Land Use & Planning Committee. Agenda

Transcription

1 Agenda Thursday, February 23, :00 a.m. 11:30 a.m. La Cite Francophone Hall Jean-Louis Dentinger 8627 rue-marie-gaboury (91 Street), Edmonton Agenda Items 1. Call to Order 2. Chair Opening Remarks 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes of October 27, 2016 Page 2 of Business Arising: Draft HOV/Transit Priority Study Neal Sarnecki, Project Manager 5. Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) 5.1 Overview of Current REF Neal Sarnecki, Project Manager 5.2 Proposed REF 2.0 Neal Sarnecki, Project Manager Page 5 of 60 Page 9 of 60 Recommended Motion: That the approve the proposed Regional Evaluation Framework 2.0 and refer it to the Capital Region Board for approval Capital Region Transportation Priorities 6.1 Project Schedule Neal Sarnecki, Project Manager Page 58 of /18 CRB Budget & Committee Schedule 7.1 CRB Budget/Land Use & Planning Work Plan Malcolm Bruce, CEO Land Use & Planning Meeting Schedule Malcolm Bruce, CEO Page 59 of 60 Page 60 of Adjournment Updated: February 15, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 60

2 Thursday, October 27, :00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. La Cite Francophone Hall Jean-Louis Dentinger 8627 rue-marie Gaboury (91 Street), Edmonton Members: Rod Shaigec, Parkland County (Vice Chair) Ed Gibbons, City of Edmonton Amber Harris, Town of Gibbons Gale Katchur, City of Fort Saskatchewan David MacKenzie, City of Leduc Clay Stumph, Leduc County Patricia Lee, Town of Bruderheim Barry Turner, Town of Morinville Dwight Ganske, Town of Stony Plain Rick Hart, Village of Thorsby (alternate) Regrets: Tom Flynn, Sturgeon County (Chair) Guests: Benjamin Ansaldo, Leduc County Jordan Evans, Leduc County Robert Hastings, Alberta Transportation Michael Klassen, Sturgeon County Jeff Laurien, Municipal Affairs Marnie Lee, Strathcona County Sylvain Losier, City of Leduc John Pater, City of Edmonton Mark Perry, AECOM Stuart Richardson, Alberta Transportation Janna Wider, Strathcona County CRB Staff & Consultants: Malcolm Bruce, CEO Neal Sarnecki, Project Manager Sharon Shuya, Project Manager Stephanie Chai, Project Manager Amanda Borman, Executive Assistant 1. Call to Order Vice Chair, Mayor Shaigec, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. Chair Opening Remarks Meeting Minutes: Thursday, October 27, 2016 Page 1 of 3 Page 2 of 60

3 3. Approval of Agenda LUP Motion: That the agenda of October 27, 2016 be approved. Moved by: Councillor Clay Stumph, Leduc County Decision: Carried unanimously 4. Approval of Minutes of August 25, 2016 LUP It was by unanimous consensus that the minutes of August 25, 2016 be approved. Moved by: Councillor Patricia Lee, Town of Bruderheim Decision: Carried unanimously 5. Referral from Transit Committee 5.1 Draft HOV/Transit Priority Study LUP LUP LUP Motion: That the receive the Capital Region High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Transit Priority Study for information. Moved by: Councillor David MacKenzie, City of Leduc Decision: Carried unanimously Motion: That the recommend that the Province provide new funding and resources for the Capital Region High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Transit Priority Study. Moved by: Mayor Gale Katchur, City of Fort Saskatchewan Decision: Carried unanimously Motion: That the ask the Capital Region Board to identify which Committee is taking lead on the Capital Region High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Transit Priority Study going forward. Moved by: Councillor Clay Stumph, Leduc County Decision: Carried 6. Alberta Transportation 6.1 QEII Corridor Study Stuart Richardson of Alberta Transportation provided the Committee with an overview presentation of the ongoing QEII Corridor Improvement Study. Meeting Minutes: Thursday, October 27, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 60

