would be nice for all members of the CRD to see (in a simple format) the progression toward all targets. A $$ progression chart and a time and proximity to completion chart. As residents in the district we want to KNOW what the CRD is doing at all times and how they are spending our money.

It's a good initiative. Put on your chain mail, hire a pop star to advocate, and prepare for "a lot of ugly coming at you from an endless parade of stupid" (Queen Latifah). People really do want this--make sure they understand more than mainstream news tells--motivate using Germany etc. as examples. Get artists, writers, musicians, business people and articulate spokespeople going on all fronts.

It's certainly going in the right direction, but let's hope support from both higher levels of government and all municipalities is forthcoming.

It's hard not to be cynical about the whole process. As you may have gathered, I don't think much of our politicians' abilities to consider costs responsibly.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 440

I've pretty much given up on the CRD area doing anything that is progressive or not related to the latter half of the 20th century.

Just put everything I've said in the previous sections and include the comments here. I commend staff at the CRD on what they are trying to achieve; it is an impossible task. Focus on concentrating development and growth in urban, serviced areas and leave unserviced rural areas alone - do not permit development, servicing or growth to 'sprawl' into them!! There should be an opportunity provided through the survey for participants to retain their comments to use at future public sessions and hearings on the adoption of the RSS.

Like many tasks, I have left this to the last minute and have not done it justice. Overall it is a real improvement over the last regional plan and properly identifies and addresses the issues. The one key omission is the lack of appreciation on the impact of a transportation network and the importance of partnering this with urban planning - these have to go hand in hand. My particular pitch is the potential benefits that come from a rail based arterial network and how it attracts far more users than buses.

Listen to the people rather than having meetings and feedback such as this survey and then just going ahead and doing whatever it is that you wanted in the first place (see OCP changes in North Saanich where 80% to 97% of the people were against the changes but you went ahead and made the changes anyway).

Make sure you have the quality of food, air and water in mind above all. Create the environment for a complete paradigm shift - how we think about our health and the health of the planet. I wish this were better advertised - the deadline is near and very few people knew about it.

Maybe this is the wrong forum, but it seem that each distinct community should have a voice/representative that is more intimately involved and can feed back or garner input, having one elected representative for all of Jordan River, Shirley, Otter Point! an East Sooke etc. does not encourage or facilitate broad community engagement but only gets input from those in the know, or with specific interests such as developers and realtors, or political wannabes.

Most folks feel this is all strut and no action, I hope you prove them wrong.

Most of this plan is unrealistic.

Need to address storm water infrastructure.

Need to strategically engage and activate citizens / residents. We have the opportunity to be global leaders!

Need to take a more progressive approach similar to Europe.

Needs to be implemented sooner rather than later.

Nice optics...but do we waste all of our time on this pretty forecast?...

No.

No.

NO.

No.

No.

No but I am passionate about your greens. We must be loyal to the Soil. Compost!!!

No further comments on the draft RSS but need to express concern about this survey which was very badly set up. It was very inconvenient to have to leave the survey to look at background information, scroll through pages and pages to find info only to find no link back to the survey. I'm sure this will result in many people not completing the survey or, like me, not referring to the background info.

No, except continue to reach out to the community for input.

No, regrettably it is all too little too late.

No.

No.

No.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 441

No.

Not even a mention of the ocean around us?

Nowhere have I seen an effort on the part of CRD management and staff to limit THEIR growth.

Once again, In case you did not get it STOP RAW LOG EXPORT NOW ! Get water to people that need it at a fair price! Get started now on rapid transit form Sooke and the western communities to down town Victoria! Go to Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton and see how great their rapid transit systems are, sure it costs money ,but it will only cost more money in the future!

One question is just how much effect such a strategy will have. Living in North Saanich and seeing a previous council able to push through a change that went against the RGS with no comprehensive consultation with the community, I feel this is a toothless proposal.

Only what I've previous noted. Broaden the perspective on what constitutes and contributes to wellbeing by considering the influence and pervasive nature of arts and culture.

Overall I think it lacks ambition and lacks some detail. We should be trying to be a global leader and learn from the best. For example over 50% of journeys in Copenhagen are already by bike - why not here? And certainly why not by 2038!

Overall it is excellent and the targets are reasonable within the framework of regional change. However our global situation is URGENT. We are using up the earth's nonrenewable resources at unsustainable rates. Loss of global biodiversity is extreme and is caused by climate change, loss of habitat, soil mining, resource extraction, toxic chemical release, ocean acidification, overfishing, pollution, nutrient loading, etc.). To avoid a 2degC rise in global temperatures we have to reduce emissions to close to zero in the next 15-20 years AND start sequestering large amounts of Carbon. Even if we did this we might not avoid the worst. We have to do everything we can to develop in a more resilient and adaptive way to live and to preserve what is left of our regional ecosystems. All of this while providing for the population growth that is unavoidable. Climate refugees are coming. It can be done, but we need cultural change as much as we need physical changes, (and global population reduction). Material determinism implies that the physical social structures we create in our communities shape our culture. We need to shift our culture away from consumption and material growth in order to simply live.

Overall the language is weak, the targets are watered down and the document feels unfinished and written by committee.

Overall, it seems remarkably unambitious.

Overall, this is an excellent document. The critique above is to enhance it. In particular, there needs to be a greater emphasis on the JdF Electoral Area that provides our greatest opportunity to mitigate climate change by maintaining a standing forest, unfragmented as much as possible for wildlife habitat and dispersal. The tourism potential of the whole region and, especially, the JdF with big tree tourism, hiking and various types of boating, needs to be more emphasized.

Part 5 contains no direction or information about Implementation, the most important aspect of any regional sustainability strategy. This is the only failing of the RSS, an otherwise fabulous document, and reflects the presumed limited authority and status of the CRD. Municipalities are still free to interpret these policies any way they want, and there are no carrots or sticks to encourage developments with region-wide benefits. For example, one municipality responds to the need to reduce reliance on cars and encourage bicycle use by painting ineffective "sharrows" on a few public streets. Then they check that box as "done." Local governments will continue to respond to public pressure for near-term services (pothole repair) unless they are forced or encouraged to act with long-term and region-wide benefits in mind. I doubt the CRD Board wanted the RSS to set out highly important policies that will just be ignored or implemented half-heartedly. That will not allow us to reach our community and world-wide goals. There are many potential ways to implement the RSS, and the document should explore them all. One approach might be for the CRD to collect "sustainability" fees from all 13 municipalities, and return the funds to them for targeted and regionally coordinated projects that reflect the RSS. That would count as implementation.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 442

People I talk to and listen too don't seem to see how the RSS is intended as an "extension" or "refinement" of the current regional growth plan. They seem to think the new plan replaces the old. Maybe there needs to be more comparisons in the text to show how the old plan is not lost but is enhanced. Some people are concerned that the increase in Rural Lands will mean an increase in development in the JdF EA. They don't get it that much of the land designated as "Rural Land" has been designated for settlement in the JdF EA OCPs or has been intended to be designated since 2003-2004. Many a slip tween the cup and lip in bringing those OCPs forward but the area residents did sit down and make their plans. The local planning seems to have been "overlooked" in Victoria when the RGS mapping was done. Just another reason why we in Sooke and the JdF SA do not want to be lumped in with West Shore. I was amused when the Sooke News Mirror this week co-incidentally supported my argument that Sooke is not Victoria. February 13, 1965 New community paper to be published here Our district needs a paper of its own. We have little in common with Greater Victoria - although when we do something good the Victoria dailies lump us with Glen Lake, Colwood, Langford and so on as part of the Greater Victoria! It is for that reason that I decided to start another paper here. Subscribers to the Grapevine will continue to receive the paper each week, for Leader Publishing Co. Ltd. its continuing its publication. - Maurice Tozer, editor, publisher, announcing the launch of the Mirror, which later became known as the Sooke News Mirror.

