Urban Containment Boundary
We were pleased to welcome two special guests to the QBRA Annual General Meeting on October 26:
Michael Jessen, P.Eng., Representative to the Arrowsmith Parks and Land-Use Council; and, Mr. Wayne Moorman, former Chief Engineer for Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN). They provided members with an overview of the Urban Containment Boundary and answered questions during a discussion period following the business portion of the AGM. Michael kindly provided his speaking notes for our website:
Urban Containment Boundaries (in RDN now called Growth Containment Boundaries)
An urban containment boundary defines a set limit between urban and rural areas. The goal of the boundary is to promote efficient use of land, and servicing infrastructure. It is meant to encourage the development of complete and compact communities and control urban sprawl (sometimes taking the form of what is referred to as leap-frog development), while preserving rural space and environmentally sensitive areas.
The use of the term “Growth Containment” could be an interesting way to cloud exactly what the Regional District is up to. There is currently an effort to create Village Centres without delivering the capability of providing a wide array of services usually associated with the term “urban”, and maybe in the extreme never will. Urban containment presupposes that there exists a full array of services that typify an urban environment.
It is important to realize that all metropolitan areas set policies that shape the physical form of urban growth whether they do so consciously or not. The City of Houston, Texas at one time did not use zoning as a planning tool. But over time it had to adopt other mechanisms that today have much the same effect as zoning.
In general, urban containment policies seek to use at least three different types of tools to shape metropolitan growth. Greenbelts and urban growth boundaries are used to affect the "push" factors, while urban service areas are used to affect the "pull" factors.
The term may be peculiar to B.C.
16 of the first 20 hits on Google using “Urban Containment Boundary” were B.C. entities.
Eben Fodor in his book Better not Bigger uses the term “Urban Growth Boundary”.
18 of the first 20 hits on Google using “Urban Growth Bounday” were U.S. entities.
Eben Fodor said, in part, about Urban Growth Boundaries:
“Cities in Oregon have considerable experience with Urban Growth Boundaries, since they have been part of the statewide planning program for 25 years (as at 1999). The results have been mostly positive:
BC Climate Action Toolkit Putting a Boundary on Growth. An Urban Containment Boundary sets aside land to be protected from most forms of development.
Urban Containment Boundaries help local governments meet a number of planning goals that cross-cut with climate action, such as:
* improving the viability of transit by concentrating development;
* encouraging mixed-use development closer to homes and jobs, helping cut the number of car trips
* maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and minimizing new infrastructure costs;
* revitalizing downtowns and town centres;
* maintaining a working land base (agricultural, rural, forested, and other resource lands) and the green infrastructure; and
* protecting the environment.
On top of the climate-friendly results of UCBs, another benefit is in providing a degree of certainty to both developers and residents as to the location of future development. One potential disadvantage to UCBs is that it can contribute to an increase in land prices within the UCB. However, there is no consensus on this as there are many other factors involved in determining land value.
Some Community Examples
The Capital Regional District's (CRD) Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) includes the “Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area” (RUCSPA). Many measures and indicators in the CRD's State of the Region Report: 2008 Regional Growth Strategy Five Year Monitoring Review refers to the RUCSPA.
Nanaimo Regional District’s Growth Strategy (RGS) designated UCBs around the urban parts of the region, with all of the RGS goals strongly supporting these UCBs.
The Saanich OCP 2008 (Appendix A to Bylaw 8940) continues to define an urban containment boundary in its policies and map designations. For example, Growth Management Policies 2, 3 and 4:
2. Maintain the Urban Containment Boundary as the principal tool for growth management in Saanich, and encourage all new development to locate within the Urban Containment Boundary.
3. Do not consider major changes to the Urban Containment Boundary except as the outcome of a comprehensive five-year review of the Regional Growth Strategy.
4. Do not adopt any bylaw or resolution providing for a major expansion to the Urban Containment Boundary without first attaining the assent of the electors through a referendum or plebiscite.
Creating an Urban Containment Boundary
Policies to establish, implement, and review an Urban Containment Boundary must be set out in a Regional Growth Strategy and Official Community Plan. It is important to ensure that Zoning bylaws reflect the desired land use both within and outside the UCB. Local governments can create minimum lot sizes to retain rural character and prevent urbanization outside the UCB and should strategically zone areas inside the UCB to encourage compact and complete development.
It should be noted that an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), a land use policy designed to protect agricultural land, should not be confused with an Urban Containment Boundary.
When these objectives are implemented effectively, urban containment provides for the accessibility of all destinations in an urban area to all the area’s residents. Shopping, jobs, and schools are closer to home and more easily serviced by private and public transportation. The urban area’s pollution is reduced by compact development, and cultural institutions and public parks are well coordinated to correspond with traffic patterns, making them more relevant to the lives of an urban area’s residents.