4 7. Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan 7.1 Growth Plan Implementation Sharon Shuya, CRB Project Manager, provided the Committee with a brief presentation on the proposed implementation of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan /18 Draft CRB budget Review 8.1 Review of Budget presented to Board on October 13 Malcolm Bruce, CRB CEO, provided the Committee with an update on the recent budget discussions at the Board. 9. Adjournment The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m. Next Meeting: February 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., La Cite Francophone Hall Jean-Louis Dentinger Committee Vice Chair, Rod Shaigec Meeting Minutes: Thursday, October 27, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Page 4 of 60

5 A Brief History of REF Year Activity Applications 2008 CRB Regulation and Transitional Regional Evaluation Framework (TREF) approved in April. TREF requires most, if not all, statutory plans and amendments to be submitted for approval to the Board until the Growth Plan is approved. Review of applications delegated to CAO Subcommittee Draft Growth Plan submitted to Province for approval. Growth Plan returned by Province with additional direction to the Board. TREF remains in effect The Growth Plan and new Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) are approved by the Province on March 31, Prior to implementation of the new REF, 9 applications are approved under TREF. The new REF filters out applications that are not regionally significant, reducing the number of statutory plans that need to be submitted. REF applications continue to be reviewed by the CAO Subcommittee REF applications continue to be reviewed by the CAO Subcommittee REF applications continue to be reviewed by the CAO Subcommittee. However, review of REF process is initiated with intent to consider alternative to CAO Subcommittee The CAO Subcommittee reviews 5 applications this year before being collapsed and replaced by a 14 day appeal process The REF process is revised by increasing the appeal period from 14 days to 28 days No change to REF process Board approves new updated Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. New REF 2.0 is drafted based on the new Growth Plan and learnings from the past 6 years of REF. Minister of Municipal Affairs announces that Board membership to be reduced from 24 to 13 members in Board refers draft REF 2.0 to for review and recommendation based on change in membership reviews draft REF (as of Feb 23) Total 193 Page 1 of 4 Page 5 of 60

6 A Brief History of REF # of Applications TREF & REF Applications Approved Rejected Withdrawn Approved Rejected Withdrawn # of Applications Total TREF & REF Applications (By Year) Year Total TREF & REF Applications Page 2 of 4 Page 6 of 60

7 A Brief History of REF 25 TREF & REF Application Processing Time (25 Working Day Requirement) Working Days Application Processing Time (Working Days) Year 60 Deemed Complete to Decision (Average # of Calendar Days) Calendar Days Deemed Complete to Decision (Calendar Days) Year Page 3 of 4 Page 7 of 60

8 A Brief History of REF Cost $180, $160, $140, $120, $100, $80, $60, $40, $20, $ REF Evaluation Costs 3rd Party Consultants Year Evaluation Costs Page 4 of 4 Page 8 of 60

9 Item 5.2 CRB Administration Recommendation to the February 23, 2017 Draft Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) 2.0 Recommended Motion That the approve the proposed Regional Evaluation Framework 2.0 and refer it to the Capital Region Board for approval. Background Ministerial Order No. L:270/10 Regional Evaluation Framework (REF), was approved November 29, 2010 with an effective date of March 31, The purpose of the Regional Evaluation Framework is to confirm that new municipal statutory plans and statutory plan amendments proposed by member municipalities are consistent with the Capital Region Board Regulation and the Capital Region Growth Plan. The Regional Evaluation Framework needs to be updated to align with the Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Growth Plan. The update of REF also provides the opportunity to make changes that streamline the submission criteria, remove redundancy and bring clarity to the document. A CRB staff/municipal working group drafted update to REF and held a workshop with CRB member municipal staff on September 26, 2016 for their input and feedback. On October 13, 2016, the Workshop Draft of REF 2.0 was provided to the Board for information with a request for comments on the Draft be submitted to CRB Administration for consideration by October 27, On November 10, 2016, a revised REF 2.0 based on the comments received following the October 13, 2016 meeting was presented to the Board. The Board requested that all of the comments received since the workshop in September be provided. CRB Administration also committed to holding another meeting with municipal staff before the next board meeting and provide all of the comments received and a draft of the REF Toolkit that will support implementation of the new REF. On November 23, 2016, CRB Administration held a meeting with interested municipal staff to review the revised REF 2.0 based on all the comments received since the workshop in September. Thirteen municipal staff/consultants representing 14 member municipalities attended the meeting and reviewed the revised REF 2.0 and draft REF Toolkit. Additional revisions were made to the draft based on the input received and are shown in the Redline version attached. Prepared on February 3, 2017 Recommendation tofebruary LUP: February 23, 2017 Committee Meeting: 23, of 2Committee Land Use &Page Planning Page 9 of 60