Plan 'futurist' rather than evolving on ideas from the 1980's. Plan for Saanich being the core and hub of the CRD, and stop thinking about Victoria being the core and hub. In 30 years Victoria will be a suburb of Saanich, especially if the next big tsunami wipes out the port area and the floodplains. Plan on serving 2 wheel passenger vehicles, rather than 4, 6, 8. Because bikes and motorcycles will be the first affordable electric vehicles for young families, and a viable alternative for aging baby boomers who don't want to pedal.

Please add an 'other' button to each target in the future. Many thanks for putting this together and to the hard work of those employees who do the aggregation and reporting of this data.

Please do not re-invent the wheel; Victoria is not the first city to go sustainable We can use technology (available now) and examples from other cities around the world (Lima, Malmo, Basel, and others).

Please protect areas that are currently rural by not imposing measures that will increase density. Do Not permit sprawl out beyond Sooke.

Please suspend all review of OCPs until the RSS is adopted. The Land Use map (? Map 9) reflects draft proposals from some in Shirley and East Sooke, and in my view, making JdFEA entirely (except for park and ALR) into Settlement land flies in the face of sustainability and undermines all of the Regional Objectives. I cannot explain how our existing "settlement containment boundaries" eroded into full scale "Rural Settlement" for each community, but sustainability requires that it not proceed.

Pollution caused by malfunctioning vehicles (burning oil etc.) should be regulated by vehicle testing (like we used to have) Tour buses, especially the old double deckers from Britain, are very problematic.

Possibly. This should not be the last opportunity for feedback. I would like to know the outcome of this survey, and I would like to see the campaign for sustainability start soon. Within that campaign, feedback from citizens needs to be ongoing.

Protect the environment at all cost.

Questions are much too complicated for a general survey.

RE #2 below, I only know about this survey because an activist sent it to me. I listen to CBC most mornings, watch local news most evenings, read the News Group rag, don't take the TC or read news online. I saw posters being put up two weeks ago. That's a tad late in my mind, and should be accompanied by print ads, articles, interviews. And if this survey was planned for, some time ago, why not piggyback on provincial tax assessment notices or municipal service bills?

Re: water conservation. I don't understand why water preservation is not a requirement for any new housing projects (i.e. collection and storage of rain water).

Restrict your plans to reality and not the hype and doom and gloom of the Global Warming crowd, whatever credential they may claim to have.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 443

Rethink the terminology of Growth Management Area and Growth Containment -- designed to confuse. Other general comments have been put above (on implementation, some policy measures etc. The critical point is that CRD members must start to "own" their responsibility for regional growth, and not simply reflect the loudest voices within their various constituencies....They must get behind a regional vision, not focus on finding ways of ensuring there are plentiful loopholes for them to rip off the others (i.e. Langford).

Seriously believe the CRD needs to evaluate what it does and how it does it going forward. Governance models need review......does the CRD carry the support and will of the municipalities and more importantly the taxpayer to continue as it is? This review would seriously impact this plan. I would rather see this be the dialogue and plan done now.

Sounds like a great plan and I encourage the achievement of all of the goals laid out in it.

Sounds very progressive. Let's hope we don't have too large an influx of population in the coming years.

Strengthen protections for wilderness, rural and agricultural lands from the negative impacts of urban sprawl.

Support better cycling infrastructure!

Sure glad you're thinking ahead and consulting the public.

Survey uses targets that are not tangible or understandable to the average citizen. It is more useful to propose projects or initiatives that aim to ameliorate issues.

Survey was buggy and returned me to the first page once or twice. Many of the questions can't be answered with the three options given. CRD needs to take up a clear vision like the RSS. There's clearly been a great deal of effort and actionable input put into it, but it's a waste of time and money if there's no concrete movement forward, with strategic planning left to languish. I've only lived here a few years but I don't hear such great things about the CRD. That it's a money grab without offering basic services, enforcement for basic bad ideas founded on or in defense of private interests (deer cull, CRD's closure of Jordan River camping), and generally irresponsible stewards of the land. While I don't feel this is true--especially having worked alongside a number of CRD officials in the past--there obviously needs to be a lot more public engagement and better dissemination of information. For example, how did this get slipped? "Angila Bains, CRD manager of information services, said it would take 419 hours to retrieve 8,820 pages, another 100 hours to prepare records for disclosure, and $2,205 in photocopying fees." That's just a poor media policy, it seems. All that is to say, how will the public be informed of RSS progress? What kind of communications tools will ensure a better image/brand is coming across and to make all stakeholders feel engaged?

Targets are somewhat arbitrary. Does not factor in the cost. These should be addressed in concert. Pls don't make the fatal mistake of using the results of this survey to support the implementation of the stated targets, having due regard to the type of people who would respond to this survey (which for the most part, would include persons who have a personal and active interest in the topics addressed).

Thank you for a very interesting read, good to get an overview of my neighbours.

Thank you for all the work you have done drafting this plan.

Thank you for allowing me to comment.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on this plan.

Thank you for sending me this and giving me the opportunity to provide some feedback.

Thank you for the meticulous, hard work so obvious in the drafting this document. Much appreciated! And also, I feel a sense of urgency where all these matters are concerned, and I wonder whether we might be underestimating or capacity to respond with new protocols in an emergency situation? For I do think, that if we're not perceiving ourselves to be in an emergency situation now, it's only because we're not perceiving it as such; not because the emergency does not exist. I think this plan as presented would have been great quite a few years ago, & I wish we had made radical changes then! Now, I think we are already in serious trouble, here on our wee island. Might you consider more radical action than has been presented here?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 444

Thank you!

Thanks for asking our opinion!

Thanks for the great work. The last thing I would like to say is that more commitment to working with First Nations is needed. It is stated that collaboration with FN may improve the quality of the document. In truth, it is mandatory at a moral and ethical level, and even if this collaboration changes the strategy and forces the CRD to adjust priorities to meet the needs of the FN, that is a responsibility (although not a jurisdiction) the CRD has to the people who have lived here before the CRD existed as an organization and who still hold the right and title to this unceded territory. Do justice by living justice, and acknowledgment is not enough.

