Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-17 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA October 17, 2011 9:00 a.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. REMINDERS October 17, 2011 Closed Council Cancelled Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 P.M. 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES -October 3, 2011 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Volunteer Income Tax Rebate Discussion of proposed motion submitted by Councillor Ashlie 4.2 Financial Update Staff report dated October 17, 2011 providing an update on financial activities to the end of August 2011. Council Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 2 of 3 4.3 Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District Update Staff report dated October 17, 2011 providing a status report on the ongoing dialogue between the District of Maple Ridge and the Provincial Government with regard to the Albion and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking Districts. 4.4 Requested Amendments to Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy Staff report dated October 17, 2011 recommending that Metro Vancouver be advised that the District of Maple Ridge has no comments on the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011. 4.5 Veterans' Way Signage and Peace Tree Dedication Verbal update by the Manager of Corporate Communication 5. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include: a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. d) Other. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. 5.1 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked b Date: 3 Council Workshop October 17, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting. A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; (h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affectingthe municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council (i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor -client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; Q) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of oreparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) (o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91(other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. (p) information relating to local governmentrtici tion In provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. Recommendation re volunteer income tax rebate: Council composes a recommendation to be sent to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association requesting the federal government to develop an individual income tax rebate category for volunteer hours. Further, that council sends a letter to the office of our Member of Parliament, Randy Kamp, to provide him with the request for his consideration and feedback prior to adoption of recommendation for LM LGA. Rationale: Our council is aware of the number of volunteer hours that occur in our community due to the tracking of such within our Parks and Leisure Services survey. And although they are considerable, they are most likely only a portion of what actually occurs within the non-profit, sports, arts and religious organizations that are active in our community. As our population ages it is likely that many more people will use their leisure time to volunteer. At the same time, this same population could use an additional income tax break incentive while being on a fixed income. A income tax rebate system for volunteer hours would be both encouraging of the value of such time spent and a welcome recognition of the cost benefit to society for the time that is given. There is an obvious benefit to the community through volunteer hours, and while the main incentive to volunteer is the good that it provides both the recipient of those hours and the person who volunteers, volunteering deserves to be recognized as the significant contribution to society that it is and a income tax rebate system for individuals who volunteer would provide such recognition. 4A Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Financial Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: 17-October-2011 Council Workshop This report provides a financial update to the end of August, representing 67% of the year. While it would be premature to predict year-end results with four months of financial activity remaining, trends have emerged that its useful to discuss in advance of 2012-2016 business planning sessions. Overall, results are in line with expectations at this point of the year. RECOMMENDATION: None required - information only DISCUSSION: Year-to-date financial activity Our business cycle sees the majority of our revenues, primarily property taxes, earned in the first part of the year and the bulk of our expenses incurred in the latter part of the year. At the end of August, it's normal to see revenues at, or close to, financial plan targets and expenses lagging a bit. Overall, financial results are where we'd expect them to be at this point in the year. The following focuses on preliminary results in the General Revenue Fund to the end of August, updated to September where possible. While forecasting year-end results with four months of activity remaining is challenging, some trends have solidified and it's useful to discuss them ahead of the upcoming business planning sessions. The following discussion touches on some of our key revenues and expenses. Investment income is at $2.1 million at the end of August, compared to a financial plan target of $1.2 million, with an average rate of return of approximately 4%. Our financial plan targets take into account planned spending, both operational and capital, and the current investment climate of lower returns. When planned spending is delayed, as is often the case with our capital program, we have a larger pool available to invest; the result is a favorable variance in investment income. Since the economic downturn began in 2008, annual results for building permits have been somewhat volatile. In 2009, revenues were below financial plan targets by $300,000, and then rebounded in 2010 with revenues exceeding targets by $212,000. In order to comply with accounting principles, the fiscal year for building permits runs from November through October, so the fiscal year is almost complete for 2011 and we expect revenues to fall short of financial plan targets by approximately $300,000. 4.2 Expenses in the General Revenue Fund include the cost of goods and services, labour and debt servicing. Expenses are grouped by the functional area (segment) in which they are incurred. The following table details the departments that belong to each functional area: Human Resources Clerks Administration Finance Purchasing Information Svc Legislative Svc Economic Dev Communications Reporting Segments Police Parks Fire Leisure Svc Bylaws Youth Svc Inspection Svc Arts Emergency Svc Library Planning Recycling Cemetery ............ ...... Social Planning Engineering Operations Drainage Roads Overall, expenses are in line with expectations and costs are within the allotted budget envelopes. We will see some savings from a number of areas this year, such as interest cost savings from planned debt financing that wasn't entered into, labour and succession planning savings and overall cost containment. For the past number of years we've seen significant savings from costs associated with the RCMP contract, and while we expect to see savings again this year, its unlikely that they'll be of the same magnitude as in past years. Capital Planned capital investment for 2011 was $112 million, comprised of new projects from the 2011 capital program as well as projects committed to in previous years. Approximately $38 million of projects are dependent on funding from senior levels of government or other agencies. Work on these projects proceeds only once funding approval is received. A further $25 million is tied to development, and will proceed when the related development occurs. To date this year, we've invested over $20 million in capital projects, with approximately half this amount invested in grant -funded projects that must be completed by the end of October, such as the sewer extension and downtown improvements. Other projects of note include the completion of the animal shelter, in partnership with the BC SPCA, acquisition of land for the cemetery expansion and for parks, drainage works on River Road and 240 St at Dewdney Trunk Road, as well as annual programs to renew our roadways, sanitary sewer and water systems. Sewer and Water Utilities The District operates the Sewer and Water Utilities as self -funding entities. This means that the sewer and water levies collected on the property tax bill, as well as metered charges must be sufficient to meet the current year operating costs as well as provide for the long-term capital needs of the utilities. Large portions of the costs in both utilities are passed on to the District from Metro Vancouver Regional District and as such, the District doesn't control increases in those charges. In order to smooth the impact of those rate increases on our ratepayers, Council has adopted a rate stabilization policy. This may result in a deliberate accumulation of surplus amounts in the utilities for a period of time followed by a deliberate draw down of those amounts to fund infrastructure costs, such as the District's share of large regional projects. Overall expenses in both utilities are in line with expectations at the end of August and within the approved budget envelopes. Conclusions This report provides an update on financial activity to the end of August. Overall results are in line with expectations at this time. Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CGA Manager of Accounting � --4 Approved by: P ul II, CGA GM, Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence: gief (Jim) Rule Administrative Officer District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: October 17, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: E05-010-047 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District - Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides a status report on the ongoing dialogue between the District of Maple Ridge and the Provincial Government with regard to the above noted dykes. The report also references a recent article in the Vancouver Sun (copy attached) dated September 22, 2011. The article highlights the fact that other municipalities share the concerns previously expressed by the District of Maple Ridge. Two previous reports to Council are also attached for reference and background. The first report dated October 4, 2009 was considered by Council at the October 27, 2010 Council meeting. A copy of the October 4, 2009 report is attached and it provides a detailed background on the history of Maple Ridge's involvement with both dyking districts, A follow-up report dated June 29, 2010 was considered by Council at the July 7, 2010 Workshop. A copy of the June 29, 2010 report is also attached. The genesis of those reports was a request by the Province for the District of Maple Ridge to take over ownership of the dykes. Based on these reports the District requested that the Province undertake a full assessment of the dykes, pump stations and associated assets to determine the most appropriate delivery of flood protection to property owners. In response, the Ministry of Environment provided a letter dated October 13, 2010 concurring with the need for a comprehensive assessment and asked that District staff to work with Ministry staff to identify the costs required to complete this work. The fundamental issue is the standards required for future dyking upgrades. Council has already asserted that it does not want to take over ownership of dykes that require significant investment to bring up to current standards. In 2007, the Albion dyke was raised to approximately 6.Om elevation, which was funded through the Provincial Emergency Fund. However sections of the dyke remained up to 1m below current requirements and required further upgrading. In the past year the Ministry has also been working on updating the seismic standards for dykes. The standards were released in August 2011. The costs to upgrade the Albion dyke to seismic standards are estimated to be in excess of $10 million. In 2009 the District applied for an infrastructure grant to raise a section of the Albion dyke. The grant was approved in the amount of $525,000 with 1/3 cost sharing arrangement between the Federal/Provincial governments and the Dyking District. Over the past year Maple Ridge staff has been working with the Ministry to try and advance this work. As part of the 2010 grant, obtaining a Dyke Maintenance Act Approval was required prior to construction which included a full seismic assessment. A seismic assessment on the section of the dyke to be raised was carried out. Based on the conclusions of the report, the Ministry concluded that full seismic upgrading was required prior to Ministry approval of any further improvements to the dyke crest. At an estimated cost in excess of $10 million this work is well 1 of 4 4.3 beyond the scope of the grant and as such the Dyke Maintenance Approval was not granted. This resulted in the upgrade not proceeding and the remainder of the grant funds being returned to the Province. All of the above reaffirms how critical it is that a full assessment of the dyke, pump stations and associated assets be completed. Over the past year the focus has been placed on efforts to advance the work approved under the infrastructure grant. Now that that process has been concluded the focus is to complete the full assessment of the dykes. RECOMMENDATION: That this report be received. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: As stated above two previous reports to Council are attached to this report that provide detailed background on context of the current status of the Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District. Those two reports were prepared in response to a request by the Province for the District of Maple Ridge to takeover ownership of the dykes. Based on these reports the District requested that the Province undertake a full assessment of the dykes, pump stations and associated assets to determine the most appropriate delivery of flood protection to property owners. In response, the Ministry of Environment provided a letter dated October 13, 2010 concurring with the need for a comprehensive assessment and asked that District staff work with Ministry staff to identify the costs required to complete this work. District staff has been working with Ministry of Environment staff through 2011. A primary focus has been to advance the work approved under the federal infrastructure grant program. Infrastructure Grant As discussed in the attached October 4, 2009 Council Report, a $525,000 grant was approved by the Province to complete an upgrade to the Albion Dyke. In order for the work to proceed, two approvals were required from the Ministry of Environment: • an Environmental Assessment Document approval; and • a Dyke Maintenance Act approval. The Environmental Assessment Document approval was obtained. However, in late 2010, District of Maple Ridge staff met with representatives of the Ministry of Environment. At that meeting the Ministry identified the requirement to upgrade the dyke to current seismic levels. Based upon this discussion the District engaged Golder Associates to complete a seismic assessment for the section of the Albion Dyke approved under the grant. The conclusions of this report indicated that the dyke needs to be upgraded to meet the seismic standards. The work required to upgrade the dykes to these standards were well outside the scope of the grant and not feasible with the funding source available. The Ministry of Environment accordingly denied the Dyke Maintenance Act approval. This resulted in the upgrade not proceeding and the remainder of the grant funds being returned to the Province. 2 of 4 Full Assessment of the Dykes As noted in the attached newspaper article dated September 22, 2011, the Province released a new set of detailed seismic guidelines in August of 2011. These guidelines have high cost implications to several regions across. the lower mainland including the Albion Industrial Park. However further detailed analysis will need to be conducted to determine the full magnitude of the new seismic implications. As requested by the Province, the District of Maple Ridge worked with Ministry of Environment staff to prepare a draft Terms of Reference establishing the basic goals needed to complete an assessment of the dykes, pump stations and associated assets. The assessment is also intended to evaluate the land being protected in order to establish the most appropriate and cost effective level of protection. The draft Terms of Reference was provided to the Ministry of Environment on September 2, 2011. Currently the Terms of Reference and estimated project cost sits with the Province. The District has had no further discussions related to possible funding sources or an anticipated schedule for completion of the work. The District has also completed the annual dyke inspection which identified several locations that required immediate repairs to the riverside toe. This work includes upgrading river bank armouring, repairing existing pockets of erosion and removal of vegetation from the dyke riverside bank. The award of this work is covered under a separate report to Council. The use of the remaining grant money was discussed with the Province to complete this work but was denied based on the fact that the proposed scope didn't align with the grant regulations. b) Desired Outcome: To advance the study that provides a full assessment of the dykes, pump stations and associated assets and identifies the most cost effective approach to achieving an appropriate level of flood protection that services the interests of the local property owners, the District and Region as a whole. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Property owners within the boundaries of the Dyking Districts are required to pay for all works on their dyking systems. This is done through a specific annual charge collected through the tax notice. The District is already tending to the ongoing maintenance issues of ADD and MRRDD. However, Council has already affirmed to the Province that the District will not agree to the takeover of the dykes until the full costs of upgrading the dykes is known and an agreeable funding program in place. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: To date, improvements to the dykes have been funded through the Dyking Districts and/or Provincial Grants/Emergency Funds. The Albion Dyke was raised in 2007 as part of the response to the anticipated freshet that year. At that time it was understood the dykes needed to be raised further to meet the current Provincial flood elevation requirements. However, in light of the seismic investigations conducted during the recent grant project it is now apparent that the dykes will also require full seismic upgrading. Seismic upgrades for the Albion Dyke alone are estimated at a cost in excess of $10 million. This does not include property costs or the full reconstruction of the dyke after the land has been stabilized. 3 of 4 CONCLUSION The Ministry's letter is seen as a positive step towards identifying the costs to associated infrastructure to current Provincial standards. District staff has worked determine the appropriate methodology and costs. It is Council's previous position borne by the Province. Staff will continue to work with the Province on that basis. Prepared by: Stephen Judd, P.Eng Manager of Infrastructure Development Prepared by: Ceri Marko, CIVIC Manager of Legislative Services Approved by. rank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng AGM: Public Works &A e�elopment Services Concurrence: J.LI(Jim) Rule` Chef Administrative Officer bring the dykes and with Ministry staff to that these costs be Attachments: Vancouver Sun Sept 22, 2011 "New BC Dike Design Guidelines Costly for Municipalities" DMR Council Report Oct 4, 2009 "Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District" DMR Council Report June 29, 2010 "Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District" Deputy Minister Doug Konkin, BC Min Environment, Letter Oct 13, 2010 !�5iEA! rJew B.C. dike design guidelines costly for municipalities Page 1 of 4 New B.C. dike design guidelines costly for 111un1cipal1 Lies BY GORDON HOEKSTRA, VANCOUVER SUN SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 A view of the dike in Richmond near #2 Road Bridge on Wednesday September 21, 2011. BC has announced new provincial standards to protect dikes from earthquakes and sea -level rise. Photograph by: Les Bazso, PNG METRO VANCOUVER - New provincial design standards for dikes meant to provide protection against earthquakes and prepare for rising sea levels could cost Lower Mainland municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars. Municipalities say if the province is going to establish new design guidelines for dikes — which protect billions of dollars in infrastructure — it needs to provide money to help make the required improvements. The City of Richmond has already estimated the new dike design standards will cost $180 million — $100 million to account for higher sea levels and $80 million to improve the dikes' ability to withstand earthquakes. Richmond's director of engineering John Irving said even though the expense could be spread over a number of decades, it is difficult to plan for the improvements without dedicated funding. "It's additional cost the province has created without additional funding," he said. http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5439703&sponsor= 10/ 11 /2011 New B.C. dike design guidelines costly for municipalities Page 2 of 4 Richmond, Delta and Chilliwack account for nearly half of the 330 kilometres of high -risk dikes to which the new earthquake rules apply. Dikes are considered high risk — or "high consequence" — when they protect urbanized areas. Chilliwack alone has estimated its 50 kilometres of dikes protect $2 billion in property and infrastructure. The province is not ordering municipalities to make upgrades immediately to meet the new standards. Instead, the improvements will be required only as new dikes are built, or dikes are upgraded. The new earthquake standards released last month allow dikes to be upgraded in a number of ways, for example, by widening or compacting the base with methods that include pile driving and injecting mortar into the soil. Dikes would need to be raised to account for expected rises in sea levels from climate change, outlined in new guidelines released in the first half of the year. Neil Peters, the province's inspector of dikes, said there is no new funding tied to the new standards. "At least at this point, the guidelines process is separate from any infrastructure -funding process," said Peters, who is also head of flood safety for the province. He likened the new dike standards to upgrading the building code. "It doesn't mean that somebody building an apartment gets money to comply with the new code," he said. Although Delta has not produced cost estimates, deputy director of engineering Hugh Fraser said the new standards would cost "very large dollars." Fraser noted the provincial and federal governments are putting .significant investments into the Lower Mainland to develop its ports and other infrastructure to tap into growing trade with Asia. "They need to recognize these communities need to be protected if this is going to be the gateway to the Pacific," he said. According to the province's new guidelines, an earthquake creates a number of risks, including a phenomena known as liquefaction which can turn sandy, wet soils into a kind of slurry. The Fraser River delta had been identified as a prime location for liquefaction, said John Clague, a Simon Fraser University geologist with an expertise in earthquakes. The liquefied ground can destabilize dikes, and can cause sliding, slumping and collapsing. This can be an immediate threat where dikes are holding back sea water, for example, at high tide, or river water, as at the Vedder Canal in the upper Fraser Valley. Any collapse of dikes from an earthquake is also a significant danger if there is an ensuing tsunami. If an earthquake were to happen when the Fraser River was experiencing high water, the consequences could be more severe. http://w�vw.vancouversun.com/story_print.htrnl?id=5439703 &sponsor= 10/ 11 /2011 New B.C. dike design guidelines costly for municipalities Page 3 of 4 While a major earthquake that affects the entire region happens about every 500 years along the southern B.C. and U.S. northwest coasts, less -powerful earthquakes happen more often, noted !ague. The smaller earthquakes can still cause considerable damage from liquefaction, particularly the closer they are to built-up areas, he said. The province has put up money to upgrade dikes recently, but the funds are not specifically targeted at these latest standards. The B.C. Liberal government's 10-year, $100-million flood protection program, announced in 2007, already receives more applications than it can accommodate. In some years, the value of the applications exceeds $100 million, noted Steve Litke, a program manager at the Fraser Basin Council. ChilliWack Mavor Sharon Gaetz would like to see a return to the joint provincial -federal Fraser River Flood Program which ran from 1968 to 1994 and provided about $300 million if inflation is factored in. Gaeta said the community simply can't afford the upgrades that would be required as part of the new earthquake standards, even if it's a cost in the future. "Frankly, I can't imagine the kind of impact that would have on taxation," she said. ohoeskstraavancouversun.com © Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun revioLls A view of the dike in Richmond near #2 Road Bridge on Wednesday September 21, 2011. BC has announced new provincial standards to protect dikes from earthquakes and sea -level rise. ih http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5439703&sponsor= 10/11/2011 New B.C. dike design guidelines costly for municipalities Page 4 of.4 Photograph by: Les Bazso, PNG http://www.vancouversun.com/story�rint.html?id=5439703&sponsor= 10/ 11/2011 MAPLE RIDG4 Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: October 4, 2009 FILE NO: E05-010-047 ATTN: Committee of Whole Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge has three Improvement Areas within its boundaries, the Trethewey-Fdge Dyking District (TDD), the Albion Dyking District (ADD) and the Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District. (MRRDD) The TDD was established in 1963, has an elected Board of Trustees and has not approached the District of Maple Ridge for administrative or financial assistance. Since 1992 the District of Maple Ridge has been serving as the interim receiver of the ADD and since 2005 has served as the unofficial receiver of MRRDD. As a result, the Ministry of Community Services is seeking to transfer responsibility for both the ADD and MRRDD to the District. Both dykes require significant improvements to bring them up to current standards of flood protection. There are insufficient funds available from those Dyking Districts to make those improvements and no funds are budgeted by the District of Maple Ridge. The Province is offering funding for the administrative costs of transferring responsibility but has offered no funding for the improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS: That staff be directed to send a letter to the Ministry of Community Services requesting that the Ministry put in place a mutually agreeable program that addresses the following: 1. funding for all necessary improvements required to the Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District to bring them to current flood protection standards 2. funding for ongoing annual maintenance costs to protect these improvements 3. enabling legislation that will provide legal access for construction and maintenance to those portions of the Albion Dyke currently located on private property and all to be established with the Province before the District agrees to the transfer of responsibility of these Provincial Improvement Areas. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Flood events cause significant social, economic and environmental impacts on a community. Dyking systems have been developed in low lying areas of the Fraser River to provide some protection from flooding events. Dykes require ongoing supervision and maintenance to provide optimal protection. 1 of 5 The minimum flood design standard set by the Province for the Lower Fraser River is for a flood with a magnitude of the 1394 flood of record. Three Dyking Districts have been established by the Provincial Government in response to requests from local private interests. The attached map identifies these 3 improvement areas. Trrethewey-Edge Dvking District The most recently established improvement area, the Trethewey-Edge Dyking District (TDD) is located between the North Alouette River and the Alouette River. In 1963 the TDD was incorporated as a Provincial improvement district under the Waters Act to provide for the dyking and drainage of land and the construction, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of works for those purposes. It is administered through an elected board of trustees and has functioned well through its history. The board of trustees has not requested financial or administrative assistance from Maple Ridge. The remaining two dyking districts, the Albion Dyking District (ADD) and Maple Ridge Road 13 DvkinpF District (MRRDD) are located between 232 Street and 240 Street adjacent to the Lougheed Highway and within the Fraser River floodplain. Since the resignation of the boards of trustees for both these improvement areas, the District of Maple Ridge, through the Engineering Department and the Operations Department, establishes annual work plans and budgets for ADD and MRRDD. The Clerk's Department manages their finances. A levy is included on the tax bill for property owners within these areas to cover the costs of maintaining the dykes. Municipal staff or contractors complete any necessary work. Albion Dyking District History The ADD was established by the Province of British Columbia under the Water Act in 1957 after the Fraser Valley Dyking board determined that dyking the area was uneconomic. The land owners of that time submitted a petition to the Province for the incorporation of an improvement district in order to finance and collect for the construction of their own dyke. The ADD covers the area south of Lougheed Highway between the Haney Bypass and 236 Street. Until late 1991 the ADD was managed by a Board of Trustees. When no one stood for election to the Board that year, the Province approached the District to act as receiver. The District was initially unwilling to assume this responsibility but when a further Call for Nominations in March 1992 went unanswered, the District agreed to act as an interim receiver. On April 15, 1992 the Province passed Order in Council No. 617 appointing the District of Maple Ridge as receiver for the ADD. That Order remains in effect to this day and the District is authorized, as receiver, to impose taxes on the lands and improvements in the area. Current Condition of Dyke The Albion Dyke is approximately 2500 "metres long and protects SO hectares of industrial, commercial, residential and park land. In 2007, in anticipation of a possible flood from the annual freshet, over $2 million dollars in improvements were made to approximately 1570 meters of the dyke from Kanaka Creek Regional Park east to McKay Avenue. This project also involved the construction of 3 and 4 block high Lock -Block walls, concrete gravity structures with steel plate forms and steel plate welded onto steel structures along a 350 metre portion of the dyke east of McKay Avenue. This project strengthened and widened the dyke but did not bring the dyke crest elevation up to the current provincial standard. Further improvements, at an estimated cost of $6.95M, are required to widen the dyke, raise the dyke crest elevation approximately one meter and extend the dike east to 240 Street. 2of5 The District has recently been notified that an Infrastructure Stimulus Fund application for Phase 2 of the Albion Dike Extension has been approved. This project involves increasing the Albion Dyke crest elevation from 6.5 to 7.5 metres geodetic for a 1500m portion of the dyke through Kanaka Creek Regional Park. The estimated cost for the project is $525,000 and includes $350,000 Provincial/Federal funds and $175,000 Albion Dyking District funds. Financial Status of Qyke An annual tax is imposed by bylaw on lands within the boundaries of the ADD for the purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and maintenance. In 2009 taxes were levied at a rate of $2.2648 per $1,000 of assessment of land and improvements in all categories. The ADD has current bank balance of $305,855. Mapip, Ridge Road 13 Dyking District History MRRDD was incorporated as an improvement district on June 18, 1948 under the Water Act. MRRDD covers an area north of Lougheed Highway between Tamarack Lane and 104 Avenue. In October 2003, the trustees requested that the District assume responsibility for the administration and operation of MRRDD citing the change in the demographics from that of a farming community to a residential area as one of their reasons for making this request. In February 2005 all the trustees resigned as they felt the operation of the improvement district was too complex for untrained volunteers. No further trustees could be obtained. The District of Maple Ridge assumed operation of this service at the request of the former trustees and the Provincial Government. The District of Maple Ridge has not been appointed as a receiver by the Province and no formal conversion and transfer of responsibilities has taken place. Current Condition of Dyke In 2007 temporary lock blocks were placed on Tamarack Lane as an emergency measure to provide protection from possible flooding during the annual freshet. The intersection at Lougheed Highway and Tamarack Lane and approximately 230 m of Tamarack Lane need to be raised approximately 1 m to provide appropriate flood protection. As well, the pump station constructed 50 years ago needs to be replaced. Its construction does not conform to present day standards and the electrical work is outdated. In August 2008 the District submitted an application for a $2.OM grant from Emergency Management BC for these improvements but that grant application was declined. Financial Status of Dvke An annual tax is imposed by bylaw on lands within the boundaries of the MRRDD for the purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and maintenance. In 2009 taxes were levied at a rate of $0.3738 per $1,000 of assessment of land and improvements in all categories and a rate of $12.00 per acre of land with a minimum charge of $5.00. MRDD has a current bank balance of $341,195. Current Status of Improvement Districts The Provincial Government no longer incorporates improvement districts unless there are exceptional circumstances. The number of improvement districts in the province has been steadily declining as the Provincial Government transfers responsibility for those services to local government. The Province has requested that the ADD and MRRDD be dissolved and transferred to the District. The District could either incorporate all of their financial assets and liabilities into its overall budget, or it can keep them separate by creating a local area service. If the District is amenable to this, a resolution of Council in favour of transferring responsibility for the MRRDD and ADD to the municipality and requesting that Cabinet exempt the service area establishment from elector assent would be sent to the Province. The exemption is available to us as the Trustees requested this be 3 of 5 done. Once Cabinet approval is obtained, the municipality will receive a grant for each improvernent district under the Restructure Implementation Grant Program, to assist with administrative costs related to the transfer. A local area service bylaw would then be adopted by Council for each Dyking District. Although the Province could choose to pass an Order to Council to transfer responsibility without the District's cooperation, their preference appears to be to dissolve and transfer both dyking districts in a cooperative manner. The Province is also dissolving dyking districts in Surrey and Coquitlam that were created under the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act and transferring their assets, operation and maintenance responsibilities to local government. Surrey is seeking an extension of their transfer until after 2012. They intend to study potential operating partnerships or cooperatives with each of their Dyking Districts with a view to determining the most appropriate approach to provide dyking services after they are dissolved and looking at how to continue in the short term if any of the Dyking Districts are unable to fulfill their obligations. Coquitlam is seeking an extension until a mutually agreeable strategy for continued flood protection is established for the dyking district. As has been the case with the District of Maple Ridge, neither of these local governments has a particular desire to accept the downloading of responsibility for flood protection by the Province. b) Desired Outcome: An acceptable level of flood protection that services the interests of the local property owners and the District as a whole is required for these Dyking Districts. The District must accomplish this within its fiscal abilities. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Property owners within the boundaries of the Dyking Districts are required to pay for all works on their dyking systems. Property owners may face increased tax assessments to bring the dykes up to standards. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Staff are already acting in an unofficial capacity and tending to the ongoing maintenance issues of ADD and MRRDD. However, if the District accepts responsibility for the dykes there would be additional responsibilities in terms of upgrading the current flood protection. e) Business Plan/ Financial Implications: No funds have been allocated in the Capital Works budget for these dykes. All works must be funded through the Dyking Districts. Provincial grants can be applied for but these generally require that the recipient pay 33% of all costs. By taking on responsibility for the dykes in their current condition, the District will also be assuming significant liability. f) Alternatives: Council could also consider the following options: 1. The District could agree to accept the transfer of responsibility for the Provincial Improvement Areas and pass the resolution recommended by the Province. This is not recommended as the dykes require significant improvements that neither the Dyking Districts nor the District of. Maple Ridge has funding for. 4of5 2. The District could refuse to accept the transfer of responsibility for the Provincial Improvement Areas. This is not recommended as the Province could simply pass an Order in Council transferring responsibility with no opportunity to discuss funding of the required improvements. Prepared by: of 9brporate & Development Engineering CItV � /Yvze---- Prepared by: Ceri Mario Manager of Legislative Services Approved �bPa 1 Gillo BBA, CGA General Manager, Qqporate & Financial Services Concurrenle: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 5 of 5 � � I City of i Pitt Meadows District of Maple Ridge TRETHE Y DYKING DI TkICT 132 AVE F Cn N O O N N N 128 AVE L_ N j � 1 _I J 24 A 1 123 AVE Fraser Dyking Dis admin0043-mxd N m N °LRI^NN DYKING DISTRICT tricts 43"7 DEWDN TRUNK 112AVE I ♦t� 104 AVE OREPNEWWWWWOMOmm MAPLE Rli]G= 6r.ai�h Gas�m��: a. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: llVI6t i Ridge `c%JI- V His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: June 29, 2010 FILE NO: E05-010-047 ATTN: Council Workshop Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the October 27, 2009 Council meeting, Council considered a report on the request of the Province for the District of Maple Ridge to accept the transfer of responsibility for the Albion Dyking District (Ann) and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District (MPPr)n). A copy of report is attached as Appendix A. Council directed that a letter be sent to the Province requesting that a mutually agreeable program for funding of improvements to bringthe dykes to current flood protection standards and for ongoing annual maintenance costs and enabling legislation to provide for legal access to the portions of the Albion Dyke be put in place before the District agreed to the transfer. The response of the Ministry of Environment encourages the District to accept the transfer and outlines the programs already in place by the Province to provide funding for improvements through grants. The response also outlines the legislative tools contained in the Community Charter, Local Government Act and Expropriation Act to acquire the necessary access rights anal/or statutory rights of way. A copy of the response is attached as Appendix B. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the Province be requested to undertake a full assessment of the Dykes, pump stations and associated assets to determine the most appropriate delivery of flood protection to property owners. 2. That staff send copies of this report to other local governments, which are affected by the request to transfer responsibility of Dyking from the Province, to discuss a common approach for negotiations with the Province. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Other municipalities are affected by this request and, in addition, 5 Dyking Districts not located in Maple Ridge are faced with the repeal of the Drainage, Ditch and Dyke Act est 1892. b) Desired Outcome: An acceptable level of flood protection that serves the interests of the local property owners and the District as a whole is required for these Dyking Districts. The District must ensure there is enough information to establish that this can be accomplished within its fiscal abilities. The District of Maple Ridge, with other local governments, engages the Province in negotiations for the transfer of dyking assets and funding to achieve the best interests of the property owners. 1 of 2 c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Property owners within the boundaries of the Dyking Districts are required to pay for all works on their dyking systems. Property owners may face increased tax assessments to bring the dykes up to current engineering standards. d) Interdepartmental Implications: The District of Maple Ridge has been appointed as the receiver by `Order in Council' for the Albion Dyking District. The District of Maple Ridge has assumed operation of the Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District at the request of the former tru'stees.and the Provincial Government. The District of Maple Ridge is tending to the ongoing maintenance issues of the Albion Dyking District and Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District, but if the District accepts responsibility for the. dykes there would be additional responsibilities in terms of upgrading the current flood protection. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: No funds have been allocated in the Capital Works budget for these dykes. All works must be funded through the Dyking Districts. Provincial grants can be applied for but these generally require that the recipient pay 33% of all costs. By taking on responsibility for the dykes in their current condition, the District will also be assuming significant liability. f) Alternatives: Council could also consider the following options: 1. The District could agree to accept the transfer of responsibility for the Provincial Improvement Areas and pass the resolution recommended by the Province. This is not recommended as the dykes require significant improvements that neither the Dyking Districts nor the District of Maple Ridge has funding for. 2. The District could.jefuse to accept the transfer of responsibility for the Provincial Improvement Areas. This is ,,,not recon-amended as the Province could simply pass an Order in Council transferri+ r ponsibifi,ty with no opportunity to discuss funding of the required improvements. Prepared by. uss Carrnichael, AScT, Eng.L Director of Engineering Operations Prepared by: Ceri Mario, CIVIC Manager of Legislative Services Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA..P Eng ,General Manager Pub,iic Works and Development Services Concurrence J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 2of2 BRITISH ICLER rS COLUMBIA �z. __..._.........I OCT Z The Best Place on Earth_. Reference: 128368 OCT 13 2010 Ceri Marlo Manager of Legislative Services District of Maple Ridge 11995 uanPy Pl Maple Ridge BC V2X 6A9 Dear Ceri Marlo: Thank you for your letter of July 14, 2010 regarding the conversion and transfer of two improvement districts, the Albion Diking District and the Road 13 Diking District to the District of Maple Ridge. I apologize for the delay in responding. You advised in your letter that Council adopted the following resolution: "That the Province be requested to undertake a full assessment of the dykes, pump stations and associated assets to determine the most appropriate delivery of flood protection to property owners." The Ministry concurs that a comprehensive assessment of the two diking systems would help to determine an appropriate level of flood protection plus it would provide useful information to support the ongoing maintenance and management of these assets. While specific funds have not been identified within current Ministry of Environment budget to undertake this work, I will continue to pursue opportunities to fund these studies. In the meantime I would ask that you work with staff from our regional office to identify the costs required to complete this work. I appreciate Council's interest in this matter. Yours truly, Doug Konkin Deputy Minister Ministry of Environment Office of the Deputy Minister Mailing Address: PO Box 9339 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9M1 - 32 Telephone: 250 387-5429 Facsimile: 250 387-6003 Website: w%-w.gov.bc.ca/env -2- pc: Glen Brown, Executive Director, Local Government Infrastructure and Finance, Ministry of Community and Rural Development Dwayne Meredith, A/Director, Strategic Mitigation Programs, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Julia Berardinucci, Regional Manager, Lower Mainland Service Region, Ministry of Environment Neil Peters, Head, Flood Safety Section, Lower Mainland Region, Ministry of Environment z, Deep Roots Greater Heights District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 17, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Requested Amendments to Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its meeting of September 23, 2011, the Metro Vancouver Board considered requested amendments to the recently adopted Regional Growth Strategy. Generally speaking, five municipalities requested various amendments to the Strategy and included Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 amendments. On September 23, 2011, the Board decided to initiate a process for the Type 3 amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy; introduced and gave first and second reading to the Amending Bylaw; and directed staff to provide written notice of the Type 3 amendments to all affected local Governments. The Type 1 and Type 2 amendments were deferred until a later time. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Type 3 changes that have been requested by other municipalities, and to provide Council with an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed amendments. Type 3 amendments are considered to be minor amendments and require a majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board, but do not require a Public Hearing. The District of Maple Ridge has 30 days to comment on the amendments, and therefore any commentary must be submitted to the Region by October 26, 2011. If comments are not provided, the Region will determine that the District had no concerns with the proposed amendments. Based on a review of the requested Type 3 Amendments, it is noted that they appear to be administrative in nature, and do not negatively impact on the District of Maple Ridge. RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Vancouver Regional District be advised that the District of Maple Ridge has no comments on the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 (Type 3 Amendments). DISCUSSION a) Background Context The Regional Growth Strategy was adopted on July 29, 2011, and during this process five municipalities requested Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy: the City of Coquitlam, City of Richmond, District of North Vancouver, District of West Vancouver, and Tsawwassen First Nation. There were 11 amendments that fell into 3 categories: Type 1 Major Amendments. Requires a 50% +1 weighted vote of the Board and acceptance by all affected local governments 4A Page 1 of 4 Type 2 Minor Amendments. Requires a two -third weighted vote of the Board, and a Public Hearing. Type 3 Minor Amendments. Requires a 50% +1 weighted vote of the Board, but no Public Hearing is required. On September 23, 2011, the Metro Vancouver Board gave consideration to the requested amendments and decided to initiate a process for the Type 3 amendments, and defer the Type 1 and Type 2 until a later time. Pursuant with the Legislation, all member municipalities have 30 days to provide commentary to the Region, which translates into an October 26, 2011 deadline. In the absence of a written submission to the Region, the municipality will be deemed to have no concerns or objections to the amendments. Type 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy: There were 8 Type 3 amendments received by Metro Vancouver. These amendments represent administrative matters that were discussed during the acceptance process for the Regional Growth Strategy. At that time certain municipalities raised concerns with the Strategy, yet did not wish to impact the adoption process that was underway. Rather, there was an understanding that an amendment request would be submitted following its adoption. Table 1 attached to this report identifies each amendment by Municipality, and provides details on the nature of the request, and the Metro Vancouver Technical Advisory Committee comments. In reviewing the above noted changes, it is noted that 6 of the 8 amendments are intended to place additional lands in the Regional Conservation and Recreation land use designation, and that the proposals are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The request for the expansion of the Special Study Area for lands in West Vancouver does not appear to be problematic as these lands are currently within the Urban Area Boundary, and also do not undermine the status of the Albion Flats Special Study Area. Although, it was noted that the Tsawwassen First Nation population and employment figures could have been adjusted in the Regional Context Statement, this does not impact Maple Ridge's ability to make any population or employment projections when drafting a new Regional Context Statement. Upon review, it is noted that the proposed Type 3 Amendments do not appear to negatively impact on the District of Maple Ridge in any manner. b) Desired Outcome The Type 3 Amendments were given 1st and 2nd Readings and referred to all affected Local Governments on September 23, 2011. All comments on the proposed amendments are to be submitted to Metro Vancouver on or before October 26, 2011. Failure to submit comments is deemed to be acceptance. The Board intends to consider granting 3,d Reading and Final Adoption on October 28, 2011 or November 25, 2011. As all these proposed Type 3 amendments represent local issues for the municipalities that submitted the requests, and do not negatively impact the District of Maple Ridge's land use designations or application of the Regional Growth Strategy, it would seem appropriate to advise Metro Vancouver that the District of Maple Ridge has no comments on the proposed Type 3 Amendments. Page 2 of 4 c) Citizen/Customer Implications The proposed Type 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy do not appear to impact residents of this community. Should Maple Ridge residents have any objections or concerns, they may contact Metro Vancouver directly to discuss them. d) Policy Implications The Regional Growth Strategy has been the subject of much review over the last few years by both member municipalities, affected agencies and the public. These Type 3 Amendments represent minor changes that have been requested by the City of Coquitlam, City of Richmond, District of West Vancouver, and the Tsawwassen First Nation and are considered to be minor according to the regulations prescribed in the Regional Growth Strategy. e) Alternatives Should Council have concerns with any or all of the proposed amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy, it should advise Metro Vancouver of its concerns. The success of the proposed Bylaw will be based upon a 50%+1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board. In the absence of a written submission to the Region, the municipality will be deemed to have no concerns or objections to the amendments. CONCLUSION: The Type 3 Minor Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy have been forwarded for comment to member municipalities by the Metro Vancouver Board at its meeting of September 23, 2011. Member municipalities have 30 days (October 26, 2011) to respond. It is recommended that Council advise the Metro Vancouver Board that it has no comments. Prepared by: Christine Carter, M.PI., MCIP Ac' g Di or of P ng Approvecj y: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & D V&lo ent Services Concurrence: J. L. (Aft) Rule Chief/Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - table 1 Appendix B - letter of referral dated September 23, 2011 from Metro Vancouver and attachments Page 3 of 4 Table 1 - Type 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Requesting Map/Text Request TAC Comments Body Amendment Coquitlam Map Westwood Plateau Gold Course - from Supportive of General Urban to Conservation and municipalities having Recreation flexibility to determine what lands should be included Coquitlam Map Extend Conservation and Recreation Some parcels are land use designation to existing public small in size and do parks and protected riparian corridors not seem to be "regionally significant". Inclusion should not be seen as determining "regional significance" Richmond Map Terra Nova lands - from General Urban Proposal is consistent to Conservation and Recreation with RGS Richmond Map Garden City Lands - from General Proposal is consistent Urban to Conservation and Recreation with RGS and appear to be "regionally significant" Richmond Map Department of National Defense Lands Proposal is consistent - change from General Urban to with RGS and appear Conservation and Recreation to be "regionally significant" West Map Old Growth Conservancy - change from Proposal is consistent Vancouver General Urban to Conservation and with RGS and appear Recreation to be "regionally significant" West Map Expand Special Study Area for Upper Generally support the Vancouver Lands to include all lands above the request but 1,200 foot contour line recommended that Metro draft language that acknowledges that this was a special case and note that the lands are within the Urban Area Boundary. Status does not affect status of other Special Study Areas. Do not support the expansion of further study areas. Tsawwassen Text Amend Table A.1 Population and Supports the change First Nation Dwelling Unit and Employment but noted these Projections projections are typically made during the Regional Context Statement process. Page 4of4 APPENDIX B WN metrovancouver ... ........................ . .. ............................................................................................................... .............................. 114W MAYOR 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada ash 4G8 604-432-62�0 www.metrcvancouver.org September 23, 2011 Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A6 Dear Mayor Daykin and Members of Council: Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department Tel. 604-432-6250 Fax 604-451-6686 Other Actior File: CP-11-01-RGS-12 M �- Re: Notification of Proposed Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy This letter provides notification to affected local governments, in accordance with section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act, and sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.5 of the Regional Growth Strategy. Section 6.4.2 of the Regional Growth Strategy states that the Metro Vancouver Board will provide a minimum of 30 days for all affected local governments to respond to proposed amendments. Metro Vancouver has received Council resolutions from the City of Coquitlam, District of North Vancouver, City of Richmond, District of West Vancouver and Tsawwassen First Nation requesting Type 3 amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. The Type 3 minor amendments require a majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board, but do not require a public hearing. On September 23, 2011, the Metro Vancouver Board initiated the amendment process, and gave first and second readings to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No 1150, 2011. Following the 30 day notification period, the Metro Vancouver Board will consider third and final readings for the amendment bylaw at its meeting in late 2011. You are invited to provide written comments on the requested amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. Please provide comments in the form of a Council/Board resolution and submit to me at paulette.vetleson@metrovancouver.org by October 26, 2011. If you have any questions with respect to the amendments, please contact Lee -Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner, at 604-432-6381 or lee-ann.garnett@metrovancouver.org. More information about the Regional Growth Strategy can be found on our website at www.metrovancouver.org. Sincerely, �a�.Wjir' Paulette Vetleson Manager/Corporate Secretary PV/G R/cd Notification of Proposed Amendments to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy To: Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Page 2 of 2 Attachments 1. Report to the Metro Vancouver Board on September 23, 2011, titled `Request for Type 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy', dated September 16, 2011 1 a) Requests from Municipalities for Type 3 Amendments to Regional Growth Strategy 1 b) Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 (Type 3 Amendments) 2. Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010, Excerpt: Section 6.3 (Categories of Regional Growth Strategy Amendments) and Section 6.4 (Procedures for Regional Growth Strategy Amendments) 5439025 ATTACHMENT 1 E Section G 3 ': b<:• metrovaneouver Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- --------------.....-.... "low Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: September 16, 2011 To: Regional Planning Committee From: Christina DeMarco, Regional Development Division Manager, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: August 25, 2011 Subject: Request for Type 3 Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy Recommendations: That the Board: a) Initiate the process for Type 3 amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy in accordance with section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act and sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.5 of the Regional Growth Strategy for amendment requests received from: i. the City of Coquitlam (Westwood Plateau golf course, existing public parks, riparian areas); ii. the City of Richmond (Terra Nova lands, Garden City lands, Department of National Defence lands); iii. District of West Vancouver (Old Growth Conservancy lands, expansion of special study area); and iv. Tsawwassen First Nation (population, employment and dwelling data); b) Introduce and give first and second reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 (Type 3 Amendments); and c) Direct staff to provide written notice of the proposed Type 3 amendments to all affected local governments. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to initiate a Type 3 amendment process for the Regional Growth Strategy in response to amendment requests received from the City of Coquitlam, . City of Richmond, District of West Vancouver, and Tsawwassen First Nation. 2. CONTEXT The Regional Growth Strategy (Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 1136, 2010) was accepted by all affected local governments and adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on July 29, 2011. Following their acceptance, five affected local governments submitted resolutions to Metro Vancouver requesting amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy be considered after its adoption (Attachment 1). This report responds only to the Type 3 amendment requests submitted by the member municipalities. Type 1 and Type 2 amendment requests are addressed in separate reports. a -* il The Type 3 amendment requests submitted by the five member municipalities are listed below: 1. City of Coquitlam Map Amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. 2. City of Coquitlam Map Amendment — Extend the Conservation and Recreation land use designation to existing public parks and protected riparian corridors. 3. City of Richmond Map Amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Terra Nova lands from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. 4. City of Richmond Map Amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Garden City lands from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. 5. City of Richmond Map Amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Department of National Defence lands from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. 6. District of West Vancouver Map Amendment — Amend the portions of the land use designation for the Old Growth Conservancy that are General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. 7. District of West Vancouver Map Amendment — Amend Map 12 to expand the Special Study Area for the Upper Lands to include all lands above the 1,200 foot contour line and shown as General Urban. 6. Tsawwassen First Nation Text Amendment — Amend Table A.1 with revised growth projections. The requested Type 3 amendments are subject to the following subsections of Regional Growth Strategy section 6.3.4: 6.3.4(c) amendment from Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban land use designations to Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designations. 6.3.4(h) housekeeping amendments to population, dwelling unit and employment projections, housing demand estimates, performance measures, tables, figures, grammar, or numbering, that do not alter the intent of the Regional Growth Strategy. 6.3.40) all other amendments not identified in sections 6.3.1 or 6.3.3. The voting threshold for approval of Type 3 amendments is an affirmative 50% + 1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board. A public hearing is not required. Assessment and Recommendations for the Proposed Amendments Each of the requested Type 3 amendments is listed below with a brief description, Metro Vancouver staff analysis, Technical Advisory Committee comment, and Metro Vancouver staff recommendation. - - APP 1. City of Coquitlam - Map amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. IVICIP 1. r1U[JUbeU ArnenUnIeni Trom benerai urpan to Uonservation and Recreation r't ►.1X ' Coquitlam - r ?'� Port Moody -- - - - -- - e � {♦�, Corywttam - r� ,[! .' .. � � X V - .r i ! _ t e- i Caquipam � ' City of Coquitlam Proposed Amendments Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands General Urban to Conservation and Recreation Metro Vancouver staff analysis: The proposed amendment includes just over 100 hectares of golf course lands within the Urban Containment Boundary. All of the subject area was included as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. Although the City of Coquitlam initially requested the area be designated General Urban in the recently adopted Regional Growth Strategy, the City now requests the area be changed to the Conservation and Recreation designation. The requested amendment would be consistent with the intent of the RGS Conservation and Recreation designation to protect significant ecological and recreational assets in the region. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 1 of this report. Redesignation to Conservation and Recreation will maintain regional land use consistency established by the Livable Region Strategic Plan, and assist in protecting the recreational status and natural asset value of the subject site. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC generally supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Coquitlam, and provides the following comments: • TAC is generally supportive of having flexibility for municipalities to determine what lands should be included in the Conservation and Recreation designation; • TAC noted they have been tasked with determining "regional significance" as part of their future work plan, and decisions made now to amend the RGS will have bearing on those discussions. 7) F� - A Or) 2. City of Coquitlam - Map amendment — Extend the Conservation and Recreation land use designation to existing public parks and protected riparian corridors. ir1aN c. rrupuseu famenumeni rrom "enerai urpan to t:onservation and Recreation IFt M _ Part Alaody 1 t d a �. e n 1 d i Cogwtlam i -- s I C ' - 1'%� �'.ry:. . City of Coquitlam Proposed Amendments Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands Parks and Protected Riparian Corridors General Urban to Conservation and Recreation Metro Vancouver staff analysis: This proposed amendment includes many large and small municipal parks, recreation facilities and open space / natural areas that are currently within the RGS Urban Containment Boundary and designated General Urban. Total combined land area of the proposed sites is approximately 400 hectares. Nearly all of the proposed amendment sites were designated as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. Although the City of Coquitlam previously requested the sites be designated General Urban for the Regional Growth Strategy, the City now requests these sites be re -designated as Conservation and Recreation. The amendment request includes many small park and institutional locations that may not be significant at the regional scale. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 2 of this report. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC generally supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Coquitlam, and provides the following comments: • TAC is generally supportive of having flexibility for municipalities to determine what lands should be included in the Conservation and Recreation designation; • With respect to the request to include public parks and riparian corridors in the Conservation and Recreation areas, there was an observation some of the parcels were small in size and did not seem to be "regionally significant." Including them in the Conservation and Recreation designation would suggest that they are regionally significant, but inclusion should not be seen setting a precedent for regional significance. TAC noted they have been tasked with determining "regional significance" as part of their future work plan, and decisions made now to amend the RGS will have bearing on those discussions. T-?n_A00 3. City of Richmond - Map Amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Terra Nova lands in Richmond from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. iviap s. vroposea Amenament trom general Urban to Conservation and Recreatior L 1 y� Garden' %rra Nova C;-. N Westminster Highway _ iv' P �parlltt�[tt"Of . a a a a ' NatlLtasaf �CICC F City of Richmond Proposed Amendments Terra Nova Garden City General Urban to Conservation and Recreation Department of National Defence Metro Vancouver staff analysis: The proposed amendment includes a 28 hectare site within the Urban Containment Boundary. Although not included in the previous LRSP Green Zone, the City of Richmond maintains an agriculture and open space land use status for this site. The City of Richmond previously recommended the site be retained as General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy. The City now requests the site be re -designated to Conservation and Recreation designation. The requested amendment would be consistent with the intent of the RGS Conservation and Recreation designation to protect significant ecological and recreational assets in the region. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 3 of this report. Redesignation from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation will assist in protecting the conservation and recreation use of this area within the municipal and regional context. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Richmond, and Provides the following comments: RD - 493 The properties seem consistent with the Conservation and Recreation designation, and the lands appear to be regionally significant. 4. City of Richmond - Map amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Garden City lands in Richmond from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. Metro Vancouver staff analysis: The proposed amendment includes a 55 hectare site within the Urban Containment Boundary. The site is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Although not included in the LRSP Green Zone, the City of Richmond maintains a public and open space status on these lands. The City of Richmond previously requested the site be designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy. The City now requests the site be re -designated to Conservation and Recreation. The requested amendment would be consistent with the intent of the RGS Conservation and Recreation designation to protect significant ecological and recreational assets in the region. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 3 of this report. Redesignation from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation will assist in protecting the conservation and recreation use of this area within the municipal and regional context. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Richmond, and provides the following comments: • The properties seem consistent with the Conservation and Recreation designation, and the lands appear to be regionally significant. 5. City of Richmond - Map amendment — Amend the land use designation for the Department of National Defence lands in Richmond from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. Metro Vancouver staff analysis: The proposed amendment includes a 59 hectare site within the Urban Containment Boundary. The site is currently within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Although not included in the LRSP Green Zone, the City of Richmond maintains a public and open space status on these lands. The City of Richmond previously requested the site designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy. The City now requests the site be redesignated to Conservation and Recreation designation. The requested amendment would be consistent with the intent of the RGS Conservation and Recreation designation to protect significant ecological and recreational assets in the region. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 3 of this report. Redesignation from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation will assist in protecting the conservation and recreation use of this area within the municipal and regional context. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by Richmond, and provides the following comments: The properties seem consistent with the Conservation and Recreation designation, and the lands appear to be regionally significant. % A['1A 6. District of West Vancouver - Map Amendment — Amend the portions of the land use designation for the Old Growth Conservancy in West Vancouver that are General Urban to Conservation and Recreation. Map 4. Proposed Amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation Metro Vancouver staff analysis: The proposed amendment includes a 10 hectare portion of the Old Growth Conservancy — a unique area of old growth forest — that is presently within the Urban Containment Boundary and designated General Urban. Amending the RGS designation for this site to Conservation and Recreation will assist in protecting this unique natural asset. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested land use designation amendment from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation as shown on Map 4 of this report. Redesignation from General Urban to Conservation and Recreation will assist in protecting this unique area within the municipal and regional context. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC generally supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Regional Growth Strategy as proposed by West Vancouver to include a portion of the Old Growth Conservancy in West Vancouver, and provides the following comments: RC - 495 The properties seem consistent with the Conservation and Recreation designation, the property is contiguous with the existing Conservation and Recreation areas, and the lands seem regionally significant. 7. District of West Vancouver - Map amendment — Amend Map 12 to expand the Special Study Area for the Upper Lands in West Vancouver to include all General Urban lands above the 1,200 foot contour line. Extending the Special Study Area to the 1,200 ft contour would add approximately 700 hectares to the current RGS Special Study Area. The extension would only add lands currently within the Urban Containment Boundary designated as General Urban. Special Study Area status within the Urban Containment Boundary on General Urban lands will have no affect on the regional land use designation amendment options currently available in the Regional Growth Strategy. However, the extended Special Study Area would provide the municipality with a useful interim designation while they continue to prepare local plans and policies for the larger area. District of West Vancouver DExisting Special Study Area Ij _ I District of West Vancouver Specia: Study Area Extension 'to 1,200 ft elevation Section 6.12.4 of the Regional Growth Strategy states that "the areas for Special Study Area depicted on Map 12 are not to be expanded" and that "a Type 3 minor amendment to Map 12 is only permitted to delete Special Study Areas". The intent in establishing Special Study Areas was to identify specific locations where municipalities were in the process of considering potential land use / Urban Containment Boundary changes at the time of Regional Growth Strategy adoption. A Board voting threshold of 50%+1 applies to designation changes within Special Study Areas. The intent of section 6.12.4 is to inhibit the expansion of those Special Study Areas to include larger areas for potential Urban Containment Boundary expansion. In this application, the Special Study Area expansion would be within the Urban Containment Boundary, and there would be no further potential to expand the Urban Containment Boundary nor any additional land use designation implications for the Regional Growth Strategy. For this reason Metro Vancouver staff does not oppose this amendment to expand the Special Study Area. However, it is important that this amendment be consistent with section 6.12.4. Therefore, section 6.12.4 should be amended to accommodate this specific West Vancouver Special Study Area revision. It is recommended the following section be added following section 6.12.4: P1 - aaF 6.12.5 Notwithstanding section 6.12.4, the Special Study Area in West Vancouver may be expanded to include lands that are designated General Urban, are within the Urban Containment Boundary and are above the 1200 foot contour. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board: a) approve adding the following text amendment following section 6.12.4: 6.12.5 Notwithstanding section 6.12.4, the Special Study Area in West Vancouver may be expanded to include lands that are designated General Urban, are within the Urban Containment Boundary and are above the 1200 foot contour. b) approve the Type 3 amendment to extend the Special Study Area in the District of West Vancouver as shown on Map 4 of this report. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC generally supports the Metro Vancouver staff analysis and recommendation that the Special Study Area for the Upper Lands in West Vancouver be amended to include all General Urban lands above the 1,200 foot contour line, and provides the following comments to refine the Regional Growth Strategy: • It is recommended that Metro Vancouver draft language that acknowledges this request is a special case for West Vancouver and was raised during the Regional Growth Strategy acceptance process, and note that it is an area located within the Urban Containment Boundary. TAC agrees that the proposed amendment does not affect the status of the other existing Special Study Areas. ® TAC agrees that it does not support the expansion of Special Study Areas, as described in the intent of Section 6.12.4, but recommends this amendment recognize the special circumstances under which the request was made. 1��1 � •tl 8. Tsawwassen First Nation - Text Amendment — Amend Table A.1 'Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Projections for Metro Vancouver Subregions and Municipalities' to revise the projections for Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation - Proposed Growth Projections Year E�::�2021 ���2031 2041 Population 4,000 6,000 8,500 Dwelling Units 1,900 2,900 4,400 Employment 1,300 1,800 2,600 Metro Vancouver staff analysis: In the final stages of preparing the Regional Growth Strategy, there was some uncertainty on the growth projections for the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation had prepared a land use plan in 2009, which was the basis for the RGS growth projection estimates. Subsequently, Tsawwassen First Nation has prepared a development concept that would provide growth capacity beyond the projection estimates used in preparing the Regional Growth Strategy. The development concept for the Tsawwassen First Nation land use plan would add about 3,500 additional population to the RGS projection population by the year 2041, increasing the Tsawwassen First Nation population projection from 5,000 to 8,500. As well, there would be a corresponding increase of 2,300 in the dwelling unit projection, and 1,100 in the employment projection. The increased population, dwelling unit and employment projections for the Tsawwassen First Nation will not have a significant impact on the overall regional growth projections. As stated in RGS section 6.5.3, the Tsawwassen First Nation land use plan was deemed consistent with the RGS, and the proposed revision to the Tsawwassen First Nation growth projections are considered to be the development implementation concept for that land use plan. Consequently, Metro Vancouver staff do not oppose this amendment. Metro Vancouver staff recommendation: That the Metro Vancouver Board approve the requested text amendment to Table A.1. Technical Advisory Committee Comments: TAC supports the Metro Vancouver staff recommendation to amend the Table A.1 as proposed by Tsawwassen First Nation, and notes that as an alternative, population and employment projection refinements are more typically made during the Regional Context Statement process. Rn - 4as Process and Timelines for Regional Growth Strategy Type 3 Amendments It is recommended that the requested Type 3 amendments be advanced for consideration as one bylaw, separate from the Type 1 and Type 2 amendment requests. The Type 3 amendments can be fully processed during the term of the current Board directors. Proposed Timeline for the Type 3 Amendment Process Metro Vancouver staff report to the Technical Advisory August 26, 2011 Committee JAC) for comment, as per RGS Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011. September 6, 2011 Technical Advisory Committee comments provided to Metro Vancouver staff as per RGS Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011. September 16, 2011 Report to Regional Planning Committee. September 23, 2011 Report to the Board to initiate Bylaw 1s' and 2"d Readings and to proceed with affected local government notification process. September 26, 2011 Minimum 30 day notification period commences for affected local governments. October 26, 2011 Notification period of 30 days complete. October 28 or November 25, 2011 �d Board to consider Bylaw 3 Reading and Final Adoption. The Type 3 amendment process requires a minimum 30 day notification period for affected local government to respond. Notification to affected local governments will be done by sending a copy of this report and by posting notice on the Metro Vancouver website. If affected local governments choose to respond, they must do so by Council resolution. 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board: [RECOMMENDED] a) Initiate the process for Type 3 amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy in accordance with section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act and sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.5 of the Regional Growth Strategy for amendment requests received from: i. the City of Coquitlam (Westwood. Plateau golf course, existing public parks, riparian areas); ii. the City of Richmond (Terra Nova lands, Garden City lands, Department of National Defence lands); iii. District of West Vancouver (Old Growth Conservancy lands, expansion of special study area); and iv. Tsawwassen First Nation (population, employment and dwelling data); b) Introduce and give first and second reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 (Type 3 Amendments); and c) Direct staff to provide written notice of the proposed Type 3 amendments to all affected local governments. OR d) Provide alternative direction. 001111111i lb 4. CONCLUSION This report initiates a process for a series of Regional Growth Strategy Type 3 amendments. Metro Vancouver staff recommends that all amendments be approved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Requests from Municipalities for Type 3 Amendments to Regional Growth Strategy (Doc. #5374862). 2. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 (Type 3 Amendments) (Doc. #5351108). 5375413 PEA - F^r) ATTACHMENT la Covuitlam March 22, 2011 Our File: 01-0480-20/RD13-01/2011-1 Doc #: 1047405.vl Christina DeMarco Regional Development Division Manager Policy and Planning Department Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Christina.DeMarco@metrovancouver.or Dear Ms. DeMarco: EMAILED AND FAXED RE: Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands Please be advised that at the March 21, 2011 Regular Meeting of Council for the City of Coquitlam, the following resolution was adopted: Thatthe Metro Vancouver Board be requested to: 1. Redesignate the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands, which are presently designated in the proposed Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) as "General Urban" and in the City of Coquitlam's Official Community Plan as "Extensive Recreation" to the RGS "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation; 2. Delete the phrase "Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities" in Section 6.3.4.b) on page 60 of the proposed RGS; and, 3. Extend the "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation to existing public parks and protected riparian corridors in Coquitlam as shown on the attached map. City Of Coquitlam File C:0!-tkiQO-JORD! i?1!_r?1 •.-! Dock 104'405.vl RD 501 Page 2 March 22, 2011 Please find enclosed a copy of the report of the General Manager Planning and Development dated March 17, 2011 entitled "Supplementary Information Regarding Notice of Motion — Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands". Should you have any questions or require further information with respect to this matter please contact Jim McIntyre, General Manager Planning and Development at 604-927-3401. Yours truly, r Jay Gilbe c - Jim McIntyre, General Manager Planning and Development File #: 01-0480-20/ RD13-01/2011-1 Doc #: 1047405.v1 RD - 502 CoQuitlam March 17, 2011 Our File: 01-0480-2o/RD13-01/2011-1 Doc #: 1045542.v1 To: City Manager From: General Manager Planning and Development For Council Subject: Supplementary Information Regarding Notice of Motion — Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands For: Council Recommendation: That Council receive the March 17, 2011 report of the General Manager Planning and Development for information during consideration of proposed Notice of Motion — Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands. Report Purpose: This report provides supplementary information to assist Council in its consideration of the Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands Notice of Motion. Strategic Goal: This report supports the City's strategic goal of strengthening neighbourhoods. Background/Analysis: At the February 21, 2011 Regular Council meeting, the following Notice of Motion was deferred to the March 21" meeting for further consideration: " That Metro Vancouver be requested to redesignate the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands, which are presently designated in the draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) as "General Urban" and in the City of Coquitlam's Official Community Plan as "Extensive Recreation", to the RGS "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation." To enable Coquitlam residents and other interested parties an opportunity to present their views and ask questions regarding the proposed RGS, a public input forum was held March 9, 2011. At that session, approximately a dozen speakers made presentations to the Land Use and Economic Development Standing Committee and raised questions regarding the Westwood Plateau golf course lands, other "green zone areas" and more generally about the governance implications of the new proposed regional plan. RD - 503 - 1 Page 2 March 17, 2011 Background/Analysis cont'd/ While staff endeavoured to answer those questions at the meeting, this report is intended to provide greater clarity regarding these issues and a recommended approach as set out below for addressing the community's concerns about the Westwood Plateau Golf Course and other potential "Conservation and Recreation" lands: 1. Proceed with Notice of Motion — Redesignation of the Westwood Plateau Golf Course Lands Councillor Sekora's original Notice of Motion as set out above can proceed for Council's consideration, but in order to accomplish additional desired outcomes, needs to be revised by including the supplementary motions as summarized in points 2. and 3. below. 2. Enhanced Protection of "Conservation and Recreation" Lands within the Urban Containment Boundary To respond to the public concern that even if Council supports and the Metro Vancouver Board agrees to redesignate the Westwood Plateau Golf Course as the "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation, potential future amendment applications would only require a RGS Type 3 Minor Amendment (i.e., simple majority weighted vote and a no public hearing), a revision of Section 6.3.4.b) of the regional plan can be requested to delete the reference to "Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities". If approved by the Metro Vancouver Board, this would have the effect of raising any such amendment application to the higher level of a two-thirds weighted vote and a regional public hearing, including lands both within and outside Urban Containment boundary. Earlier in the RGS preparation process there were concerns expressed about designating private property as "Conservation and Recreation". In the latest version of the RGS, it is apparent that across the region a number of private properties have been included in this land use designation. 3. Extend the "Conservation and Recreation" Land Use Designation to Existing Public Parks and Protected Riparian Corridors A number of comments were received around this issue at the March 9"' public input forum. If there is interest in extending the "Conservation and Recreation" designation to these types of publicly owned lands in Coquitlam regardless of their size (refer to Attachment #1), a supplementary motion along these lines can be considered by Council. RD - 5O4File ":01-0480-20!RD13-01/2011-1 Doc 4. ,0::'S5a2 vl Page 3 March 17, 2011 Alternate Motions for Council's Consideration: If Council wishes to proceed with the actions summarized above, the following expanded Notice of Motion could be considered: " That the Metro Vancouver Board be requested to: Redesignate the Westwood Plateau Golf Course lands, which are presently designated in the proposed Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) as "General Urban" and in the City of Coquitlam's Official Community Plan as "Extensive Recreation" to the RGS "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation; Delete the phrase "Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities" in Section 6.3.4.b) on page 60 of the proposed RGS; and, Extend the "Conservation and Recreation" land use designation to existing public parks and protected riparian corridors in Coquitlam as shown on the attached map." To meet the 60-day RGS referral response deadline, Council will need to consider this matter and advise Metro Vancouver of its position by March 22, 2011. J.L. Mclnt're, MCIP JMc/lmc Attachment: 1. Map of Requested "Conservation and Recreation" Designated Lands in Coquitlam. This report was prepared by Jim McIntyre, General Manager Planning and Development. RD - 505File tt:01-o4s0-201RD13-01l2011-1 Doc #: 1045:42.v1 I] f i@ 1 S F f f 1 t � F f � 4 C q pp {Plop Wx a z U. g z ; •�� � g °. F z�3x � iI C m Z m RD - 506 City of Richmond tali 1 No. Road. Richmond, BC Vi.))* ,t'; .i let boor 1(10-4) '76-4000 it ll•4t'.tai1', r!C}}I tlut7ti.t�C.iat March 2, 2011 Johnny Carlene Chiei'Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway 13urnabv. 13C:' V;li 4G8 Dear ?sir. C:arline: Re: Proposed 2041 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) City Clerk's office Telephone: 604-2 76-4007 Fax:60a-27S-5139 01-01 57-20-RCiSTI This is to advise that Richmond City C'ounciI, at Its mecting held on Monday, February 28, 201 1. considered the above matter, and adopted the. I6111owing resolution: (1) That the proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bl-law 1136 be accepted, (_) That the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that the Citl' of Richmond is hereby requesting the following changes in designations following approval: (1) For the Terra Nova Land, from "Gencral Urban" to "Conservation and Recreation (2) For the Garden City Lands, from "General Urban" to "Conservation and Recreation and For the Department of National A -fence Lands, from "General Urban" m "Conservation and Recreation ". For additional information regarding the resolution and the requested designation changes, please feel- free to contact Terry Crone, Manager, Policy Planning at 604-276-4139 or Joe Erceg. General Manaver, Planning and Development at 604-276-40$3. Yours trul - , - r+' '• `Y J'� yr. / J i Dti v id `Never Director, C'ifv Clerk's U fice RD-507 Report to Council To: General Purposes Committee Date: February 25, 2011 From: Joe Erceg, MCIP File: General Manager, Planning and Development Re: Referral Response: Proposed 2041 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Staff Recommendation That the staff report entitled: "Referral Response: Proposed 2041 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), dated February 25, 2011, from the General Manager, Planning and Development be received for information. Joe Erceg, MCIP, eneral Manager, Planning and De elopment Att. 1 FOR ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY ROUTED To: CONCURRENCE Law Y ❑ N ❑ CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL. MANAGER REVIEWED BY TAG YES NO ❑ REVIEWED BY CAO E5 NO ❑ GP-13 3164G1c �swee February 25, 2011 - 2 - Staff Report Origin On Monday, February 21, 2011 the General Purposes Committee passed the following referral motion: That the proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 1136, 2010, entitled "Metro Vancouver 2040, Shaping Our Future" be referred back to stafffor: (1) comment on the situation involving the Department of National Defence (DND) lands; the Terra Nova lands; and the Garden City lands including their status and alternatives; (2). more information on small parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve in the context of Section 2.3.4 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy; (3) more information in the context of Section 2.3.10 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy; (4) comment on the mechanisms for future amendments to the proposed Regional Growth Strategy; and (5) more information on the ramifications and process if the City were to not accept the proposed Regional Growth Strategy. Referral The following report sections respond to the above referral. 1. Comment on the situation involving the Department of National Defence (DND) lands; the Terra Nova lands; and the Garden City lands including their status and alternatives Each of the three sites will be discussed separately below with a summary of their current status, and an overview of Council's direction regarding the regional designation to be applied within RGS. Attachment 1 provides RGS definitions for the "General Urban", "Agricultural", "Conservation and Recreation" and "Rural" designations. It is noted that the RGS definition for "General Urban" allows park use, while the RGS definition of "Agricultural" does not. A. The Garden City Lands (GCL) Current Status The Garden City Lands are in the ALR. In the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), the GCL are designated Urban. The City OCP designates these lands Public & Open Space. The proposed 2041 RGS designates them General Urban which is the designation which most closely corresponds. with the current Urban designation in the LRSP. GP-14 3164630 i"kp 19 February 25, 2011 - 3 - Council Comments on the 2041 RGS Preparation Since 2008, Council has reviewed the RGS several times and has accepted the RGS General Urban designation for the GCL by resolution the last two (2) times it has considered the latest revisions of the RGS. There has been no formal Council direction to change the proposed General Urban RGS designation for the Garden City Lands. Staff regard the proposed RGS General Urban designation to be the most appropriate designation because it corresponds with the existing Urban designation in the LRSP and provides the most flexibility (e.g., possible recreation facilities, parks) which is desirable to ensure at this time as detailed plans for the GCL have not been adopted. As well, the RGS Agricultural designation does not promote park uses and is more limiting than the ALR regulations. For similar reasons, staff suggest that the RGS Conservation and Recreation designation is not appropriate for the GCL. Alternative 2041 RGS Designations Alternative RGS designations include changing from RGS General Urban to: (1) Agriculture, or (2) Conservation & Recreation. Please note that RGS designation definitions are contained in Attachment 1. Process options for requesting an amendment to the RGS are outlined later in this report. D. The Department of National Defence (DND) Lands Current Status The DND Lands are in the ALR. in the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), the DND lands are designated Urban. The City OCP designates these lands Public & Open Space. The proposed 2041 RGS designates them General Urban which is the designation which most closely corresponds with the current LRSP Urban designation. Council Comments on the 2041 RGS Preparation Since 2008, Council has reviewed the RGS several times and has accepted the RGS General Urban designation for the DND lands by resolution the last two (2) times it has considered the latest revisions of the RGS. There has been no formal Council direction to change the proposed RGS designation for the DND Lands. Staff regard the proposed RGS General Urban designation to be the appropriate designation because it corresponds with the existing Urban designation in the LRSP and provides the most flexibility. GP-15 3ifMG30 VsPtMMb February 25, 2011 - 4 - Alternative 2041 RGS Designations Alternative RGS designations include changing from RGS General Urban to: (I) Agriculture, or (2) Conservation & Recreation. Please note that RGS designation definitions are contained in Attachment 1. Process options for requesting an amendment to the RGS are outlined later in this report. C. The Terra Nova (TN) Lands Current Status The Terra Nova lands are not in the ALR. In the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), the Terra Nova lands are designated Urban. The City OCP designates these lands Agriculture & Open Space. The proposed 2041 RGS designates them General Urban which is the designation which most closely corresponds with the current LRSP Urban designation. Council Comments on the 2041 RGS Preparation Since 2008, Council has reviewed the RGS several times and has accepted the RGS General Urban designation for Terra Nova by resolution the last two (2) times it has considered the latest revisions of the RGS. There has been no formal Council direction to change the proposed RGS designation for the Terra Nova Lands, although some discussion about alternative designations did occur. Staff regard the proposed RGS General Urban designation to be the most appropriate designation because it corresponds with the existing Urban designation in the LRSP and provides the most flexibility. Alternative 2041 RGS Designations Alternative RGS designations include changing, from RGS General Urban to: (1) Agriculture, or (2) Conservation & Recreation. Please note that RGS designation definitions are contained in Attachment 1. Process options for requesting an amendment to the RGS are outlined later in this report. In consultation with the General Manager of Parks and Recreation, it has been determined that if a RGS designation change is proposed, the RGS Conservation & Recreation designation is preferred. GP-16 3164630 �1 PE' q 01) February'-) 5, 2011 - 5 - 2. Provide snore information on small parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve in the context of Section 2.3.4 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy Policy 2.3.4 states: "Work with the Agricultural Land Commission to protect the region's agricultural land base.and not amend the Agricultural or Rural land use designation of a site if it is still part of the Agriculture band Reserve, except to change it to an Agricultural land use designation. " Discussion with senior MV staff confirmed that RGS Policy 2.3.4 does not hinder any future City review of small parcels at the ALR/Urban area interface as the proposed RGS enables a range of solutions to be considered. Under the proposed RGS, the City would still have flexibility to consider City rezoning of small lots to Rural, or re -designation and rezoning of small parcels to Rural. 3. Provide more information in the context of Section 2.3.10 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy,- RGS Policy 2.3.10 states: "That the province, in consultation with municipalities, establish and enforce maximum residential floor area and setback regulations for development within the Agricultural Land Reserve, while recognizing existing municipal regulations. " City staff discussions with senior MV staff confirmed that under this policy, the MV Board will ask the Province to establish provincial regulations which respect any existing municipal regulations (e.g., in Richmond, houses must be located within 50 m of the road). 4. Comment on the mechanisms for future amendments to the proposed Regional Growth Strategy The RGS establishes a decision making framework which requires that the more regionally significantly an issue is, the higher the degree of MV Board involvement and the less regionally significant an issue is, the less the MV Board will be involved. The RGS identified the following range of RGS amendment processes: (1) Type 1 - Major (e.g., to change a fundamental goal or strategy of the RGS) which involves acceptance by all 24 local governments, a weighted 50% + I MV Board vote and a public hearing; (2) 'Type 2 - Minor (e.g., to amend the Urban Containment Boundary of the RGS) which involves a weighted 66% MV Board vote and a public hearing; (3) Type 3 - Minor (e.g., to change a RGS designation within the Urban Containment Boundary) which involves only a 50% + I MV Board vote and no public hearing. In additional, for RGS designation changes within the Urban Containment Boundary, a municipality can make RGS designation changes of up to one hectare without MV Board referral or approval. GP 17 3164630 f saes 2 February 25, 2011 - 6 - S. Provide more information on the ramifications and process if the City ►vere to not accept the proposed Regional. Growth Strategy City Staff have reviewed this subject with MV staff and provide the following overview. Option 1: Not Accept the Proposed RGS In order to not accept the RGS, the City of Richmond must clearly state its objections to the proposed RGS. The MV Board must then notify the BC Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development who determines the process by which a local government's specific objections will be resolved for example by either: (1) a non binding process which involves the affected local government, MV Board representatives and a neutral expert appointed by the Minister, or, (2) several binding arbitration methods. The non -binding process may result in an agreement between the MV Board, the affected local government, and all of the participating local governments. A local government that chooses not to participate will, unless they have noted an objection, be bound by such an agreement. If the minister is of the view that the non -binding process will not likely be successful or if the non -binding process is followed but does not result in an agreement between the board and the affected local government then the minister decides which, of three possible binding arbitration/settlement processes will be followed. Once determination is made under the binding arbitration/settlement process, then the board and the affected local government have 60 days to reach and agreement on acceptance of the RGS. If the board and the affected local government agree to such changes prescribed by the binding arbitration, then such changes must be approved by all of the local governments. If the board and the affected local government do not agree to them, the changes prescribed by the binding arbitration become binding on the board and all affected local governments whether or not they participated in the settlement process." The City of Richmond has constructively co-operated in the review of the RGS over an extended period of time. Not accepting the RGS at this stage would be a dramatic departure from previous City positions. Given the relatively minor nature (from a regional perspective) of potential changes, the following additional options are presented for consideration in the event that the Council wishes to modify the RGS. Option 2: Not Accept the Proposed RGS and Request Changes Prior to City of Richmond Acceptance Under this option Council would not accept the RGS and would request specific changes to the RGS prior to acceptance. The MV Board must then notify the BC Minister of GP-18 -1164630 � eq�ps) February 25, 2011 - 7 - Community, Sport and Cultural Development who determines the process by which a local government's specific objections will be resolved, for example by either: (1) a non binding process which involves the affected local government, MV Board representatives and a neutral expert appointed by the Minister, or, (2) several binding arbitration methods. See the above implications regarding the non -binding and binding arbitration processes. The advantage of this option is that it can achieve any desired changes. The disadvantages include that it unnecessarily delays approval of the whole RGS may require acceptance of the RGS changes by all 24 local governments, may open up other concerns and delay approval of the RGS. The City would have to share in the cost of arbitration. Option 3: Accept the RGS and Then Request Specific Changes Under this option Council would accept the RGS, and would request that specific changes be made after its approval. The MV Board would initiate a RGS amendment specifically for the requested changes and send it to all 24 governments for comment only. Unlike Options l and 2, no dispute resolution process is triggered and all 24 local governments do not need to accept the changes. The MV Board would approve the changes and no public hearing would be required. The advantages of this option are that the RGS can be approved which would provide overall certainty, Council's changes can be made in an easier and timely manner, (e.g. no arbitration, not all 24 local governments need to accept it) and no costs are attributed to the City. The disadvantages of this option are that some may feel that the changes should be made before the RGS is approved. Based on discussion with senior MV staff, City staff believe that MV is willing to consider changes to the RGS with respect to the Garden City Lands, Department of National Defence Lands, and Terra Nova Lands. Given the long history of constructive co-operation between the City of Richmond and MV in the preparation of the RGS, staff believe that Option 3 above is the most appropriate course of action if Council wishes to modify the RGS. Financial Impact None. GP-19 3i64630 ;(SoesrfM February 25, 2011 - 8 - Conclusion On February 21, 2011, the General Purposes Committee referred the RGS report to staff, to provide more information. This report responds to that request. T anager, Policy Planning Division (604-276-4139) JE:ttc GP-20 ATTACHMENT 1 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Designation Definitions For reference, the meanings of some RGS Designations are presented below. General Urban • General Urban areas are intended for residential neighbourhoods and centres, and are supported by shopping, services, institutions, recreational facilities and parks. Within General Urban areas, higher density trip -generating development is to be directed to Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. General Urban areas are intended to emphasize place -making, an enriched public realm, and promote transit -oriented communities, where transit, multiple occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking are the preferred modes of transportation. Agricultural • Agricultural areas are intended primarily for agricultural uses, facilities and supporting services with an emphasis on food production where appropriate. These areas reinforce provincial and local objectives to protect the agricultural land base of the region. Conservation and Recreation Conservation and Recreation areas are intended to protect significant ecological and recreation assets, including: drinking watersheds, conservation areas, wildlife management areas and ecological reserves, forests, wetlands, riparian corridors, major parks and recreation areas, ski hills and other tourist recreation areas. Limited primarily soils based agriculture is permitted. (_Note that municipalities may include limited primarily soil -based agriculture uses). Rural ® Rural -areas are intended to protect the existing character of rural communities, landscapes and environmental qualities. Land uses include low density residential development, small scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, and agricultural uses that do not require the provision of urban services such as sewer or transit. Rural areas are not intended as future urban development areas, and generally will not have access to regional sewer services. 3164630 GP - 21 CPC-,! westvoncouver 1E61StAT1Vr 1JRViCE:S „„fir.., � ... March 8, 2011 Mr. Johnny Canine, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 Dear Mr. Car line: Fife: 0185-0 t Re: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136 2010) The District of West Vancouver Council at its March 7, 2011 regular meeting received the attached report dated March 2, 2011 regarding "Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy" and passed the following motion: -HA. T ?. t nun(:il accer.)t the new Metro Vancouver Regional Groivth Strategy entitled A4etro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our Future !Rer;ionai Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, i0101: and 2. C`1Uncfl request that the Meifo Board amend the stratP,gy to expand the Consenva`ion recreation designation to ensure that the entire Old Growth ConsenvancV be designated as conservation recreation; and Council request that the special study area be expanded to in lode all lands above the 1200 foot contour line designated as oene,ral urba+t. 4 C.o?1nCil I0gUfre that the Metro Vancouver Board consider the requests set out it7 tl7e above clauses 2 and 3 as soon as possible after adoption of the Regional Groi,-417 Strategy and, ideally, according to the following schedule: Regional Growth Strategy adoption by the Board- April 29, 2011: bring the amendments to t17e Regional Planning Committee - May 20, 2011: Metro Vancouver Board prepare bylaw for amendments - May 27, 2011: and Metro Vancouver Board consideration and ratification of the additional amendments - July 29, 2011. Please don't hesitate to contact our Director of Planning, Lands and Permits (Bob Sokol) (bsokol@westvancouver.ca or 604-925-7058) if you have any questions in this regard- Thank you. Sincerely, Sheila Scholes Manager of Legislative Services ,ttachment cc S Sokol. Director of Planning, Lands and Perm-ts RD - 517 I?.I[r3 .�S.ii�L: - Ilnf'S q� I Iha i�41E3[ � � [.157 ' DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER ."i ,TIii F r V:FS1 J.,l ri .i 4, ! If jai: vr`1 1'.{ COUNCIL REPORT 1)ate: i' arch 2. 2011 File: 0185-01 METRO From: Bob Sokol, Director of Planning. Lards and Permits �Suhject: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy RECOMMENDED THAT: ,-Ouncrl accept the new Metro Va ncrluver Regional Gro dh Strategy entitled Metro VancOUVer 2040 She ping our Future (Rri ional Grow ti + it tp yg,r Hyl ..l i, a. :"V ;�. 1136. 2 010): and _.. ouncil request that the Metro Hoard amend the: straier v to expariri tii.� ,onset'vation/recreation designation to ensure that the =entire Old Grotvth :,1";serlaney be designated as L'Cl1SefV�itiOrl%rCC reat'cn. and Council request that the special study urea be expanded to inClude Fiji lands ;ibovn, the 1200 foot contour line designated as general urban. uraose i"ilt3 purpose of this report is to provide for West Vancouver's acceptance of the Gr; atcr ' amcouvor Regional District (Metro) i ? Strategy ,. egion� Gro�.th :UtF ;_,y (Appendix r;). 1.0 Background At it's February 21, 201 1 meeting Council considered the report dated February8 , 2,01 1 ,ntitled "Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy." (Appendix A) At that same nleeting, Council adopted the following resolutirns: 1._ Council receive the new Metro Vancouver regional Growth Strategy entitled Metro Vancouver 2040 - Shaping our Future (Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1 136. 201 i0); - Council request Clarification from, Metro Vancouver regarr ;no ho'.v the u.rban containment boundary concept applies to VJest Vancouver given that the Area is zoned Conserfaticn Recreatior: RID - 518 I ),_Ile: February 28, 2011 From: Bob Sokol, Director Of Planning, Lards And Permits Page Z :.iubject: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy 3. Council direct staff to pursue with Metro Vancouver the inclusion of the entirety of the Old Growth Conservancy within the Conservation/Recreation designation, and the expansion of the Special Study Area to include all lands above the 1200 foot contour line_ 2.0 Analvsis Metro Vancouver has provided a written response to the Council resolutions of February 21, 2011. (Appendix B). Staff believes that Metro Vancouver's comments adequately ,address the issues and concerns that Council and some members of the coinrrtunity expressed at the meetinq. 3.0 Recommendation Staff believes that the January 2011 Draft Regional Growth Strategy (Bylaw no. 1136, 2010) with requested changes addresses all of the issues raised by West Vancouver in response to earlier drafts. The current draft provides more flexibility to municipalities than earlier drafts and better reflects local needs. Most importantly, the current Draft's `and use designations and the flexibility it provides municipalities through their regional context statements, allows West Vancouver to best manage its long term interests in the Upper Lands while recognizing the regional interests in protecting the valuable cnvironmental!y sensitive lands which contribute to the region's quality of life. .�'+t the February 21, 2011 Council meeting, Council requested additional information from Metro Vancouver. That information has been provided. Staff recommends that Cc uncil accept the Draft Regional Growth Strategy and request that the Metro Jancouver Board amend the Strategy to include the entirety of the Old Growth :ortservancy mthin the Conse^Vutionlrecreation designation, and expand the Special Study Area to include all lands above the 1200 foot contour line designated as general urban. 4.0 Options Council can: Accept the Regional Growth Strategy with additional motions requesting that Metro amend a specific portion of the RGS; b) Accept the Regional Growth Strategy; c) Not to accept the Regional Growth Strategy; or d) Request additional Information Appendix A: February 8, 201 1 Report from the Director of Planning, Lands and Permits, entitled "Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy." Appendix B: Response letter from Chris DeMarco, Metro Vancouver dated March 2, -)o::ument = 149190vt RD - 519 �� �:9rJ.✓";_ .aG PJpA,1P1FS7Ph! ror � ' . r , 4eq. coe,nctl Data F-sb. Jt.:103, ttrm r to l ! �-7uoolempntal Data. Ip�tn Y _ li:rCCt6f f,{ I(;f'{b DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER •-SCt - t I" ;Tf;FET. WEST VANC0uVFR. 0C VTV JT3 COUNCIL REPORT APPENDIX Date: February 8, 2011 File: 0185-01 METRO From: Bob Sokol, Director of Planning, Lands and Permits Subject: Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy RECOMMENDED THAT: Council receive the new Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy entitled Metro Vancouver 2040 — Shaping our Future (Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1 136, 2010); and _. Council request clarification from Metro Vancouver regarding how the urban containment bor,ndary concept applies to Vilest Vancouver. Purpose i ,ne purpose of this report is to provide for West Vancouver's acceptance of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Metro) Regional Growth Strategy (Appendix A). 1.0 Background The proposed new Regional Growth Strategy will replace the existing Livable Region -Strategic Plan which was adopted in 1996. Under Part 25 of the Local Government Act, Metro Vancouver is required to consult with affected local governments whose acceptance is ultimately required before the regional board may adopt a Regional Growth Strategy. Conversely, once a new Regional Growth Strategy is adopted by the region, the member municipalities must prepare "Regional Context Statements" and submit them to the regional board for approval within two years. A Regional Context Statement explains the relationship between a municipality's Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy and how the former is to be made "generally consistent" with the latter. A municipality's regional context statement must then be approved by a major!ty vote of the Metro Board. The Draft Regional Growth Strategy will replace the current Livable Region Strategic Plan which Was adopted in 1996. The new Regional Growth Strategy is part of Metro Vancouver's "Sustainable Region Initiative" and has been in development for the last `rr✓ years. To that end, Metro Vancouver held a series of public and technical "workshops and forums within the region and published a number of background reports ceNveen 2005 and 2007. In lNovember 2007, the Regional District circulated a D CU-Meat =' :_^64`Ev1 RD - 520 I)ate: February 8, 201 1 Page 2 -rorn: Bob Sokol, Director Of Planning, Lands And Permits Subject: Acceptance of the Metro Regional Growth Strategy discussion paper entitled, "Choosing a Sustainable Future for Metro Vancouver - Options for Metro Vancouver's Growth Management Strategy". Preliminary drafts of the Regional Growth Strategy were released in April 2008 and September 2008 at the staff level for technical review as well as to Metro's Land Use &+ Transportation Committee (as it was then called) and to the Board. A draft Regional Growth Strategy was referred by Metro to member municipalities for comments in spring 2009. The District submitted comment letters to Metro on the earlier drafts. Based upon the comments Metro received from member municipalities and the public, a revised Draft Regional Growth Strategy was prepared and released in November 2009. Comments were requested by the end of January 2010. Based upon the comments received Metro Staff and regional planning staff engaged in intensive work to refine and revise the draft -strategy -over several months -and -through -the -summer: --The result - was --the draft Regional Growth Strategy dated September 3. 2010. West Vancouver Council received that Draft and directed staff to submit a comment letter dated October 19, 2010 (Appendix B) supporting the Regional Growth Strategy and recommending that the Board adopt the Strategy. Additional minor amendments were made and on January 14, 2011, the Metro Board directed that the Strategy be forwarded to all affected local governments for acceptance. Under the provisions of the local Government Act, affected local governments have 60 days from receipt of the notification from Metro to consider acceptance of the Regional Growth Strategy. All affected municipalities must accept the Regional Growth Strategy for the Board to consider final adoption of the Regional arovAh Strategy (Bylaw. The Regional Growth Strategy consists of a vision statement based upon sustainabiiity ;rom which five goals are derived and thirteen strategies articulated for their implementation. Each of the thirteen strategies lists a number of actions to be undertaken by Metro Vancouver, its member municipalities or other governments and agencies. Key challenges for growth management and regional planning are identified. he five goals are: Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area !.3oal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy Goal 3: Protect the Region's Natural Assets Goal 4: Develop Complete and Resilient Communities Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices The major 'and use and transportation policies contained in the Draft Regional Growth Strategy are surnmarized geographically in Map 1: Land Use Designations. Appendix A of the Plan consists of a number of tables containing population, employment and housing projections, targets and demand estimates. 'Clcurner,.t rf441>1v1 RD-521 Date: February 8, 2011 Pzge 3 From: Bob Sokol, Director of Planning, Lands And Permits Subject: Acceptance of the Metro Regional Growth Strategy 2.0 Analvsis The District of West Vancouver has consistently identified concerns with early Drafts of the RGS. The District reviewed the September 3, 2010 Draft of the Regional Growth Strategy and indicated to Metro that all of its concerns had been addressed.. As of February 2010, the land use designation of West Vancouver's Upper Lards remained a concern. In the Livable Region Strategy (the current Regional Growth Plan), which was adopted in 1996, all of the lands in West Vancouver south of Cypress Provincial Park, but above the 1200 foot contour line were designated as "Under Municipal Consideration," This designation reflected the fact that the District was prtpat tt>g_to__undertake_the-U -undertake-the—Upper-Lands Study-to-ttetetmine-hnw th-a-rttunlcl-'paTi ;Nould -- - manage these lands. The District of West Vancouver Upper Lands Study was completed in 2001. The results of this study were integrated into the West Vancouver OCP, which was adopted in 2004 and remains in effect today. A component of the West Vancouver OCP is the District's Regional Context statement (Appendix C), which describes how the OCP is consistent with the Livable Region Strategy. 1 wo sections of the District's Regional Context Statement directly ,address the designation of the Upper Lands. (see, in particular, those sections of the Regional Context StaterTient entitled, -Protect the Green Zone" and the map entitled"Regional Context Statement ' Green Zone Lands.' In summary the District's approach to these !ands (as described in the Regional Context Statement) is to: Work with the GVRD to include most of the approximately 2,800 acres of runicipal land above 1200' elevation in the Green Zone Continue to restrict approximately 1,700 acres of privately owned undeveloped !and above 1200' for Limited Use and Recreation, while providing for the discussion of some use in exchange for securing and acquiring other environmentally sensitive lands The January 2011 Draft Regional Growth Strategy (Bylaw no. 1136, 2010) designates the Municipal Lands above the 1200 contour as "Conservation/Recreation." which is consistent with the District's adopted Regional Context Statement. fhe area below the municipal lands, but above the 1200 contour (generaliv privately owned properties) is designated in the Draft RGS as "general urban." District policy towards these lands is for less intensive development (as described above with the District's Regional Context Statement), but the urban designation in the Regional Growth Strateqy gives West 'lancouver the flexibility to potentially allow some urban development of these lands in exchange for protecting other environmentally sensitive lands within this same :designation. A letter from Metro staff (Appendix D) states that: [the "general urban"] designation does not compel a municipality to develop land designated as general urban, it a less intensive land use is desired... General Urban areas can remain undeveloped if a municipality so chooses. RD - 522 Late: February 8, 201 1 From: ©ob Sokol, Director Of Planning, Lands And Permits P;1ge d Subject: Acceptance of the Metro Regional Growth Strategy The Municipal solicitor has considered this same issue and he agrees that the "general urban" designation, in conjunction with the requirement that the municipality must be "generally consistent" with the RGS, gives West Vancouver the flexibility to determine the appropriate use of these lands based !upon local policy decisions. it these lands were designated for less intensive uses within the Regional Growth Strategy, an amendment to the RGS (a very high bar to achieve — a regional public hearing is required and a 2/3 vote of the Metro Board) would be necessary in order to implement West Vancouver's desired approach to management of these lands. It is important to note that there is a small area of municipal lands (adjacent to the third switchback of Cypress Bowl Road) shown in the District Region al_Context Statement as Plunicipat-L-andslo-be-Cbnsideied for Inclusion in the Green Zone," which is designated in the RGS as "General Urban." Those same lands are designated elsewhere within the OCP (Appendix E) as within the area for "Possible Extension of Development above the 1200 Foot Contour." Due to this contradiction and for the reasons explained above regarding the flexibility of use within the "general urban" designation and the difficult process to have an RGS designation changed from conservation /recreation" to "general urban," this area is designated as "general urban„ ,vithin the RGS. The January 201 1 Draft Regional Growth Strategy (Bylaw no. 1136, 2010) also designates most of the municipally owned lands as a "Special Study Area." This regional designation gives the District additiona! flexibility in the future management of these !ands. As described earlier, upon adoption of the RGS by the Metro Board, municipalities have two years to adopt a Regional Context Statement, which describes horn the local OCP is "generally consistent" with the RGS. This regional context statement trust be approved by a simple majority of the Metro Board, :A hick must find that the designation of the lands in the local OCP is "generally consistent" with the RGS. The Draft RGS also provides the District some flexibility in managing those lands designated as conser✓ation/recreation. The Draft RGS gives municipalities flexibility in 'etermining the uses that would be considered consistent with that designation. While outright urban development would clearly be inconsistent, a local municipality can determine that a range of uses would be consistent with the conser✓ation/recreation designation, such as a hotel or other uses which support/take advantage of the conservation/recreation designation. As an example, the District of North Vancouver has been told that a hotel to support Grouse Mountain would be considered consistent ,,vith the conservatic n/recreation designation. Under the District of West Vancouver Balanced Scorecard, the District will be undertaking a detailed study of the future use of the Upper Lands in 2012 (BSC 1.2.5 (a) and (c)) as part of the Parks and Open Space Master Plan. This study will help the District define the uses that are appropriate within this area and can be integrated into the District's Regional Context Statement. Should the Regional Growth Strategy Le adopted in early 201 1, Regional Context Statements ✓✓ill need to be submitted to Metro m early 2013. Document "446416v1 l091EM] Date: February 8, 2o11 From: Bob Sokol. Director Of Planning, Lands And Permits rage $ `.subject: Acceptance of the Metro Regional Growth Strategy 3.0 Recommendation Staff believes that the January 2011 Draft Regional Growth Strategy (Bylaw no. 1136, 2010) addresses all of the issues raised by West Vancouver in response to earlier drafts. The current draft provides more flexibility to municipalities than earlier drafts and better reflects local needs. Most importantly, the current Draft's land use designations :and the flexibility it provides municipalities through their regional context statements, allows West Vancouver to best manage its long term interests in the Upper Lands while recognizing the regional interests in protecting the valuable environmentally sensitive lands which contribute to the region's quality of life. Based upon correspondence staff has had with some concerned residents, staff is r :commending that Council receive the Regional Growth Strategy at this time and request clarification from Metro Vancouver regarding the urban containment boundary and how it applies to West Vancouver. 4.0 Options Co<<ncil can.- ,) 1) Receive the new Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy entitled Metro Vancouver 2040 — Shaping our Future (Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1 136, 2010), and 2)Request clarification from Metro Vancouver regarding how the urban containment boundary concept applies to West Vancouver; or J) Accept the Regional Growth Strategy; or c) nccept the Regional Growth Strategy with additional motions requesting that Metro 4mend a specific portion of the RGS; or r1) Not to accept the Regional Growth Strategy; or a) Request additional Information ,appendix A: The January 2011 Draft Regional Growth Strategy (Bylaw no. 1136, 2010) .-ppendix B: Comment Letter on the September 3, 2010 Draft Regional Growth �trateay dated October 19, 2010 Appendix C: District of West Vancouver Regional Context Statement from the CCP Appendix D: Letter from Christina DeMarco, Metro Vancouver, dated February 15, 12011 ,ppendix E: District of West Vancouver OCP page 100 CCCUrrent 14<;6a16v1 RD - 524 March 7, 2011 Christina DeMarco Regional Development Division Manager Policy and Planning Department ---- Metro - Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V51-1 4G8 Dear Ms. DeMarco On March 2, 2011, Tsawwassen First Nation Executive Council reviewed the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. At that meeting the Tsawwassen Executive Council passed a resolution as follows: That the Tsawwassen First Nation Executive Council accept the Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy entitled Metro Vancouver 2040 — Shaping our Future (Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1 136, 2010) and; Executive Council request that Appendix A be amended as follows to better reflect growth projections for Tsawwassen First Nation Year 2021 203'1 2041 Population 4,000 6,000 8,500 Total Dwelling Units 1,900 2,900 4,400 Total Employment 1,300 1,800 2,600 Tsawwassen First Nation would like to thank Metro Vancouver for making the amendments to the both the mapping and wording within the text of the Growth Strategy concerning Tsawwassen First Nation at second reading, however we wish to see Appendix A amended to better reflect anticipated growth on Tsawwassen Lands. Administration Office: 1926 Tsawwassen Drive, Tsawwassen, British Columbia V4M 4G2 Tel: (604) 943-2112 o Fax: (604) 943-9226 Website: tsawwassenfirstnation.com RD - 525 Tsawwassen First Nation looks forward to working with Metro Vancouver oil development of Tsawwassen as part of the Regional District. Yours truly 1 uglas D. aines wassen First Nation cc: TFN Executive Council TFN Director of Lands Manager of Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs 5374862 Administration Office: 1926 Tsawwassen Drive, Tsawwassen, British Columbia V4M 4G2 Tel: (604) 943-2112 o Fax: (604) 943-9226 Website: tsawwassenfirstnation.com 2f) - S9.q ATTACHMENT lb GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1150, 2011 A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010. WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010 on the 29'h day of July, 2011; AND WHEREAS the amendments have been requested by resolution of the municipalities in which the lands subject to the amendments are located; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in open meeting assembled ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The "Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010" is hereby amended as .follows: on Map 2: Regional Land Use Designations, Map 3: Urban Containment Boundary and General Urban Areas, and Map 8: Conservation and Recreation Areas, the land use designation for the City of Richmond lands shown in black on the map attached hereto as Schedule A is changed from 'General Urban' to 'Conservation and Recreation'; on Map 2: Regional Land Use Designations, Map 3: Urban Containment Boundary and General Urban Areas, and Map 8: Conservation and Recreation Areas, the land use designation for the City of Coquitlam lands shown in black on the map attached hereto as Schedule B is changed from 'General Urban' to 'Conservation and Recreation'; iii. on Map 2: Regional Land Use Designations, Map 3: Urban Containment Boundary and General Urban Areas, and Map 8: Conservation and Recreation Areas, the land use designation for the District of West Vancouver lands identified as "Old Growth Conservancy General Urban to Conservation and Recreation" and shown in black on the map attached hereto as Schedule C is changed'; iv. the following section 6.12.5 is added: 6.12.5 Notwithstanding section 6.12.4, the Special Study Area in the District of West Vancouver may be expanded to include lands that are designated General Urban, are within the Urban Containment Boundary and are above the 1,200 foot contour; V. on Map 12: Special Study Area and Sewerage Extension Areas, the Special Study Area in the District of West Vancouver is expanded to include the lands marked "Special Study Area Extension to 1,200 ft elevation" shown hatched on the map attached hereto as Schedule D; Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 Page 1 of 7 RD - 527 vi. on Table A.1: Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Projections for Metro Vancouver Subregions and Municipalities, the projections for the Tsawwassen First Nation are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the projections shown on the Table attached hereto as Schedule E; 2. The official citation for this bylaw is "Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 ". This bylaw may be cited as "Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011." Read a First time this day of 2011. Read a Second time this day of 2011. Read a Third time this day of 2011. Reconsidered, Passed and Finally Adopted this day of Paulette A. Vetleson Corporate Secretary Lois E. Jackson Chair 2011. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 Page 2 of 7 I tJWY4:3 Schedule A to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 RD - 529 Schedule B to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 or Or7 _�f i Gbquitlam - ___ P - .s Port Maad • - - _ Pon ��; 1 coquidam 7� tg �: ILew f j coquitlam .f .r .1r�?;*� � may- 3-•--. ''. City of Coquitlam Proposed Amendments General Urban to Conservation and Recreation RD - 530 Schedule C to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 RD-531 Schedule D to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 RD - 532 Schedule E to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1150, 2011 Total Population Total Dwelling Units Total Employment 2006 2021 2031 2041 2006 2021 2031 1 2041 12006 1 2021 1 2031 2041 Tsawwassen First Nation 800 4,000 6,00J8,500 300 1,900 2,900 4,400F:T1,300 1,800 2,600 5351108 RD - 533 This page left blank intentionally. RD - 534 ATTACHMENT 2 Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Excerpt 6.3 Categories of Regional Growth Strategy Amendments Type 1 - Major Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy 6.3.1 The following Type 1 major amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy require an affirmative 50% + 1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board and acceptance by all affected local governments in accordance with section 857 of the Local Government Act. a) the addition or deletion of Regional Growth Strategy goals or strategies; b) an amendment to the process for making minor amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy, which is specified in sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.4; c) the matters specified in section 857.1(4) of the Local Government Act. 6.3.2 All amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy other than the amendments specified in section 6.3.1 are minor amendments (Type 2 and Type 3) for the purposes of section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act. Type 2 - Minor Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy (two-thirds weighted vote and regional public hearing required) 6.3.3 The following Type 2 minor amendments require an affirmative two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board and a regional public hearing: a) amendment to the Urban Containment Boundary; b) amendment of Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designations, except as set out in section 6.3.4 (e), (f) and (g); c) amendment from Rural land use designation to Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban land use designations; d) for sites located outside the Urban Containment Boundary that are designated Industrial or Mixed Employment, amendments to Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban land use designations; e) the addition or deletion of an Urban Centre; f) the addition or deletion of, or amendment to, the descriptions of the regional land use designations or actions listed under each strategy. Type 3 - Minor Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy (simple majority weighted vote and no regional public hearing required) 6.3A The following Type 3 minor amendments require an affirmative 50% + 1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board and do not require a regional public hearing: a) the addition or deletion of a Frequent Transit Development Area location; b) for sites within the Urban Containment Boundary, amendments from Industrial, Mixed Employment, Conservation and Recreation lands utilized only for commercial extensive recreation facilities, or General Urban land use designations to any other such regional land use designations; c) amendment from Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban land use designations to Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designations; d) amendment from Rural land use designation to Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designations; e) amendment from Conservation and Recreation land use designation to Agricultural land use designation; f) for sites that are contiguous with, or within, the Urban Containment Boundary and are not within the Agricultural Land Reserve, amendment from Agricultural or Rural land use designations to Industrial land use designation, and associated Urban Containment Boundary adjustments; g) for those sites that are identified as Special Study Areas on the Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas map (Map 12), an amendment to one or more of the regional land use designations set out in the Regional Growth Strategy and associated Urban Containment Boundary adjustments; h) housekeeping amendments to population, dwelling unit and employment projections, housing demand estimates, performance measures, tables, figures, grammar, or numbering, that do not alter the intent of the Regional Growth Strategy; i) amendments to mapping to incorporate maps included in accepted Regional Context Statements; j) all other amendments not identified in sections 6.3.1 or 6.3.3. 6.4 Procedures for Regional Growth Strategy Amendments Who Can Apply for an Amendment 6.4.1 The process to initiate amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy is by resolution of the Metro Vancouver Board. Municipalities may, by resolution, request amendments. The Metro Vancouver Board will not give first reading to an amendment bylaw which proposes to change a regional land use designation or Urban Containment Boundary unless or until the municipality or municipalities in which the subject site is located have requested that amendment or have been given the opportunity to formally comment on the proposed amendment. Notification and Request for Comments 6.4.2 For all proposed amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy the Metro Vancouver Board will: a) provide written notice of the proposed amendment to all affected local governments; b) provide a minimum of 30 days for affected local governments, and the appropriate agencies, to respond to the proposed amendment; c) post notification of the proposed amendment on the Metro Vancouver website, for a minimum of 30 days; d) if the proposed amendment is to change a site from Industrial or Mixed Employment to General Urban land use designation, provide written notice and a minimum of 30 days for Port Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver International Airport Authority, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and/or the Agricultural Land Commission, as appropriate, to respond to the proposed amendment. Procedures for Type 1 Major Amendments 6.4.3 For Type 1 major amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy set out in section 6.3.1, the procedures set out in section 857 of the Local Government Act apply. Procedures for Type 2 Minor Amendments Requiring a Two -Third Weighted Vote 6.4.4 For Type 2 minor amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy set out in section 6.3.3, the Metro Vancouver Board will: a) consider first and second reading of the amendment bylaw; b) provided the amendment bylaw receives an affirmative two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board at first reading and second reading, refer the amendment bylaw to a public hearing; c) hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the amendment bylaw; d) consider third reading; e) provided the amendment bylaw receives an affirmative two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board at third reading, consider final adoption of the amendment bylaw and, provided the amendment bylaw receives an affirmative two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board, adopt the amendment bylaw. Procedures for Type 3 Minor Amendments Requiring Simple Majority Weighted Vote 6.4.5 For Type 3 minor amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy set out in section 6.3.4, the Metro Vancouver Board will: a) consider first, second and third reading of the amendment bylaw; b) provided the amendment bylaw receives an affirmative majority weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board at each of the first, second and third readings, consider final adoption of the amendment bylaw and, provided the amendment bylaw receives an affirmative simple majority weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board, adopt the amendment bylaw. 5439233