10 CRB Administration Recommendation to the February 23, 2017 On November 30, 2016 the draft REF 2.0 was forwarded to Alberta Municipal Affairs for review and comment. On December 8, 2016, following the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that Board membership would be reduced from 24 to 13 members in the new Regulation, the Board approved a motion referring the draft REF 2.0 to CRB administration and the Land Use Committee for further review in light of the proposed changes to the Capital Region Board Regulation. Rationale CRB Administration reviewed the Draft REF 2.0 taking into account the proposed changes to the Capital Region Board Regulation. The reduction in members will have no impact on the submission or evaluation criteria. In this regard, no changes are recommended to the Draft REF 2.0 that was presented to the Board on December 8, Attachments 1. Draft Regional Evaluation Framework 2.0 November 29, Redline Version of Draft Regional Evaluation Framework 2.0 November 29, Summary of Municipal Comments on Draft REF 2.0 September 26, 2016 thru November 28, Draft REF 2.0 Toolkit Prepared on February 3, 2017 Recommendation tofebruary LUP: February 23, 2017 Committee Meeting: 23, of 2Committee Land Use &Page Planning Page 10 of 60

11 Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) Introduction The Capital Region Board (the "Board") has been directed through the Capital Region Board Regulation to implement the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan subsequent to its adoption by the Government of Alberta. The Regional Evaluation Framework provides the Board with the authority to evaluate and approve member municipal statutory plans to ensure alignment with the principles and policies of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 2.0 Purpose The purpose of the Regional Evaluation Framework (the REF ) is to provide member municipalities with criteria to determine when new municipal statutory plans and statutory plan amendments must be submitted to the Board for approval and procedures for submission. Further, the REF establishes statutory plan evaluation criteria and procedures for the Board to follow in the review and approval of local plans of regional significance to ensure they are consistent with the long-term regional interests identified in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 3.0 Definitions In addition to the definitions contained in the Capital Region Board Regulation (the "Regulation"), words defined in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be given the same meaning for the purpose of this Regional Evaluation Framework. 4.0 Statutory Plan Referral by a Municipality A municipality must review and refer to the Board any proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment pursuant to the following: 4.1 New Statutory Plans A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed new statutory plan, except for a) a new sub-area structure plan that is subordinate to and consistent with its higher order area structure plan or area redevelopment plan; b) a new area structure plan for country residential development within the zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton November 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Page 11 of 60

12 REF 2.0 Board Draft v3 Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan; or, c) a new area structure plan in a town or village with a population of less than 5000 that is consistent with the town or village municipal development plan. 4.2 Amendments to Statutory Plans A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed amendment to a statutory plan that meets one or more of the following conditions: a) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan is pursuant to Chapter 5, section of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan for the purpose of updating the municipal development plan to conform to the Growth Plan. b) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan would result in the development of new country residential outside of zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. c) The proposed statutory plan amendment would result in a change to the boundaries of an area structure plan, area redevelopment plan, intermunicipal development plan, urban service area or hamlet. d) The proposed statutory plan amendment is outside Downtown Edmonton, as depicted on Schedule 3A: Major Employment Areas in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, and would result in the conversion of lands within a major employment area from major employment uses to non-employment uses and/or would result in a change to the boundaries of a major employment area. e) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires the extension and/or increase in the capacity of the Regional Water and Wastewater Lines, as identified on Schedule 8A: Infrastructure Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, or to Regional Water or Wastewater treatment facilities. f) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor as depicted on Schedule 8B: Energy Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. g) The proposed statutory plan amendment results in a decrease of the planned density of the statutory plan area. h) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires improvements to a road identified on Schedule 10A: Transportation Systems Regional Roads to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. i) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan intersect with a Recreation Trail Corridor as depicted on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. November 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Page 12 of 60

