Canadian Rural Partnership
Community Decision-Making Toolkit

Greater Oliver Community Story

Quick Links:

1. Background
2. Process
3. Lessons Learned
4. Participant Quotes/Comments
5. List of Appendices

1. Background:

The Design Centre for Sustainability at UBC (DCS) is an academic leader in applying sustainability concepts to the development of land, cities, and community. Through interdisciplinary approaches, the DCS is capable of demonstrating to the development community, to municipalities, and to citizens how to shift community-based planning and design toward on-going consideration of sustainability as a matter of course rather than exception. As one of many project initiatives, Smart Growth on the Ground demonstrates this shift through the utilization of tools and processes — particularly the charrette — that proactively engages citizens and generates consensus-based design solutions.

Greater Oliver is the third Smart Growth on the Ground (SGOG) partner community since the commencement of the program in 2004. Greater Oliver refers to the Town of Oliver and 'Area C' of the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen (RDOS) in British Columbia. The SGOG program is a grant-funded sustainable community planning project that uses an integrated stakeholder engagement and planning process to develop a long-range conceptual plan that includes land use, transportation, infrastructure, and development guidelines. The engagement strategy includes the development of a decision making framework through a series of workshops, followed by a multi-stakeholder charrette event. This paper will describe the engagement process and the charrette event.

1.1. Description of the Community

Greater Oliver describes itself as the 'Wine Capital of Canada'. Located in the arid region of the south Okanagan, the Town of Oliver is surrounded by agricultural lands that host the largest concentration of both vineyards and commercial wineries in British Columbia. These agricultural lands and the natural landscapes of the river and surrounding desert bluffs are critical in shaping the identity of the area and providing a unique and scenic visual resource for the tourist economy.

Greater Oliver's population of approximately 8,500 people is mostly located along the Okanagan River valley. Approximately half live within the Town of Oliver, which is a relatively compact town oriented around the channelized Okanagan River and a major regional highway. Urban expansion is limited in some way on every side of the Town area: steep bluffs constrain the west and northwest quarter of town, agricultural lands limit expansion to the north and south (defined by the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary), and Osoyoos Band Reserve lands border the eastern edge of town.

Farms and farm-related industries are a significant source of jobs in the area, followed by government services, local commercial services, and retail. Major non-farm employers include a hospital, the school district, and a mobile home manufacturer.

1.2. Issues

Greater Oliver is interested in maintaining and enhancing its image as a small town and agricultural area while responding to the shifting needs of its population and economy. These needs include housing, jobs, amenities, and services for youth, families, and seniors, as well as infrastructure and governance that support the agricultural, tourism, small business, and manufacturing industries. Growth pressures from each of these directions have a potential impact on the community's valuable image and character, water resources, agricultural industries, and the ecology of the area. With a highly sensitive and finite supply of land available, and three local governments regulating growth along a provincially controlled highway, the resources required to coordinate, leverage, and mitigate the impacts of change are challenging.

1.3. Contributing Conditions

Water
The changes in temperature and precipitation resulting from climate change could cause changes in the hydrology of the Okanagan basin. Warmer temperatures, especially in winter, could result in earlier snow melt at higher elevations and therefore, earlier onset of spring peak flows by approximately four to six weeks. While all of the climate change scenarios are consistent in predicting an earlier start to the spring thaw ("freshet"), changes in the volumes of peak flows throughout the season are less certain. These changes are important considerations for water managers in the region because design criteria for reservoirs and other infrastructure are based on the assumption that the average timing and volume of the freshet will remain constant over time. The Town of Oliver is at the south end of the Okanagan basin, downstream of major lakes and upland drainage. Oliver depends on the irrigation canal to supply agricultural users and groundwater to supply town residents. It is likely that both sources of water will be influenced by climate change and the effects of increasing water demand upstream. Without taking upstream water demands into account, climate change is expected to significantly decrease total unregulated inflow to Okanagan Lake by as much as 50% in the coming century. This could affect the amount of water that is available downstream of the lake both for surface water supplies and groundwater recharge.

