REPORT TO CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD: 2003 RGS Amendment Input and Amending Bylaw

REPORT TO CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD

MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2016

SUBJECT

2003 Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Input and Amending Bylaw – Metchosin/Langford Boundary Adjustment / Extend Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area

ISSUE

To report on input from the consultation on the extension of the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area (RUCSPA) and to give first and second reading to an amending bylaw for the 2003 RGS.

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2016 the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board initiated an amendment to the 2003 RGS and adopted a consultation plan to gather input. The amendment is to extend the RUCSPA by 380 acres (154 ha) subject to a municipal boundary adjustment between the District of Metchosin and the City of Langford. Extending the RUCSPA would allow for the provision of water and sewer services. The boundary adjustment is part of a broader economic development venture between Metchosin, Langford and the Beecher Bay First Nation (Sc’ianew), negotiated as part of the treaty process.

Through September and October 2016, CRD staff undertook consultation on the 2003 RGS amendment as set out in the consultation plan. The consultation plan identified that Metchosin and Langford would undertake consultation on the proposed boundary amendment and committed to sharing that input with the CRD Board. To date, an open house has been held in each community. A referendum in Metchosin is planned for January 2017. Appendix A summarizes the consultation activities and the input received.

ALTERNATIVES

1. (a) Receive the consultation results on the proposed 2003 Regional Growth Strategy amendment; (b) Give first and second reading to Bylaw No. 4124 “Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 2, 2016”; and (c) Refer Bylaw No. 4124 on November 10, 2016 to municipal councils for acceptance as per section 436 of the Local Government Act.
2. Refer the report back to staff for further review based on Board direction.

IMPLICATIONS

Regional Growth Strategy Implications

Staff, at a high level, assessed the requested amendment in relation to the policies and overall direction of the RGS when the Board initiated the RGS amendment. Further to that initial assessment, relevant CRD departments were invited to comment on the RGS amendment as part of the consultation process. No new concerns were raised. Several members of the public expressed concern that the proposed amendment would allow for land uses that could result in potential environmental impacts and loss of rural land to urban development, contrary to RGS policy.

A letter from Metchosin, Langford and the Beecher Bay First Nation (Sc’ianew) submitted in support of the amendment addresses some of the RGS implications previously noted by staff and raised by the public as part of the consultation (see Appendix A for copy of the letter). The letter states that both Metchosin and Langford will buffer residential and rural land uses, however does not outline how the buffer would be implemented (i.e., through site planning or development approval requirements). The letter outlines that costs associated with servicing the land would be paid by users and upgrades would be covered by development cost charges. The letter notes that the proposed business park development is in a location that would create a hub of jobs near a growing neighbourhood. The letter also notes that the location is along a transit route and near cycling infrastructure on the Galloping Goose trail. The letter identifies that residential uses are proposed for an area where the topography is unsuitable for industrial development.

Adoption Implications

The RGS amendment will only take effect if/when the province adjusts the Metchosin and Langford municipal boundaries. Making the RGS amendment contingent on the boundary adjustment ensures that Metchosin would not have a designated growth area within its municipality should the province not grant the boundary adjustment.

Neither the RGS amendment nor the boundary adjustment is contingent on the Treaty process. Should the treaty not be settled, Metchosin would not receive the three Crown parcels to be exchanged for the land given to Langford as part of the boundary adjustment. Langford could therefore have received additional developable land with a treaty yet to be settled. Although Metchosin has zoned and designated these parcels for park use, as Crown land the province would retain ultimate authority over the parcels.

Process Implications

The next steps in the amendment process are to give first and second reading to the amending bylaw and to refer the bylaw to municipalities for acceptance. All municipalities must accept the RGS amendment before the bylaw can be amended. Section 436 of the Local Government Act sets out requirements for municipal acceptance. Municipalities have 60 days to accept or reject the RGS by resolution of council. Municipalities who reject the RGS must specify which provision(s) they reject and the reason(s) for the rejection. Should any municipality reject the RGS, the Minster of Community, Sport and Cultural Development must direct a process to reach acceptance.

Sections 439 to 442 of the Local Government Act set out a non-binding facilitation process and three binding settlement processes that the Minister may direct. The administrative costs associated with reaching acceptance are shared proportionately between the board and the affected local governments that participate in the process. Appendix C provides the relevant legislation.

Timing Implications

The 60-day acceptance period would end on January 9, 2017. The CRD Board could give third reading and adopt the amending bylaw in January 2017 should all municipalities accept the amending bylaw. Municipal rejection of the amending bylaw would delay adoption.

CONCLUSION

Staff undertook consultation on the 2003 RGS amendment as set out in the consultation plan. Metchosin and Langford have shared comments from the open houses they hosted. Metchosin, Langford and the Beecher Bay First Nation submitted a letter that responds to some of the RGS implications previously noted by staff and raised by the public as part of the consultation. The RGS impacts can be considered by the Board in the context of other implications, opportunities, commitments and Board objectives. The next step in the amendment process is to give first and second reading of the amending bylaw and to refer the bylaw to municipalities for acceptance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) Receive the consultation results on the proposed 2003 RGS amendment; (b) Give first and second reading to Bylaw No. 4124 “Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 2, 2016”; and (c) Refer Bylaw No. 4124 on November 10, 2016 to municipal councils for acceptance as per section 436 of the Local Government Act.

ES:SB

Attachments: Appendix A: Consultation Summary for the 2003 RGS Amendment Appendix B: RGS Amending Bylaw No. 4124 “Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 2, 2016” Appendix C: Legislative Provisions for Acceptance and Settlement of a Regional Growth Strategy