13 REF 2.0 Board Draft v3 j) The plan area of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan includes a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line or the boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line as identified on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. k) The boundaries of the proposed statutory plan amendment are within 1.6 km of the boundaries of the Edmonton International Airport or the Alberta s Industrial Heartland Area Structure Plans in Sturgeon County, Lamont County, Strathcona County, Fort Saskatchewan, and the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park in Edmonton. 4.3 Statutory Plan Consolidations and Housekeeping Bylaws Notwithstanding sections 4.1 and 4.2 above, municipalities do not need to submit proposed statutory plans and/or statutory plan amendments to consolidate bylaws into one bylaw or bylaws to correct or update clerical, technical, grammatical, and/or typographical errors and omissions that do not materially affect the statutory plan in principle or substance in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. 5.0 Referral of Statutory Plans 5.1 Statutory plans or statutory plan amendments referred to the Capital Region Board pursuant to sections 4 must be referred to the Board after 1st reading and before 3rd reading of a bylaw or bylaws. 5.2 A statutory plan or statutory plan amendment referred by a municipality to the Board must include: a) the proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment bylaw; b) sufficient documentation to explain the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment; c) sufficient information to ensure that the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment can be evaluated pursuant to the evaluation criteria in section 8.0; and d) a copy of the most recent amended plan without the proposed amendment. 6.0 Board Administration Review 6.1 Within 25 working days of the date on which the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment referral is found to be complete by the Board, the Board Administration must present to the Board a report and recommendation to either approve or reject the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. November 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Page 13 of 60

14 REF 2.0 Board Draft v3 7.0 Board Review and Decision 7.1 At the meeting at which the Board administration report and recommendation are presented the Board may, by consensus, approve or reject the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. 7.2 In the event that consensus is not achieved a formal vote of the Board must be conducted, in accordance with the voting and notification provisions of the Capital Region Board Regulation and the Board's procedural bylaw. 7.3 Prior to a vote on a statutory plan or statutory plan amendment the Board must hear: a) from the Board administration; and, b) from the municipality proposing the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. 8.0 Evaluation of a Statutory Plan or Statutory Plan Amendment 8.1 When evaluating a statutory plan or statutory plan amendment, the Board must consider whether approval and full implementation of the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment would result in development that is consistent with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 8.2 Notwithstanding 8.1 above, when evaluating a statutory plan amendment to a statutory plan, other than a municipal development plan, approved by the Board under the Capital Region Growth Plan: Growing Forward, the Board may use the density targets of that plan rather than the density provisions within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. All other provisions of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be in effect for evaluation purposes. November 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Page 14 of 60

15 Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) 2.0 Redline Version Red text denotes revisions between September 26 & November 23, 2016 Green Text denotes revisions following the November 23, 2016 meeting 1.0 Introduction The Capital Region Board (the "Board") has been directed through the Capital Region Board Regulation to implement the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan subsequent to its adoption by the Government of Alberta. The Regional Evaluation Framework provides the Board with the authority to evaluate and approve member municipal statutory plans to ensure alignment with the principles and policies of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 2.0 Purpose The purpose of the Regional Evaluation Framework (the REF ) is to provide member municipalities with criteria to determine when new municipal statutory plans and statutory plan amendments must be submitted to the Board for approval and procedures for submission. Further, the REF establishes statutory plan evaluation criteria and procedures for the Board to follow in the review and approval of local plans of regional significance to ensure they are consistent with the long-term regional interests identified in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 3.0 Definitions 3.1 In addition to the definitions contained in the Capital Region Board Regulation (the "Regulation"), words defined in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be given the same meaning for the purposes of this Regional Evaluation Framework. 3.2 For the purposes of this Regional Evaluation Framework: Sub-Area Structure Plan means an area structure plan that is subordinate to a higher order area structure plan. 4.0 Statutory Plan Referral by a Municipality A municipality must review and refer to the Board any proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment pursuant to the following: New Statutory Plans November 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Page 15 of 60