Ecology
The Okanagan Valley corridor is also integral to maintaining the biological diversity and ecological adaptation of natural environments throughout interior British Columbia. The corridor provides a vital link for plants and animals between the interior grasslands of British Columbia and the Great Basin and dry interior desert ecosystems to the south. The Greater Oliver area is located in approximately the middle of this high priority habitat of the South Okanagan. This area has much of the remaining key riparian and grassland habitats and is also key to maintaining the north-south corridor. The area is home to 55 species of plants and animals listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as nationally extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern. For many of these species, actual populations are not well known, nor are the dynamics of their persistence in the South Okanagan - Similkameen region.

Agriculture
This working landscape is the foundation of the economy in the Oliver area. While "urban agriculture", i.e. within built-up areas, may provide some personal food supply and some appreciation for farming in general, it will be the extensive areas of agricultural production that will continue to be the mainstay of the provincial food system. Only 5% of BC is suitable for agriculture and the south Okanagan has soils and climate that make it one of the best areas. Agriculture in the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS), in 2000, had gross farm receipts of $103.8 million, or about $64,400 per farm. There were payments of $98 million for farm operating expenses and $25 million for wages. There were 53,776 weeks of labour - 31% year-round, and 69% seasonal. The experienced labour force (2001) on farms, in support activities for farms, and in food manufacturing totalled 2,940 people, about 8.7% of the RDOS total labour force. Agriculture in the Greater Oliver area will continue to supply food to the local area, the province, and beyond. Having such a secure food source will be vital for a sustainable community. Other communities, too, will look to the Oliver area for some of their food supply.

Housing
After significant growth in the early 1990's and modest changes since then, Oliver is poised to plan its next growth phase with a focus on the central core, to revitalize and rejuvenate the downtown area and to contain its developed boundary. By 2041, approximately 1,200 new dwellings will be needed in the Town of Oliver to serve this growing population. On average, a net gain of 30 dwelling units per year would meet the projected demand for housing in the Town of Oliver. A look at the Residential Dwelling Sales in the Oliver area in 2004 and 2005 indicates that the housing stock is relatively old, the dwelling sizes are still modest, and the sales prices relative to the cost of new construction are low. This indicates an opportunity for renovation and redevelopment with smart growth principles, by upgrading existing stock that is close to services, transportation, recreation and employment.

1.4. Persons/ Organizations Involved

The project delivery team is a partnership between the Design Centre for Sustainability at UBC, Smart Growth BC, and the Real Estate Foundation. In Greater Oliver, the partner communities included the Town of Oliver and the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen. Key staff and initiators of the project from the partner communities included the municipal manager, the Town's contract planner, the Mayor, the Rural Area Director, Regional District planning staff, and the Economic Development Office (the latter is jointly funded by the Town and the Regional District). Other stakeholders or experts also participated, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Transportation, Natural Resources Canada, and local environmental and conservation groups. Several workshops were entirely open to the public, and the charrette event included stakeholder representatives such as business and land owners, residents, farm operators, and youth.

1.5 Anticipated Outcomes

As set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the SGOG partners, RDOS, and the Town, the anticipated outcomes of SGOG in Greater Oliver are as follows:

• To implement developments that incorporate comprehensive smart growth and sustainability principles.
• To create wider public and industry awareness and acceptance of sustainable community planning, design and construction.
• To increase the participation and expertise of citizens and community organizations in the local development process.
• To provide tangible evidence of the beneficial effect of full implementation of existing Federal, Provincial, and Regional policies related to sustainability.
• To provide practical research to address questions about the costs and benefits of implementing sustainable development that may be raised during the SGOG project.
• To showcase the Town and RDOS as leaders in sustainable community development and planning.