Michael Jessen, P.Eng., Representative to the Arrowsmith Parks and Land-Use Council; and, Mr. Wayne Moorman, former Chief Engineer for Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN). They provided members with an overview of the Urban Containment Boundary and answered questions during a discussion period following the business portion of the AGM. Michael kindly provided his speaking notes for our website:
Urban Containment Boundaries (in RDN now called Growth Containment Boundaries)
An urban containment boundary defines a set limit between urban and rural areas. The goal of the boundary is to promote efficient use of land, and servicing infrastructure. It is meant to encourage the development of complete and compact communities and control urban sprawl (sometimes taking the form of what is referred to as leap-frog development), while preserving rural space and environmentally sensitive areas.
The use of the term “Growth Containment” could be an interesting way to cloud exactly what the Regional District is up to. There is currently an effort to create Village Centres without delivering the capability of providing a wide array of services usually associated with the term “urban”, and maybe in the extreme never will. Urban containment presupposes that there exists a full array of services that typify an urban environment.
It is important to realize that all metropolitan areas set policies that shape the physical form of urban growth whether they do so consciously or not. The City of Houston, Texas at one time did not use zoning as a planning tool. But over time it had to adopt other mechanisms that today have much the same effect as zoning.
In general, urban containment policies seek to use at least three different types of tools to shape metropolitan growth. Greenbelts and urban growth boundaries are used to affect the "push" factors, while urban service areas are used to affect the "pull" factors.
The term may be peculiar to B.C.
16 of the first 20 hits on Google using “Urban Containment Boundary” were B.C. entities.
Eben Fodor in his book Better not Bigger uses the term “Urban Growth Boundary”.
18 of the first 20 hits on Google using “Urban Growth Bounday” were U.S. entities.
Eben Fodor said, in part, about Urban Growth Boundaries:
“Cities in Oregon have considerable experience with Urban Growth Boundaries, since they have been part of the statewide planning program for 25 years (as at 1999). The results have been mostly positive:
- more orderly development of urban areas
- lower costs to provide urban services
- protection of rural lands
BC Climate Action Toolkit Putting a Boundary on Growth. An Urban Containment Boundary sets aside land to be protected from most forms of development.
Urban Containment Boundaries help local governments meet a number of planning goals that cross-cut with climate action, such as:
* improving the viability of transit by concentrating development;
* encouraging mixed-use development closer to homes and jobs, helping cut the number of car trips
* maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and minimizing new infrastructure costs;
* revitalizing downtowns and town centres;
* maintaining a working land base (agricultural, rural, forested, and other resource lands) and the green infrastructure; and
* protecting the environment.
On top of the climate-friendly results of UCBs, another benefit is in providing a degree of certainty to both developers and residents as to the location of future development. One potential disadvantage to UCBs is that it can contribute to an increase in land prices within the UCB. However, there is no consensus on this as there are many other factors involved in determining land value.
Some Community Examples
The Capital Regional District's (CRD) Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) includes the “Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area” (RUCSPA). Many measures and indicators in the CRD's State of the Region Report: 2008 Regional Growth Strategy Five Year Monitoring Review refers to the RUCSPA.
Nanaimo Regional District’s Growth Strategy (RGS) designated UCBs around the urban parts of the region, with all of the RGS goals strongly supporting these UCBs.
The Saanich OCP 2008 (Appendix A to Bylaw 8940) continues to define an urban containment boundary in its policies and map designations. For example, Growth Management Policies 2, 3 and 4:
2. Maintain the Urban Containment Boundary as the principal tool for growth management in Saanich, and encourage all new development to locate within the Urban Containment Boundary.
3. Do not consider major changes to the Urban Containment Boundary except as the outcome of a comprehensive five-year review of the Regional Growth Strategy.
4. Do not adopt any bylaw or resolution providing for a major expansion to the Urban Containment Boundary without first attaining the assent of the electors through a referendum or plebiscite.
Creating an Urban Containment Boundary
Policies to establish, implement, and review an Urban Containment Boundary must be set out in a Regional Growth Strategy and Official Community Plan. It is important to ensure that Zoning bylaws reflect the desired land use both within and outside the UCB. Local governments can create minimum lot sizes to retain rural character and prevent urbanization outside the UCB and should strategically zone areas inside the UCB to encourage compact and complete development.
It should be noted that an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), a land use policy designed to protect agricultural land, should not be confused with an Urban Containment Boundary.
When these objectives are implemented effectively, urban containment provides for the accessibility of all destinations in an urban area to all the area’s residents. Shopping, jobs, and schools are closer to home and more easily serviced by private and public transportation. The urban area’s pollution is reduced by compact development, and cultural institutions and public parks are well coordinated to correspond with traffic patterns, making them more relevant to the lives of an urban area’s residents.