Thanks for your diligent work on the plan.

Thanks to everyone who put this together. Good work. It is a bit too long but that is good for something this important. I confess that I only got through about 8 pages of the actual draft RSS since my time was limited so I appreciate that you provided the target backgrounder document. I would encourage you to try to do something like this again if it does not cost much. Can you also get some volunteers to help compile it? Seems like working as a volunteer on something like this would look good on people's resumes.

Thank-you for asking for community input.

The BCSEA, Victoria Chapter appreciates this opportunity to provide its views on the CRD’s Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS). We also wish to acknowledge the â€˜Consortium on Regional Sustainability’ for its Sample Regional Sustainability Feedback Form Answer, which provided us with much useful information and analysis as we developed our responses to the Draft RSS.

The careful work done here makes me much more hopeful for the future of humanity. Well Done!

The Employment Lands category is troublesome. Especially in Rural Saanich at Camosun and VITP. There needs to be a review of the Glendale Lands Agreement and a clarification of what 'Employment Lands' means. These two sites are notoriously difficult to get to, are parts of an old and once productive farm, including portions of ALR, and a community study on uses of alternative transportation within these centers shows them failing to even come close to Travel Choices goals. Will employment lands also provide housing and other services? It seems a way to get around previous RGS and RSS goals. Employment in these centres also gives wage earners the income to buy up adjacent farmland with incomes that farmers could never match meaning that although ALR might be preserved it is not likely to be productive.

The feedback form is limited because it provides no opportunity to comment on rural land use are policies. The designation of RSAs runs counter to every objective in the RSS. Rural Settlement Areas by definition increase rural sprawl and provide the opposite of Growth Containment Areas, increase GHG emission, destroy natural environments and associated ecosystem services, & increase infrastructure costs.

The general statements you call objectives are more properly goals. A figure that shows the relationship among vision, goals, policies, targets and actions would be helpful. In many places the document could refer to the section dealing with an issue rather than duplicating text. If the figures are numbered, then the text should refer to them. Please define terms like active transportation, district energy systems, across the lifespan. The section on climate action could mention why climate change will be a concern for us - potential for longer, more intense summer drought, more frequent and intense damaging winter storms, sea level rise. Tighten up the text and headings relating to keystone initiatives. In planning context recognize that young families want affordable single family housing near recreational amenities - right now that is only being offered in new sprawl like development in Langford and Sooke. The tradeoff that they have to make is an ugly commute. The section on First Nations is a bit confusing - the RSS does not affect reserves, and they are not really participating in the process, but they are part of the complementary and collaborative action? There is no mention of the federal and provincial governments being important to the integrity and implementation of the RSS. There is no mention of the Strategic Plan for the Greater Victoria Water Supply System. All of the other CRD plans and strategies mentioned were done before the RSS, so do they really support the implementation of the RSS? On page 31, you could mention the idea of the land trust presented later. On page 53 - no mention of the Climate Action Charter. Do the CRD and municipalities really have a long history of dealing with GHG emissions? In reducing GHG emissions - What about solar energy? What about integrating micro-hydro into the water supply system?


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 445

On page 65 does regional tree canopy mean urban forest? If you mean forests throughout the region, it is important to recognize that other vegetation and the soil takes up carbon. Reduced availability of potable water is not an impact of climate change in Greater Victoria (unless you mean if wells fail). In directions for provincial and federal agencies around forests - weigh benefits of carbon sequestration in setting rotation lengths and other forest management activities. In building food and agricultural systems - encourage use of water efficient irrigation methods to reduce demands on the drinking water supply system Some of the text in policy 2.2 is more relevant to policy 2.1 In policy 3.3 identify and address bottlenecks in existing road infrastructure Policy 4.5 - we need clear, fair and consistent regulatory frameworks, not just effective ones In objective 5 - climate change does not impact natural ecosystems through habitat loss. Mention nature needs 1/2. Put figures on pages that relate to them. Remember that Garry oak ecosystems, which hold a lot of biodiversity, persist in the developed areas of Greater Victoria. Shoreline habitats and features are often important habitat and will buffer sea level rise. Need to map local aquifers. Objective 6 - eliminate infrastructure deficit. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

The main problem facing the CRD isn't growth, poverty, housing or climate change. The main problem is governance. Planning for the regions (required) sewage treatment facilities has been an embarrassment and a profound waste of money. Not to mention the duplication of services found between local municipalities. Now this planning document is proposing an expanded role for an already flawed delivery system. The costs, and how we'll pay them seem an afterthought. Building good ideas on a shaky foundation isn't the way to proceed. Fix the main problem and let's go on from there.

The more conservation, the better. Really, we're so far away from where we need to rationally be to achieve sustainability that I have no fear of any policies causing "over-conservation" or being "too fast to act on sustainability". Just keep equality and oppressed/disadvantaged groups in mind.

The online version of this survey times out to rapidly. It does not allow for longer thoughtful comments to be entered before doing so. This creates a situation where those who do have more to submit are ultimately screen out of the survey or simply do not provide the information they would wish to. As a result I have had to download the printed version, pre-write all my responses, and then cut and past them into the on line version, because I don’t have enough time before deadline to deliver this as a hard copy.

The principles are so general that I don't see the "strategy". What are the specific options? How is budgeting applied? This is more like a giant mission statement which, overall, I'd agree with however, the devil is in the details and we need details. For instance Salt Spring is really on the edge of collapse in terms of Solid and Liquid Waste Management so all of this seems so counterproductive in its vagueness.

The RSS unfortunately accepts and encourages significant growth. Growth is NOT necessarily a good thing. Sometimes sustainability is better achieved and maintained by significantly restricting and discouraging growth in our whole region.

The Summary Targets document repeats the Core Housing Need Target - it's 3.3 and 4.2. It's going to need something better and special to get public attention: and the answer is graphics. Create a series of 13 embodied graphics with each target written into one, that people can then promote by social media. In fact, it needs an entire social media strategy: and quickly. I would recommend postponing the deadline for submissions until one month after a social media strategy has been created. You don't need to hire anyone new to do it: Facebook is so easy, and so is creating graphics. 8 hours’ work, and it's all done.

The survey was long, though I understand why it needed to be. I still think the first question you ask about the most important thing would make more sense being asked here.

There are thoughts that this survey has been presented to supposedly gather public input, while the real agenda marches on... growth, development, living close to work .....

There is an incredible opportunity for the CRD to be a leader in urban development practice. I've witnessed too many local pro-urban development ideas squashed by residents who are happy with the status quo - the CRD needs to strongly promote an idea of what the region is going to be like in 25 to 50 years to slowly change public opinion.

There should be an 'age-friendly/livability" target which promotes universal design.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 446

There was a section on Other issues so I added a number of issues that were not in the draft document. I hope these issues will be considered in the next draft.