The conceptual application of the SGOG process in Greater Oliver is summarized in a final report and provided to the Town and Regional District as an information resource and decision support tool. This report suggests specific implementation activities such as bylaw amendments and revisions and areas for further research.

2. Process:

2.1. Description of the Process

The SGOG project used a multi-stakeholder engagement process to create a set of decision making tools, and then tested the tools through an integrated design and planning process to develop a conceptual long range comprehensive plan for the community. The decision support toolkit is summarized as a design brief, and the integrated design and planning process used was a charrette. A charrette is an exciting, intense event that brings together people who have various interests in and knowledge about the community. A team of experts from various fields also participate in the charrette, providing specialized knowledge in areas such as architecture, landscape architecture, economics, engineering, agricultural planning, land management, and transportation planning.

The design brief is developed during the research phase and first phase of stakeholder engagement. The design brief summarizes the following information:

• feedback from the community and stakeholder engagement process including:,
  • identification of stakeholder priorities
  • establishment of community generated goals, indicators, and targets
• analysis of existing policy context
• analysis of geographic, physical, social, and economic conditions
• targeted research on critical issues and best practice solutions

This first phase of engagement included a series of outreach events and workshops which were intended to share expert information with the public, gather local knowledge and resources, and establish community preferences for the goals, indicators, and targets. The workshop events were:

Opening Forum
At this event, participants were introduced to the initiative and provided initial feedback on issues of importance related to growth and development.

Preparing for Action: A Learning Event
A variety of speakers gave introductions to current research and policy related to key growth issues, including climate change, agriculture, desert and grassland habitats, water management, and community design. The topics on the agenda were determined based on feedback received to that point. Many of these presentations were included in the design brief as targeted research.

Character Workshop
This special workshop attempted to define and measure the "small town and rural character" in the Oliver region. Mapping and character survey exercises were conducted to understand the community's sensitivity to change in specific areas and the participants' values regarding local character and image.

Setting Priorities Workshops: Indicator Selection
Workshops were held with the following groups: town residents; rural residents; business owners and economic development interests; developers and property owners; farm operators; environmentalists; youth; and people interested in recreation, culture, education, and social issues. At these workshops, a selection of possible indicators was presented to the stakeholder groups. Participants were asked to amend the list as needed, and then to identify those indicators of highest priority. Research efforts were focused around the resulting priorities.

Defining Priorities Workshops: Target Setting
With the help of a facilitator and references to the existing conditions and benchmarks for each indicator, participants in stakeholder groups were asked to choose a desired target (or target range) for each indicator. Each stakeholder group also elected a representative to attend the charrette.

Expert Workshops
At a series of meetings, a variety of experts from government, academia and non-governmental organizations were asked to provide feedback from their areas of expertise on the priority indicators and suggest potential targets. This input was combined with community input to create the final list of indicators and targets for the charrette.

The charrette was the second phase of the process. A charrette is an intensive design workshop to create a "development concept plan," including land use, transportation and urban design plans. The SGOG team facilitates and offers design expertise, but decisions are made by the locally-based charrette team. This approach is an alternative to the standard linear design process, and is an effective tool due to the high degree of dialogue and synergistic problem solving that it enables.

By having many and varied voices involved in the process before the charrette (during the "planning stage") and during the charrette (the "design stage"), the process achieves greater integration than a conventional, linear process. By integrating issues and expertise into one process, opportunities for creating win-win-win solutions are enhanced.

The probability of implementation is greatly increased under this process, since ongoing support comes from multiple sources. Key to the process is the extensive community consultation that occurs prior to the charrette, in the form of stakeholder workshops and community engagement in the design charrette itself. Elected officials and government staff participate in the charrette process along with residents, regional government, and local organizations. The extensive engagement of all these parties leads to their "ownership" and monitoring of the product.

The Greater Oliver charrette was a focused four-day event during which the charrette team was asked to generate solutions to the existing and anticipated issues facing the community, such as population growth, infrastructure demands, preservation of character, and amenity requirements. The solutions required varying degrees of detail, and were considered acceptable only with the full consensus of the team.