16 REF 2.0 Board Draft v1 4.1 New Statutory Plans 4.1 A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed new statutory plan, except for a) a new sub-area structure plan that is subordinate to and consistent with its higher order area structure plan or area redevelopment plan; and, b) a new area structure plan for country residential development within the zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.; or, c) a new area structure plan in a town or village with a population of less than 5000 that is consistent with the town or village municipal development plan. Amendments to Statutory Plans 4.2 Amendments to Statutory Plans 4.2 A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed amendment to a statutory plan that meets one or more of the following conditions: a) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan is pursuant to Chapter 5, section of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan for the purpose of updating the municipal development plan to conform to the Growth Plan. b) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan would result in the development of new country residential outside of zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. c) The proposed statutory plan amendment would result in a change to the boundaries of an area structure plan, area redevelopment plan, intermunicipal development plan, urban service area or hamlet. d) The proposed statutory plan amendment is outside Downtown Edmonton, as depicted on Schedule 3A: Major Employment Areas in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, and would result in the conversion of lands within a major employment area from major employment uses to non-employment uses and/or would result in a change to the boundaries of a major employment area. e) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires the extension and/or increase in the capacity of the Regional Water and Wastewater Lines, as identified on Schedule 8A: Infrastructure Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, or to Regional Water or Wastewater treatment facilities. f) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor as depicted on Schedule 8B: Energy Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. November 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Page 16 of 60

17 REF 2.0 Board Draft v1 g) The proposed statutory plan amendment results in a decrease of the planned density of the statutory plan area. h) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires improvements to a road identified on Schedule 10A: Transportation Systems Regional Roads to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. i) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan intersect with a Recreation Trail Corridor as depicted on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. j) The plan area of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan includes a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line or Tthe boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line as identified on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. k) The boundaries of the proposed statutory plan amendment are within 1.6 km of the boundaries of the Edmonton International Airport or the Alberta s Industrial Heartland Area Structure Plans in Sturgeon County, Lamont County, Strathcona County, Fort Saskatchewan, and the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park in Edmonton or the Edmonton International Airport. Statutory Plan Consolidations and Housekeeping Bylaws 4.3 Statutory Plan Consolidations and Housekeeping Bylaws 4.3 Notwithstanding sections 4.1 and 4.2 above, municipalities do not need to submit proposed statutory plans and/or statutory plan amendments to consolidate bylaws into one bylaw or bylaws to correct or update clerical, technical, grammatical, and/or typographical errors and omissions which that do not materially affect the statutory plan in principle or substance, in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. 5.0 Referral of Statutory Plans 5.1 Statutory plans or statutory plan amendments referred to the Capital Region Board pursuant to sections 4 must be referred to the Board after 1st reading and before 3rd reading of a bylaw or bylaws. 5.2 A statutory plan or statutory plan amendment referred by a municipality to the Board must include: a) the proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment bylaw; b) sufficient documentation to explain the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment; c) sufficient information to ensure that the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment can be evaluated pursuant to the evaluation criteria in section ; and d) a copy of the most recent amended plan without the proposed amendment. November 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Page 17 of 60

18 REF 2.0 Board Draft v1 6.0 Board Administration Review 6.1 Within 25 working days of the date on which the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment referral is found to be complete by the Board, the Board Administration must present to the Board a report and recommendation to either approve or reject the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. 7.0 Board Review and Decision 7.1 At the meeting at which the Board administration report and recommendation are presented the Board must may, by consensus, approve or reject the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. 7.2 In the event that consensus is not achieved a formal vote of the Board must be conducted, in accordance with the voting and notification provisions of the Capital Region Board Regulation and the Board's procedural bylaw. 7.3 Prior to a vote on a statutory plan or statutory plan amendment the Board must hear: a) from the Board administration; and, b) from the municipality proposing the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. 8.0 Evaluation of a Statutory Plan or Statutory Plan Amendment 8.1 When evaluating a statutory plan or statutory plan amendment, the Board must consider whether approval and full implementation of the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment would result in development that is consistent with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 8.2 Notwithstanding 8.1 above, when evaluating a statutory plan amendment to a statutory plan, other than a municipal development plan, approved by the Board under the Capital Region Growth Plan: Growing Forward, the Board mustmay use the density targets of that plan rather than the density provisions within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. All other provisions of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be in effect for evaluation purposes. November 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Page 18 of 60