These false surveys that masquerade as consultation really annoy me. Why don't you ask some real questions like "are you satisfied with the services provided by the CRD?" The answer is "no". How about "should the CRD be obsessed with climate change" The answer is "no". How about "should the CRD streamline its administration, cut the crap and lower everyone's taxes?" The answer is "YES".

This has been such a thought-provoking exercise. Thanks! The crucial tests will come in REAL implementation (of course!).

This is a bold, visionary approach. I fully support it.

This is a good initiative and I thank the CRD for asking us what we want to see happen in our region.

This looks to be a step in the right direction for our municipality. I believe that it will take diligence, careful planning and constant reporting and informing the public to achieve these ambitious goals. More people need to know about this potential reform and I will do my part to pass along the message. Thanks for your vision!

This RSS is a great project - good work! Although it is very ambitious I think this effort is necessary. It will make Victoria an even better place to live. Thanks for taking our input! You could announce better that this is happening. I only heard about it from my prof.

This survey could have been made more widely available.

This survey site has technical problems. Several times I had to backtrack to avoid losing work. People put in a lot of time answering and won't be happy when 20 minutes worth of comments are lost. I expect many will give up feeling disenfranchised.

This survey was very well designed and easy to use. I am very happy that the CRD is working on an RSS.

This was designed to get the answers the CRD wants to expand its empire. They should be limited to infrastructure (water, sewer (done well there eh!), transportation, police & fire. They have no place in the domain of local gov't - land use, zoning, the CRD must not be allowed to limit infrastructure to municipalities to further their personal politics - e.g. restricting water servicing for a project that a municipality has approved.

Try to be cognizant of whether our authorities are responsive to your findings. is reporting on this matter built into your terms of reference?

Water and garbage are both referenced in this plan. Why isn't sewage also in here?

We need a proper transit link to airport and ferries with park and go at the other ends that runs on a schedule to match arrivals and departures. Areas near highways and under interchanges should be parking. We need to amalgamate more as your thinking is excellent but limited in implementation by all the small municipalities.

We need more progress on reaching targets and less arguing about doing it.

We need smaller government, reduced number of municipalities, and end to the land-based sewage treatment notion, and a return to a focus of providing the basics of schools, roads, hospitals, street lights, etc. The things I actually pay taxes for. Get out of the notion of social engineering.

We need to divert monies from highway expansion into some form of rail system for travelling from the CRD to our sister communities north and west of us. If someone in the CRD needs to travel to Duncan or Nanaimo, we should have an alternative to driving there or travelling on a diesel highway coach.

We need to reduce our emissions more and faster and create resilient neighbourhoods where we can work, grow food, meet with neighbours, access services all without using a car.

We should recognize that our region is becoming more diverse, and start thinking about how we can ensure people of all backgrounds can feel welcome in our greater community. We should focus on growing middle-income jobs in the private sector in particular. We should ensure land use policies allow for small-lot type developments in sufficient numbers to meet the need for entry-level housing for new families. We should work with the Province to encourage more family practitioner doctors.

What an exciting and necessary initiative.


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 447

When NS residents asked the CRD Board to protect our RCS and not allow a dense, urban style development on agricultural land, which violated our OCP and encouraged urban sprawl, you did not listen then, ignoring our more than 200 letters and presentations from residents - how should we know that you listen now when asked for our opinion to fill out the survey?

Where is any discussion of arts and culture? Multiculturalism?

Why isn't sewage mentioned in this survey?

Worried that the natural environment, wildlife, and native plant life are not being conserved at a high enough rate.

Would be good to see mapping and the specific policies.

Yes there are far too many leading questions and there is no provision of the adverse consequences of most of these population \ development proposals\ targets in the information links. The public is asked to provide answers with a one sided (incomplete) therefore uninformed opinion. This exposes the surveyors and CRD Board to a definite bias towards a particular goal(s). Not a very democratic process.

Yes, I do. This is such a huge document it's hard for the average person to take it all in. It would be easier as a respondent, to have only one section at a time. Perhaps this has already been done prior and this is the end result? I greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate (as I should be able to) and find this to be nicely presented, though massive.

Yet again: Stop flushing raw human waste into the PACIFIC OCEAN!!!!!

You did not ask how important issues are to me You did not allow for an answer like "I do not know" You offered no really creative and innovative ideas to consider.

Your survey approach smacks of 'mob rule' to me.

b) How did you hear about this opportunity to offer input into the Draft Strategy? (check as many as

apply)


Acquaintance word of mouth 1 0.2%

An e-mail 1 0.2%

APC, Parks Commission 1 0.2%

Bay Centre Mall, Downtown, Victoria, BC 1 0.2%

Ben Isitt 5 0.8%

Brochure 3 0.5%

Brochure, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 2 0.3%

Colleague 1 0.2%

Community electronic newsletter 1 0.2%

CRD Intranet 1 0.2%

CRD staff 1 0.2%

Cr-fair 1 0.2%

email 15 2.5%

Facebook/Twitter/other social media 108 18.2%

Friend 5 0.8%

From Ben Isitt's website 1 0.2%

From my Community Association 1 0.2%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 448


Householder mail 1 0.2%

I am an engaged citizen 1 0.2%

Internet 1 0.2%

JDF Planner 1 0.2%

Landlordbc email 1 0.2%

Library 1 0.2%

Local government 1 0.2%

Logging in to monitor my bc hydro consumption 1 0.2%

Mayfair mall display 1 0.2%

Municipal website 2 0.3%

Newspaper Ad 25 4.2%

Newspaper Ad, Facebook/Twitter/other social media 1 0.2%

Newspaper Ad, Newspaper article 5 0.8%

Newspaper article 35 5.9%

Newspaper article, Presentation 2 0.3%

Poster 3 0.5%

Poster, Facebook/Twitter/other social media 1 0.2%

Poster, I put a FB photo up of my "5" recycling receptacles stating how ridiculous we are being forced to deal with the consequences of manufacturers over packaging. I the googled CRD and found this survey.

1 0.2%

Poster, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.), Brochure, Facebook/Twitter/other social media

1 0.2%

Presentation 12 2.0%

Presentation, CRD staff in Otter Point, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 1 0.2%

Presentation, Radio, attending CRD & local government meetings, Newspaper Ad, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.), Newspaper article

1 0.2%

Presentation, Radio, Newspaper article, Poster 1 0.2%

Presentation, Radio, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.), Newspaper article 1 0.2%

Presentation, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 8 1.4%

Rack card 4 0.7%

Radio 2 0.3%

Radio, Newspaper Ad, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.), Newspaper article 2 0.3%

Radio, Poster, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 1 0.2%

Regularly visit CRD RSS Website 1 0.2%

Road sign or digital screen, Facebook/Twitter/other social media, Presentation, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.), Newspaper article

1 0.2%

School 1 0.2%


1214220002-015-R-Rev0 449


Social Environmental Alliance 1 0.2%

Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 308 52.0%

South Vancouver Island Direct Farm marketing Association 1 0.2%

Tall banner/ info booth 1 0.2%

Tall banner/ info booth, CRD website, Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) 1 0.2%

The press release was sent to me by email 1 0.2%

uVic listserve 1 0.2%

University class 1 0.2%

Used Victoria 1 0.2%

VREB 3 0.5%

Web 2 0.3%

Web 1 0.2%

TOTAL 592 100.0%

c) Will you tell other people you know about this opportunity to offer input into the Draft Strategy?