The charrette event included a series of public events which were intended to open the discussion back up to the larger community, to refine and assist the decision-making process of the charrette team. These public events were:

Charrette Kick Off
At this event, charrette team participants met each other, and were introduced to the design brief. This was followed by a public presentation outlining the contents of the design brief and the agenda for the charrette.

Charrette Mid-Course Review
At the Mid-Course Review, the charrette team presented their preliminary ideas for land use, transportation, and urban design. The public in attendance were divided into the same stakeholder groups that had been consulted during previous workshops, providing input and feedback to their respective representatives. The input was considered by the charrette team during the second half of the charrette.

Charrette Final Presentation
The charrette team presented their work from the four-day event, and responded to questions and feedback.

The results of the charrette were compiled in a concept plan document and provided to the Town and Regional District as a resource for implementation. The Greater Oliver Concept Plan illustrates a detailed vision for the community in a written and visual format. The key to the achievement of this vision will be translation of this Concept Plan into policy and action. An action plan has been developed to provide direction for this translation, and is outlined in the plan under Chapter 5 "Taking the Next Steps." The Greater Oliver Concept Plan may be downloaded from the SGOG website, at www.sgog.bc.ca

2.2. Tools employed

2.2.1 Character Workshop

Asset Mapping
The workshop asked participants to mark on a map twelve places from which they would take a photo of their community, in order to tell a friend what their community is like. Participants described each place on a worksheet. Results were examined for frequency of place choices and occurrence of keywords for each place, and subsequently ranked according to a scale of 'sensitivity to change'.

2.2.2 Setting Priorities Workshops: Indicator Selection

Nominal Group Technique
In this exercise, participants were given a draft list of indicators organized by eight principles. They were asked to suggest new indicators or revise the drafted ones according to each principle they were intended to represent.

Dotmocracy
Following the nominal grouping of indicators, participants 'voted' for their top priorities by placing sticky dots next to them.

2.2.3 Defining Priorities Workshops: Target Setting

Dotmocracy (variation)
Participants were asked to choose a preferred target for each priority indicator by placing a dot somewhere along a scale bar. The bar represented a range of possible conditions for each indicator. For example, for the indicator "proximity of housing to basic services", the scale bar ranged from "all new houses are within 200 metres of basic services" to "all new houses are within 2000 metres of basic services". Results were summarized as a focused range of target conditions in order to capture the majority of participant's preferences.

2.2.4 Charette

Charrette Procedure
The charrette procedure is generally described in section 2.1.

2.2.5 Charrette Mid-Course Review

Community Dialogue
The charrette team participants acted as the facilitation team for the mid-course review. Team members presented their concepts during a public forum and then facilitated a discussion with small break-out groups. The discussion focused on providing feedback, identifying omissions or particular challenges, and providing consent or disapproval for the direction of the ideas.

3. Lessons Learned:

3.1. What Worked Well/ What Didn't Work Well?

Representation
Representative processes require that the outreach events ask the same questions of all stakeholders and that the feedback is somehow normalized. Communicating the same message to different groups and soliciting similar feedback was difficult and variously successful.

Despite efforts to invite as many stakeholder representatives as possible, a number of critical community stakeholders did not attend the charrette event for various reasons. This especially included under-represented groups such as the Sikh and First Nations communities. In some cases, key stakeholders were expected but were unable to attend. Finally, the charrette event logistically limits the number of participants, which can be perceived as exclusive or un-representative. The most successful balance struck in the Greater Oliver process was the representation of town versus rural interests, which has been a historically potent issue.

Transparency
Participants responded very well to the opportunity to engage decision-makers during the decision-making stage of the process rather than at the evaluation or approval stage of the process.

Communication
Effective communication is a rare achievement but of course would always improve the process. In Greater Oliver it seems that participants did not have a complete understanding of the SGOG process, including the intentions of the SGOG project.