19 Draft Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) 2.0 Summary of comments received by member municipalities since workshop held on September 26, Red text in Response/Status denotes revisions in redline version of Draft REF 2.0 dated November 15, Green Text in Response/Status denotes revisions in redline version Draft REF 2.0 following November 23, 2016 meeting. Note: Comments are reprinted exactly as received. Municipality # Comment Response/Status Fort Saskatchewan (Sept 27/16) 1 Section 4.2 Amendments to Statutory Plans e) As major employment area is defined in the growth plan to include industrial, commercial and institutional uses, the proposed change below may provide some clarification. The statutory plan amendment is outside Downtown Edmonton, as depicted on Schedule 3A: Major Employment Areas in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, and proposes to convert lands within a major employment area from major employment uses to non-employment uses residential uses. The term non-employment uses is consistent with the terminology in Section of the Growth Plan 2 g) Several smaller municipalities in the region have numerous pipelines within or in proximity to them. The 1.6 km requirement seems onerous and would capture a substantial portion of such a community. This distance has been reduced to 0.8 km. The proposed change below would help reduce the number of REF s triggered by this requirement. The boundaries of the amendment to the statutory plan are within 1.6 km 0.5 km of a corridor as depicted on Schedule 8B: Energy Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 3 k) Similar to the comment above re: radius. The boundaries of the amendment to the statutory plan are within 1.0 km 0.5km of a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line as identified on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan This distance has been reduced to 0.8 km. November 29, 2016 Page 1 of 24 Page 19 of 60

20 Municipality # Comment Response/Status Region Growth Plan. Spruce Grove (Sept 28/16) 4 Firstly, however, thank you for the inclusion of provisions for statutory plan consolidations and housekeeping bylaws in the draft Framework. This improves clarity and reduces inefficiencies. Section 4.1(b): The City does not agree with proposed Section 4.1(b) that exempts submission of new area structure plans for country residential development within the zoned and/or designated country residential areas to the Board. Although the areas are generally pre-zoned for country residential development, area structure plans are a valuable planning tool that address issues that may be of regional significance i.e., transportation, servicing, etc., so any new area structure plans should be referred to the Board to ensure compliance with the Growth Plan regardless of the predominant land use. Non-statutory Plans: It was disconcerting to hear that some municipalities utilize non-statutory plans as a way to circumvent public consultation and the REF process. The City is of the opinion that statutory plans should be in compliance with the Growth Plan and, if a municipality uses non-statutory plans rather than area structure plans for their long range planning, these nonstatutory documents should also be required to comply with the Growth Plan. The development of the occasional Country Residential subdivision in the zoned or designated CR areas is not going to have a regional impact and therefore should not be submitted for review by the CRB. 5 Section 4.2(g): As you can appreciate, the 1.6 km setback from the existing pipeline right-of-way that runs across the entire width of the City of Spruce Grove encompasses a significant proportion of the City and would result in virtually all statutory plan amendments being the submitted to the Board. Since the existing right-of-way has undergone a recent needs review and it has been determined that no further expansion of the right-of-way is necessary, the submission of statutory plans to the Board is redundant, inefficient and costly to both the Board and the City. As such, the City would support the addition of a qualifier to this Section that would define the status of the energy corridor with regard to the future right-of-way expansion requirements. The City also supports power corridors being excluded from the definition of energy corridors for the purposes of this Section. 6 Section 4.2(k): Not unlike the impact from the energy corridor discussion above, there will also be potential This distance has been reduced to 0.8 km. This distance has been reduced to 0.8 km. November 29, 2016 Page 2 of 24 Page 20 of 60