No 33 5.4%

Maybe 165 27.0%

Yes 408 66.9%

TOTAL 610 100.0%


April 22, 2015 Report No. 1214220002-015-R-Rev0 450

APPENDIX B Public Feedback Online Form Questions

Regional Sustainability Strategy Feedback Form

About the RSS Feedback Form The Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS) is a proposed road map for how we will work together to reach a shared vision for the region by 2038. The Capital Regional District (CRD) Board directed CRD staff to draft the RSS in collaboration with local, provincial and federal government staff. The public was asked for their ideas at the start of the process, invited to track ongoing progress, and is now being asked to comment further as we get closer to the final RSS.

Your ideas are important to us. Please complete part or all of the questions below. The RSS Feedback Form will be open from January 15 to February 15, 2015. You are invited to comment on the draft vision and the selected targets for the future of the region to 2038. The vision will define what we collectively want to achieve in the region. The targets will inform priorities and indicate how quickly action will need to be taken. The RSS addresses matters that relate to CRD services and regional issues. The degree to which action can be taken will depend on availability of resources and the extent of collaboration among participating partners, such as local municipalities and provincial and federal agencies.

Your input in this feedback form is an opportunity for you to express your opinions. Understanding what is important to you will help decision makers know if the RSS is on the right track. Input will be summarized for the Board, who will direct staff on how to refine and finalize the RSS for final review by member Councils, asking if they accept it. Once accepted by all involved, the CRD could adopt the RSS as a bylaw.

Visit the CRD RSS webpage for background information, the Draft RSS, and the summarized Draft RSS Targets Backgrounder. We encourage you to open at least the Targets Backgrounder in a separate tab or window in your browser, for easy reference while completing the RSS Feedback Form. NOTE: Each page of the feedback form will time out after 40 minutes. Please ensure you click the 'finish' button at the end of the form, even if you have not answered all questions.

http://www.crd.bc.ca/sustainability

https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/regional-planning-pdf/rss/rssdraft-october2014-revised.pdf

https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/regional-planning-pdf/rss/rss-targets-backgrounder.pdf

Part A: General Respondent Information 1. To help us assess whether we collected input from across the region, please tell us

where you live:

(Drop Down Menu)

• Central Saanich

• Colwood

• Esquimalt

• Highlands

• Juan de Fuca • Langford

• Metchosin

• North Saanich

• Oak Bay

• Saanich

• Sidney • Sooke

• Victoria

• View Royal

• Other

2. To help us assess whether we collected input from all age groups, please tell us your age:

(Drop Down Menu)

• 19 and under

• 20-44

• 45-64

• 65 +

Part B: The Big Picture 1. What do you think is the most important action we should take as a region to become more

sustainable for future generations?

2. a) Do you support the draft vision of the RSS as written below (Tagline and Full Vision Statement): Tagline SHIFT 2038: A Capital Region that is… Sustainable | Healthy | Innovative | Fair | Thriving

Full Vision Statement

By 2038: We contribute to a healthier planet and create a thriving, sustainable economy that optimizes individual and community wellbeing. Direct, innovative action by the CRD and cooperation with others achieves transformational change by boldly: shifting to affordable, low carbon, energy-efficient lifestyles; expanding the local food supply; stewarding renewable resources; and achieving greater social equity.

Yes

Parts of it

No

b) If all or part of the tagline or vision could be improved, please explain what themes to keep and how other parts could be made more relevant or inspiring:

Part C: Targets Targets are a concrete way to show what the vision means and are an important tool for measuring progress towards achieving the vision. It will take all of us – the CRD, local, provincial, and federal governments, as well as community groups, businesses, and individuals – to transform the region by choosing actions and lifestyles that support the targets. Your input will help political decision-makers decide how ambitious the targets should be.

All targets are aimed at a 2038 time line, unless stated otherwise.

1. Climate and Greenhouse Gases

1.1 GHG Emissions Reduction Target a) What do you think about these targets to reduce greenhouse gases below 2007 levels?

• By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 33%

• By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions by 61%

See page 1 of Targets Backgrounder for more information

Too low

About right

Too high


2. Communities

2.1 Dwelling Unit Growth Target a) What do you think about the following dwelling unit growth target?

• Locate 30% of new growth in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space.*


*See page 2-3 of Targets Backgrounder for Growth Centres map and more information.

Too low

About right

Too high


2.2 Jobs/Population Target a) What do you think about the following jobs and population target? • Achieve a jobs/population ratio of:

o 0.61 in Core Area o 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula o 0.36 in West Shore

Higher ratios mean that there are more jobs located close to housing.

See pages 2-3 of Targets Backgrounder for more information.

Too low

About right

Too high




2.3 Growth Management Target a) What do you think about the following growth management target?

• Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area* *See pages 3-4 of Targets Backgrounder for Growth Containment Area map and more information.

Too low

About right

Too high


3. Mobility

3.1 Active Transportation and Transit Target a) What do you think about the transportation mode shift target?

• Achieve a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by walking, cycling, and transit.

See Page 4 of the Targets Backgrounder for more information. Too low

About right

Too high





a) What do you think about the zero emission vehicles target?

• Achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles See Page 5 of the Targets Backgrounder for more information.

Too low

About right

Too high


4. Wellbeing

4.1 Poverty Reduction Targets a) What do you think about the poverty reduction target?

• Reduce the poverty rate by 75% See Page 6 of the Targets Backgrounder for more information.

Too low

About right

Too high





a) What do you think about the core housing need target?

• Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels

See Page 6 of the Targets Backgrounder for more information.

Too low

About right

Too high


5. Jobs Target

a) What do you think about the jobs target? • Increase full time jobs at the same or greater rate than the rate of labour force growth


Too low

About right

Too high




6. Agriculture Target

a) What do you think about the agriculture target? • Retain existing amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands.


Too low

About right

Too high


7. Natural Environment

7.1 Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt Target

a) What do you think about the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt target? • Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt.

See Page 7-8 of the Targets Backgrounder for map and more information.

Too low

About right

Too high




7.2 Conservation of Nature Target a) What do you think about the Conservation of Nature target? • At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) land and water base is

managed and connected for the conservation of nature.

See Page 8-9 of the Targets Backgrounder for map and more information.

Too low

About right

Too high


8. Infrastructure Target

a) What do you think about the infrastructure target?

• Identify, by 2020, the long-term capital plans for CRD utilities and major infrastructure improvements necessary to address the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.


Too low

About right

Too high




9. Water Target

a) What do you think about the water target?

• Defer the need for expansion of regional water supply areas or reservoirs.


Too low

About right

Too high


10. Waste Target

a) What do you think about the waste target?

• Achieve a waste disposal rate no greater than 250 kg per person.


Too low

About right

Too high




11. Emergency Preparedness Target

a) What do you think about the emergency preparedness target?

• By 2018, 100% of municipalities have completed and tested an Emergency Response Plan for a Catastrophic Earthquake.


Too low

About right

Too high


12. Energy Target

a) What do you think about the energy target?

• Improve region-wide energy efficiency of building stock by 50% (relative to 2007 levels).


Too low

About right

Too high

b) Please explain or add other comment



13. Rate of Progress

The targets of the RSS are intended to be met by 2038, unless stated otherwise. Now that you have considered what our targets should be, please consider how fast we should make progress.


a) Do you support the aim of getting halfway to the proposed targets by 2020?

No – that’s too slow

Yes

No – that’s too fast

b) Please explain and, if desired, add other comments:

14. Additional Target Suggestions

Are there any additional targets you would like to suggest? Please list the target topic, and if possible, what would be measured, and what would constitute success by 2020 and by 2038.


Part D: Other Issues Another issue under discussion related to the Draft RSS speaks to a change in policy from the current Regional Growth Strategy related to the extent of water servicing across the region.

1. Water Servicing

a) Should the water servicing policy be changed to allow for potential water servicing beyond the current growth management boundaries, to accommodate water service throughout all municipalities and to Otter Point, East Sooke and Port Renfrew in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, subject to full cost recovery and alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas?

See Page 11-13 of the Targets Backgrounder for maps and more information.

Yes

No

b) Please explain why or why not:


Part E: General Comments

1. Do you have any further comments on part or all of the draft RSS?

2. How did you hear about this opportunity to offer input into the Draft Strategy? (check

as many as apply)

• Poster • Brochure • Rack card • Newspaper Ad • Facebook/Twitter/other social media • Road sign or digital screen • Someone told me about it (email, in person, etc.) • Presentation • Tall banner/ info booth • Newspaper article • Radio • TV • Other?

3. Will you tell other people you know about this opportunity to offer input into the Draft Strategy?

• Yes • Maybe • No

Next Steps & Further Input No personal information, as defined by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation, is being collected in this form.

Information from this feedback form will be summarized and reported to the CRD Board for their information before they direct staff on how to complete the Draft RSS. The summary report on responses received will be made available to the public on the CRD RSS webpage.

Ongoing comments are welcome on part or all of the RSS Draft through to the final stages of the RSS process. Visit the CRD RSS webpage to:

• Read the full RSS Draft • Sign up for the RSS listserv to receive periodic email updates about the RSS • Discover all the ways to provide ongoing feedback • Learn how to stay involved in the RSS process.

Thank you for your feedback.



http://www.crd.bc.ca/project/rss/rss-email-listserv-signup


April 22, 2015 Report No. 1214220002-015-R-Rev0 478

APPENDIX C Targets Backgrounder

Draft RSS - Targets Backgrounder To be read in conjunction with the Draft CRD Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS) Feedback Form.

Part C: Targets Targets are a concrete way to represent what we mean by the vision and are an important tool for measuring progress towards achieving the vision. It will take all of us – the CRD, local, provincial and federal governments, as well as community groups, businesses and individuals – to transform the region by choosing policies, programs and lifestyles that support the targets. Your input will help political decision-makers decide how ambitious the targets should be.

All targets relate to a 2038 timeline, unless stated otherwise.

1. Climate & Greenhouse Gases1.1 GHG Emissions Reduction Target• By 2020 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions

by 33% • By 2038 reduce region-wide community-based greenhouse gas emissions

by 61%

Why is this target being proposed? The need to significantly reduce total GHG emissions is urgent to reduce the impacts of climate change. The Capital Region is especially vulnerable to increased severe weather events, sea level rise, flooding, and drought.

Current context Between 2007 and 2010, region-wide community-based GHG emissions remained the same – they neither increased nor decreased. Current status is based on the best available information provided in the Province of BC’s 2007 and 2010 Community Energy & Emissions Inventories (CEEI, 2014). CEEIs include emissions from transportation, buildings and waste. They do not include marine, rail or air transportation within local government boundaries.

Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include: • Reduce energy demand• Increase energy efficiency• Reduce waste and use it as an energy source• Encourage fuel-switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources

CRD Draft RSS (October 2014-Revised) Targets Backgrounder Page 1

2.1

2. Communities2.1 Dwelling Unit Growth Target

Locate 30% of new growth (dwelling units) in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced communities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space.

Why is this target being proposed? Locating more housing in close proximity to jobs, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green spaces allows for: more convenient and cost-effective transit service, more walking and cycling and increased viability of local businesses. The Draft RSS proposes focusing growth in areas characterized by the most intense forms of urban development. (See map above.) Focusing growth in centres helps keep infrastructure costs affordable, reduces development pressure on rural and natural resource lands and supports equitable access to housing, services and amenities for all residents.

Current context Between 2003-2014, 28 % of dwelling unit growth within the region was located within a Growth Centre. The Growth Containment Area (GCA) is a defined area within the region where urban growth is to be contained and where full urban services can be provided. Within the GCA, the draft RSS proposes that growth be focused in key locations called Growth Centres.

Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include: • Focus medium to high density residential employment development in

Growth Centres• Focus public investment to support growth and enhance livability in

Growth Centres

The infographic above shows approximate locations for each Growth Centre:

The Growth Containment Area (GCA) is a defined area within the region where urban growth is to be contained and where full urban services can be provided. Within the GCA, growth will be focused in key locations called Growth Centres.

Four types of Growth Centres are identified, reflecting a range of land use densities and mixes. These areas are intended for the most intense forms of urban development in the region and are intended to evolve as complete communities with a range of housing types, jobs, services and amenities.

2.2


2.2 Jobs/Population Target • Achieve a jobs/population ratio of:

o 0.61 in Core Area o 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula o 0.36 in West Shore

Higher ratios mean that there are more jobs located close to housing. Why is this target being proposed? Locating jobs and housing in close proximity supports the vitality and development of complete communities. It will also likely reduce trip distances, especially for the journey to work, which in turn has numerous benefits:

• walking, cycling and transit become more attractive travel choices • access to jobs is more affordable and convenient, especially for low-to-

moderate income households • GHG emissions, poor air quality, road congestion and transportation fuel

consumption and costs are reduced • overall quality of life can be improved due to shorter commute times.

Current context In 2014, the jobs/population ratio by sub-region was:

• 0.59 in the Core Area • 0.53 in the Saanich Peninsula • 0.31 in the West Shore

Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Support provision of infrastructure and services to accommodate employment growth in Growth Centres and on General Employment Lands.

• Protect lands for industrial purposes, including marine-based industries.

The infographic above identifies the three sub-regions of the CRD.

2.3


2.3 Growth Management Target

• Locate 90% of new dwelling units within the Growth Containment Area Why is this target being proposed? Containing growth within the Growth Containment Area was a key foundation for managing growth within the region and reducing sprawl. The 2003 Regional Growth Strategy set a target of 90% of new dwelling units being located within the Regional Urban Containment Servicing Policy Area (RUCSPA).

Current context From 2003-2014, approximately 80% of new dwelling units were within the Growth Containment Area. Lands in rural areas (outside the Growth Containment Area), are already zoned and have existing development potential. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target:

• Sewer services may only be provided to lands within the Growth Containment Area with exceptions only for pressing public health, public safety or environmental reasons.

• Development potential is to be capped to that in place in local Official Community Plans in place at the time of adoption of the Regional Sustainability Strategy.

• Please note that once adopted, the Regional Sustainability Strategy and its policies and actions will not apply to First Nations Reserves or future Treaty Settlement Lands.

The infographic above identifies the location of the Growth Containment Area in the Draft RSS.

3. Mobility 3.1 Active Transportation and Transit Target

• Achieve a transportation system that sees 42% of all trips made by

walking, cycling, and transit.

Why is this target being proposed? One way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to travel within the region is to encourage people to use modes of transportation that produce few or no emissions. Walking and cycling produce no emissions; transit produces few. Increasing the share of trips made by walking, cycling and transit increases access to jobs, goods, services and amenities for all residents. Walking and cycling also provide significant health benefits. Current context The way people travel throughout the region has not changed significantly since 2001 (see Exhibit A.7). In 2011, approximately 23% of daily trips were made by walking, cycling and transit. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Increase investment in pedestrian and cycling facilities • Focus growth in communities already supported by high levels of transit

services.

Source: CRD Regional Transportation Plan



• Achieve a community vehicle fleet composed of 72% zero emission vehicles

Why is this target being proposed? Transportation is the most significant cause of GHG emissions in the region. Shifting to more sustainable transportation modes (walking, cycling and transit) and reducing frequency and lengths of trips, will not, on their own, be sufficient to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions to meet proposed targets. Switching to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) would speed reduction in GHG emissions because on average, the fleet of consumer cars turns over every 13 years. Other actions that will reduce GHG emissions, such as good land use planning, green building standards and retrofits, and infrastructure and service change have longer timeframes for change. With appropriate incentives in place for consumers, switching to zero-emission vehicles can happen relatively quickly. ZEVs will allow those who use personal vehicles to address mobility needs without significant impact on GHG emissions. The CRD’s Round Table on the Environment has estimated that 72% of the community fleet needs to be ZEVs in order to reach GHG emission reduction targets. Current context In the lower Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands (ICBC’s territory W), there were 222 EVs registered as of October 2014. That’s out of 1381 total EVs registered in the province. [Charlotte Argue at Fraser Basin Council] Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Invest in supportive transportation infrastructure and facilities • Develop strategies and action plans to achieve net zero emissions from

CRD corporate fleet Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.


• Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from 2011 levels

Why is this target being proposed? Access to affordable, adequate and appropriate housing is a key determinant of health. A 25% reduction in the percentage of households in core housing need should be achievable, assuming a continuation of Canadian housing policies in place over the past 30 years operating at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Current context In 2011, 15% of households (20,870) in the Victoria Census Metropolitan Area were in core housing need. Almost 30% of renters compared to 7% of owners are in core housing need. A reduction of 25% would mean that by 2038, 11% of all households in the region would be in core housing need. (All percentages are rounded) Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Continue to provide affordable housing through a collaborative approach with municipalities, provincial agencies and the non-profit sector.

Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.


4. Wellbeing 4.1 Poverty Reduction Targets

• Reduce the poverty rate by 75% Why is this target being proposed? Poverty is symptomatic of social inequities. Those living in poverty struggle to make ends meet, care for family members, take part in community life and fulfill their aspirations. The proposed target is informed by a 2008 research report prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (A Poverty Reduction Plan for BC) which recommends a provincial reduction of 75% within a decade. Current context Based on the National Household Survey (NHS), after tax low income measure (LIM-AT), 13% of people living within the Growth Management Planning Area are living in poverty. LIM-AT is set at half the median of adjusted household after-tax income. (Source: Statistics Canada NHS 2011). Reducing the rate of low income persons by 75% means that the rate would drop to 3% by 2038. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Support the provision of affordable housing and transportation options • Encourage new jobs to locate in the region that pay at least a living

wage. Note that many of the key influences on the ability to achieve this target are outside the control of local government.

4.2 Core Housing Need Target • Reduce the number of households in core housing need by 25% from

2011 levels

Why is this target being proposed? Access to affordable, adequate and appropriate housing is a key determinant of health. A 25% reduction in the percentage of households in core housing need should be achievable, assuming a continuation of Canadian housing policies in place over the past 30 years operating at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Current context In 2011, 15% of households (20,870) in the Victoria Census Metropolitan Area were in core housing need. Almost 30% of renters compared to 7% of owners are in core housing need. A reduction of 25% would mean that by 2038, 11% of all households in the region would be in core housing need. (All percentages are rounded) Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Continue to provide affordable housing through a collaborative approach with municipalities, provincial agencies and the non-profit sector.


Core housing need is a measure of households that cannot afford market housing with their own sources of income (i.e., housing costs are not subsidized).


5. Jobs Target • Increase full time jobs at the same or greater rate than the rate of labour

force growth

Why is this target being proposed? Full-time jobs typically pay more than part-time jobs and provide greater income stability. Current context Between 2012 and 2013, the employed labour force decreased by 1.3% and full-time jobs decreased by 2.2%. Proposed policies, programs and services that can indirectly influence the increase in full-time jobs in the region include:

• continuing to invest in high quality infrastructure, public facilities and parks

• protecting the land base for employment purposes • promoting the region to potential investors


6. Agriculture Target • Retain existing amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) lands.

Why is this target being proposed? Maintaining the land base to support farming is essential to supporting farming in the region and to decreasing our dependency on imported foods. Current context 10,596 ha of ALR land (2014) Proposed policies, programs and services that support achieving this target include:

• Reinforce protection of Agricultural Land Reserve lands. • Support local food production.

The Agricultural Land Reserve is a powerful tool regulated by the province to protect agricultural lands for agricultural purposes.

7.1


7. Natural Environment 7.1 Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt Target • Acquire 100% of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt.

Why is this target being proposed? Achieving this target would:

• protect a connected green and blue space system from Saanich Inlet to Sooke Basin and Sooke River, including a large area of Coastal Douglas-fir forest

• provide a large wilderness area close to where many residents live.

Current context 90% of the land for the boundary of the Sea-to-Sea Green Blue Belt has been acquired Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Maintain the Regional Land Acquisition Fund • Continue to purchase land for regional parks in the Sea to Sea Green Blue

Belt.

The above infographic provides a broad overview of Parks currently in the Sea to Sea Green Blue Belt.

7.2


7.2 Conservation of Nature Target • At least 50% of the Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) land and

water base is protected or managed for the needs of nature and residents of the region.

Why is this target being proposed? The CRD Regional Parks Strategic Plan 2012-2021 advances the idea of Nature Needs Half as a foundational principal for regional sustainability. The concept is based on research by conservation biologists who have been examining the question of how much land is needed to sustain life-supporting ecosystem processes and biodiversity benefits including:

• hydrological function and connectivity • adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Many scientists agree that protecting 50% of the land and water base for the conservation of nature provides a viable balance between ecosystem services and economic development. It also supports access to nature for residents. Current context Within the GMPA 20 % of the land and water base (40,234 hectares) is designated and managed for the conservation of nature. Additional lands may have various levels of protection, for example through provincial regulations, development permit areas, or covenants. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Maintain the Regional Land Acquisition Fund and continue to purchase land for regional parks.

• Support development of a connected network of natural areas based on graduated forms of protection and management and collaboration with a wide range of private, public, and non-profit partners.

• Update the Regional Green/Blue Spaces Strategy.

The Growth Management Planning Area (GMPA) is identified in the infographic above. The second infographic describes several types of land and water base ecological areas being managed and connected for the conservation of nature that could be included when quantifying this target.

8. Infrastructure Target • Identify, by 2020, long-term capital plans for CRD utilities and major

infrastructure improvements necessary to address the impacts of climate change and natural hazards.

Why is this target being proposed? Increased knowledge of the potential impacts of climate change and known natural hazards allows for a better understanding of how to mitigate and prepare for major events or changes through capital replacement programs. Current context Current capital planning funds are generally allocated based on current infrastructure assessments, often with little or no consideration of changing sea levels, known natural hazards or other impacts of climate change Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Consider the impact of climate change and natural hazards during development of annual budgets

• Work with emergency managers, land use planners and others as deemed appropriate during capital planning processes for utilities and infrastructure projects to assess needs.


9. Water Target • Defer the need for expansion of regional water supply areas or

reservoirs.

Why is this target being proposed? Deferring expansion of the regional water supply areas and reservoirs encourages the most efficient and cost-effective management of existing systems. Current context

• Total demand has been declining across the region since 2004. • Declining demand amongst existing customers is offsetting growth

demand in West Shore communities. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Encourage development of high performance buildings that use water efficiently

• Manage water use through conservation, rainwater capture and greywater re-use.

10. Waste Target • Achieve a waste disposal rate no greater than 250 kg per person.

Why is this target being proposed? Waste is the third largest producer of community-based GHG emissions in the region, so reducing per capita solid waste will offset GHG emissions. Reducing per capita rates of solid waste will also extend the life of the Hartland landfill site which is projected to reach capacity in 2049 based on current estimates and assuming diversion of kitchen scraps. Current context

• 367 kg per person (2013) Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include:

• Reduce, recycle and recover resources from solid waste.

11. Emergency Preparedness Target

• By 2018, 100% of municipalities have completed and tested an Emergency Response Plan for a Catastrophic Earthquake.

Why is this target being proposed? The largest known natural hazard facing this region is a potential major earthquake which will affect all municipalities in the region, as well as the Juan de Fuca area and our regional infrastructure. Current context Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC) is currently completing a review of its readiness for a catastrophic earthquake, with a report due in March 2015. It is anticipated that EMBC will provide leadership in training and exercising for local emergency programs preparing for a major emergency. Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include: Continue collaboration between the Local Government Emergency Program Advisory Commission (LGEPAC) and EMBC to provide leadership in planning for a catastrophic earthquake


12. Energy Target

• Improve energy efficiency of building stock region-wide by 50% (relative to 2007 levels).

Why is this target being proposed? GHG emissions from existing houses and buildings represent 36% of total community-based emissions region-wide. Increased energy efficiency will increase our ability to adapt to climate change, will make us more resilient in the face of natural disaster, and will save households and businesses money. Current context In 2010, the region’s buildings accounted for approximately 553,329 tonnes of CO2e. [Province of BC 2010 Community Energy and Emissions Inventories CEEI, Feb 20, 2014]

Proposed policies and services that support achieving this target include: Increase generation of renewable energy, including:

• pursue opportunities to establish clean district energy systems • Increase energy efficiency and recovery from retrofits and new

development, including for CRD buildings

13. Rate of Progress • All targets relate to a 2038 time line, unless stated otherwise. Now that

you have considered what our targets should be, please consider how fast we should make progress.

Part D: Other Issues Another issue under discussion relates to a change in policy from the current Regional Growth Strategy regarding the extent of water servicing across the region. (Maps shown below).

Water Servicing Question Should the water servicing policy be changed to allow for potential water servicing beyond the current growth management boundaries, to accommodate water service throughout all municipalities and to Otter Point, East Sooke and Port Renfrew in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, subject to full cost recovery and alternative measures to limit development growth in rural areas? Background: One objective of the Regional Growth Strategy is to limit development in rural areas and to create complete, compact communities in the urban areas. The current Regional Growth Strategy defines a boundary beyond which the CRD and municipalities have agreed not to extend water services or sewer services, other than in conditions of risk to public health. This policy is included as a means to limit development in rural areas. This boundary is called the Regional Urban Containment Services Policy Area (RUSCPA) in the Regional Growth Strategy; it is called the Growth Containment Area in the Draft RSS (see maps above).


A change in policy is being considered in the Draft RSS to allow water servicing beyond this boundary, but not sewer services. Alternative measures to limit growth in rural areas have been included in the Draft RSS. The proposal would allow water services to be extended throughout all municipalities and in three communities in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area (East Sooke, Otter Point, Port Renfrew) provided that: • Official community plans place clear caps on subdivision and development

potential • Recipients of water services pay the full cost of any pipes or other

infrastructure components.

This change is being considered because: • Water lines already exist beyond this boundary in some municipalities; • The new areas where water services could be extended to have been

low growth and anticipated to be low growth in future • Some communities outside the servicing boundaries are requesting water

services; • Minor extensions can improve the quality of water service and be more

economical.

*Related maps shown below Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area (in the current Regional Growth Strategy) The area contained within a regulatory boundary (an urban containment boundary) marking the limit between a defined urban growth and servicing area and other areas such as rural and resource areas, where urban growth is discouraged. Growth Containment Area (in the Draft Regional Sustainability Strategy)…identifies lands that will be supported for housing and employment growth. These are the areas where major new regional transportation and liquid waste service investments will be directed…The boundary of the GCA reinforces protection of agricultural lands, natural environments, natural resource lands and rural areas.

Draft Regional Sustainbility Strategy Growth Containment Area

Part D


Regional Growth Strategy Regional Urban Containtment Policy Area (RUCSPA)

Part D


Golder Associates Ltd.

Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way

Vancouver, BC, V5M 0C4

Canada

T: +1 (604) 296 4200

Volume III: Details of Online Public Feedback – January - CRD

Documents

Transcript of Volume III: Details of Online Public Feedback – January - CRD