Also, the sheer volume of information and resources brought to the process achieved mixed results. This included information, which was not always condensed or highlighted enough to be useful, and the expert resource staff at the charrette, who were seen to be helpful but too numerous and occasionally misdirected. In short, participants appreciated the value and extent of information and resources but were also overwhelmed by it.

Responsiveness and Customization
While the business model for this process requires standardization of procedures and research that is replicable and re-usable, the applied model for this process requires an extreme amount of customization and responsiveness. Workshop participants and regulators appreciated the clear and organized structure of the process, but they did not respond well to any appearances that information or ideas were imported from places that were perceived to be irrelevant to the Greater Oliver context.

3.2 Challenges

A particularly acute challenge in this project was the multi-jurisdictional nature of the project area. With three local governments linked by a provincially managed highway, the majority of the non-urban land base falling into Federal or Provincial control (Crown or Agricultural Land Reserve lands), and jointly managed or multi-sectoral infrastructures such as the water and irrigation systems, the governance of growth and development is as complex as any major city but with far more limited resources. When governance issues needed to be discussed, the balance between a transparent process and the local officials' need for confidentiality was difficult to find.

With that in mind, charrettes generally attempt to minimize governance issues as well as issues related to the protection of investments by using three strategies: using distant planning horizons such as 30 or 50 years, focusing on physical design and planning concepts, and using conceptual or non-binding language. These strategies are supposed to allow greater freedom in making the 'right' choices and then backcasting to the present in order to determine a phased regulatory path to the future. In the case of Greater Oliver, however, participants were very interested in discussing governance issues, and these strategies created the appearance that the process was intentionally or ignorantly avoiding the real problems.

3.3 Outcomes

The Greater Oliver project is relatively recent and at the time of writing few specific implementation activities can be attributed to the SGOG project. However, participants reported that that the process created an increased awareness around the concept of smart growth. Participants feel that both residents and district staff have benefited from this increased awareness. People who participated in the process are now talking about sustainable development and smart growth principles with others in the community, spreading the word beyond just those who participated. People are now thinking about what they want for their town. The process has provided the community with a new lens with which to look at proposed development projects. Another positive skill gained through this process was that the community got experience getting together and hearing what each other had to say. One participant said that this relationship building was especially strong between residents and elected officials.

The process also kicked off an important discussion at a crucial time in the development of the district that will hopefully be carried through as the district faces its upcoming growth challenges. This process was particularly important for bringing together the rural and urban residents. Participants said that the SGOG process has also encouraged district staff to include open houses as part of their planning processes. Another important long-term impact is that participants feel increased awareness around the fact that the land base is finite and that the community needs to think about densification which will lead to controls on the urban sprawl that is currently occurring in the community.

4. Participant Quotes/Comments

What part of the event(s) did you like the most?

• "I liked voting because I actually had a say in something."
• "Learning the diversity and similarity of values in Oliver."
• "Sharing ideas and hearing from others; seeing some new faces."
• "Got me thinking in more detail about what I like and what I don't like about our area."
• "Having to actually think about what I like and don't like about Oliver. Also enjoyed 'seeing' Oliver through the lens of someone else's camera."
• "Exercises prompted me to remember and qualify why I love where we live."
• "The rock band at the beginning and the fresh fruit."

What part of the event(s) did you like the least?

• "Workshop group was too large to be able to have meaningful discussion."
• "Difficult to hear with karate next door and three groups in one room."
• "Because the indicators were already written it felt as though we were being herded."
• "Too much jammed in."

Do you have any suggestions for improving any future workshops or events related to Smart Growth on the Ground?

• "Being better informed on process and materials prior to meeting."
• "More outreach to non-English speakers, indigenous community, and youth."
• "Have the actual group generate the indicators."
• "Anecdotal input is still, I feel, necessary to understand what people mean by their responses."

5. List of Appendices: