Respecting the Urban Containment Boundary

Last fall, the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board initiated an approval process for a proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) that would extend the Highland’s Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) to enable the CRD to provide water and sewer services to the Bear Mountain Comprehensive Development Area. The extension of the UCB would absorb land that is currently protected rural greenspace.

The proposed amendment contradicts the principles of the RGS, which are to manage growth through densification of existing urban areas, preserve our greenspaces and natural resources, and reduce our environmental impact. Development of this area will contribute to urban sprawl, compound existing traffic congestion, overwhelm water and sewer infrastructure, and deplete the region’s natural resources.

The RGS is the product of nearly a decade of work on the part of community and environmental leaders across the region and the province. Extending the UCB in order to facilitate development of an area that is designated as rural greenspace would make a mockery of the RGS process and set a terrible precedent.

Greenspaces, agricultural land, rural and natural areas contribute to the beauty of our region and enhance our quality of life. We should be seeking opportunities to protect and enhance these precious lands, not considering their destruction.

The proposed amendment required unanimous consent of the 13 member municipalities during a 120-day period. Oak Bay, Victoria, North Saanich, Central Saanich, Metchosin, View Royal, Esquimalt, Saanich, and Cowichan voted to oppose the proposed amendment. Highlands, Colwood, Langford and Sooke supported the amendment.

The amendment will now go to a provincially-mandated arbitration process that could still result in the removal of protections for the rural greenspace, in spite of opposition from nine municipalities of the region and the neighbouring Cowichan Valley Regional District. The Ministry of Community Services has assigned an arbitrator to review the case and instructed the CRD to extend the review period by an additional 120 days to allow for a comprehensive review.

The RGS is scheduled for a five-year review this year. Amendments of this nature are properly addressed during this review period. The urgency of initiating an amendment approval process that overlaps with a general review is unclear. The CRD Board could clearly have avoided considerable costs, staff time, and division among municipalities by considering this proposal within the scope of its five-year review.

The arbitrator will require some time before rendering a decision, following the additional 120-day review. Therefore, we may not know the fait of the Highland’s rural greenspace for another six months. A fait that is determined beyond the scope of public consultation.

The nine municipalities supporting the integrity of the UCB should be congratulated for their dedication to preserving the greenspaces, agricultural land, and rural and natural areas it protects. The CRD Board, on the other hand, could have exercised better judgement before leading us down this path.