21 Municipality # Comment Response/Status impacts to the City from the 1.0 km setback of a Park and Ride facility. Although the setback area also includes lands within Parkland County, the setback area contains a significantly large portion of the City. The lands are within existing area structure plans and include some of the fastest growing development in the region. If the purpose of this provision is to ensure the protection of land/rightof-way for Growth Plan identified Park and Ride facilities, the City supports the revision of this Section to require only proposed amendments to the area structure plan that would contain the Park and Ride facility be submitted to the Board. An excessive setback area, that would impact numerous existing area structure plans, creates inefficiencies and unnecessary costs to the Board and the City. Morinville (Sept 30/16) Strathcona County (Sept 30/16) 7 We ve reviewed the draft REF and have the following comments/suggestions: The opening clause of Section 4.2 requires a municipality to refer any amendment that meets one or more of the conditions, however, this section does not make reference to the exceptions provided in 4.1. I suggest adding after statutory plan except for those referred to in Section The conditions for referring amendments to statutory plans make reference to boundary changes of urban service areas and hamlets, but not to amending the boundary of ASPs/ARPs. I suggest including this so that an expansion of a plan area through amendment (in lieu of a new plan) requires referral as well. We have no other concerns with the proposed REF Further to the below, we would not be in support of adding clause 4.2 c) to the attached revised draft. We feel that it is a municipality s own decision whether or not to expand a boundary of either a hamlet or an Urban Service Area and that this clause is venturing outside of the scope of the CRB. Due to our status as a specialized municipality, this would for the most part have the biggest impact on Strathcona County. The Order in Council establishing us as a specialized municipality indicates that our Council can amend the boundaries of the Urban Service Area. As a result, our USA boundary can change without an annexation, unlike other municipalities in the region. See Comment #18 below. Added area structure plan, area redevelopment plan, intermunicipal development plan. See Comment #25 below. November 29, 2016 Page 3 of 24 Page 21 of 60

22 Municipality # Comment Response/Status The trigger for a REF should be when the planning for an area that has already been added to the hamlet or USA needs to be done. We agree that there should be a REF for the planning within the expanded area, but the actual change of the boundary should not be an evaluation trigger for the CRB. It should be expected that whatever the process is for a municipality to expand a boundary (i.e. annexation or USA change) that the proper planning would be undertaken as part of that process to ensure that it would be compliant with the growth plan. We would suggest adding the clause the statutory plan amendment is the result of an expansion to an existing Area Structure Plan or Area Redevelopment Plan boundary to address this gap and to also capture where the plan speaks to the land expansion of grandfathered ASPs. This, as well as the requirement to send new ASP s, will ensure that the CRB would have the opportunity to review any expanded growth area. The Towns of Gibbons, Redwater, Bon Accord, Bruderheim, Legal, Calmar & Lamont and the Village of Wabamun (Oct 4/16) Section 2.0 The concerns raised by the Town of Redwater at the CAO meeting of September 26, 2016 relating to REF 2.0 have not been adequately addressed. The Towns and Village request that REF 2.0 be revised to exclude the requirement to submit a new Area Structure Plan to the Board if the new ASP would not result in an amendment to an MDP that is compliant with the new Growth Plan. In our opinion, regional impacts will have been addressed in the MDP review process or in the Regional Context Statements and there little no risk of a new ASP being non-compliant with the Growth Plan if the new ASP is consistent with an approved, compliant MDP. 11 In order to clarify the intent of REF 2.0 we recommend that the last sentence of Section 2.0 be revised as follows to include the words regional significance : Further, the REF establishes statutory plan evaluation criteria and procedures for the Board to follow in the review and approval of local plans of regional significance to ensure they are consistent with the long-term regional interests identified in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. This revision will help to ensure that REF 2.0 is consistent with the current wording of Section 5.2.1(b) Regional Evaluation Framework in the Growth Plan. Added the following exception under 4.1: c) a new area structure plan in a town or village with a population of less than 5000 that is consistent with the town or village municipal development plan. Added of regional significance to Section 2.0. November 29, 2016 Page 4 of 24 Page 22 of 60

23 Municipality # Comment Response/Status Section 4.1 See Comment #10 above. REF 2.0, as proposed, will increase the number of REF submissions required to be submitted by smaller municipalities. The Towns and Villages acknowledge that their REF submission volume is very low however, each REF submission requires a significant increase in administrative time and results in additional costs for the municipality. If there is no regional impact as a result of a new ASP then what value is there to the region in a process that unnecessarily increases labour and costs which could be directed towards other regional initiatives including reporting? It is very unlikely that the Towns and Village, because of their smaller land base, will ever have sub-area plans. As a result, all new area structure plans will have to be submitted for REF review even if they have no regional significance or regional impact. The municipalities noted above do not believe that this is consistent with Policy 5.2.1(b) Regional Evaluation Framework in the Growth Plan. We recommend that REF 2.0 be revised to provide the same exemption to smaller municipalities which is now being provided to larger municipalities who have statutory plans and sub-area plans by revising Section 4.1 to include an additional provision that would enable smaller municipalities to not submit new area stucture plans if the ASP is consistant with their MDP and their regional context statement has been submitted and approved by the CRB and their MDP complies with the Growth Plan REF Workbook There is some concern that the Workbook for interpreting the REF is not being developed concurrently with REF 2.0. If the workbook is to provide clarification on matters of interpretation relating to the REF 2.0 then this should be provided to the CRB prior to REF 2.0 approval by the board to ensure that there is no confusion about what board members are being asked to approve. REF toolkit is currently in development. 14 (editor s note: There was no #4 in comments received) 5. Development Schemes There is significant concern regarding administration s comment that the CRB is going to lobby the province to no longer allow conceptual schemes as a planning tool within the CRB region. This action is not supported by the Towns and Village noted herein. Ultimately, the MGA defines what are and are not permitted in terms of planning tools. Conceptual Schemes are not statutory plans and therefore not subject to REF. However, as you may appreciate, amongst the larger municipalities there is an ongoing concern that where appropriate ASPs should be the November 29, 2016 Page 5 of 24 Page 23 of 60

24 Municipality # Comment Response/Status preferred mechanism for planning growth. It is identified in the EMRGP on page 92 the recommendation to the province is that conceptual schemes still be supported in the planning of growth. UDI (Oct 6/16) 15 1) The Draft REF states that an ASP must be referred to the CRB when an amendment results in a decrease in density. This should clarify whether it is net or gross density. The net density may not change if additional land is required for ER, commercial or civic uses. This excludes NSP amendments, but the current REF has a threshold of 10% before it needs to be referred. If the intent is that all amendments with a decrease in density are referred, this could result in many more ASP amendments going to CRB for a negligible change to the plan that is not significant to the region. This may not have a big impact on Edmonton amendments where ASP do not reflect small changes to multi-family, but areas like Spruce Grove that do not have NSPs would be subject to more CRB reviews for small changes to the plan. 16 2) There should be a minimum area threshold for changes to 4.2 d for amendments to employment areas. 17 3) Why are amendments within 0.8km of a pipeline corridor on Schedule 8B included? A better understanding where this policy came from would be appreciated. Achieving compact growth is one of the fundamental principles of the Growth Plan. All municipalities across the region are expected to adhere stringently to the minimum targets in the Growth and to strive for higher densities if possible. Where a municipality has valid reasons for reducing density in certain situations, it is important that the rest of the Region understand the reasons and context. According to research during the preparation of the plan, the capital region has significantly more employment land than is forecast over the next 30 years. Therefore, the rationale for expanding and/or reducing the amount of employment should be reviewed regionally. This was added as a result of the Regional Energy Corridors Study. The Study highlighted the need to coordinate municipal land use planning and planning for energy corridors which are critical infrastructure that supports the prosperity of the region. Therefore, requiring submission of amendments that are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor provides a regional view on the planning around these corridors. November 29, 2016 Page 6 of 24 Page 24 of 60

25 Municipality # Comment Response/Status Morinville (Oct 26/16) 18 Recommend that following technical clarification should be addressed: The opening clause of Section 4.2 requires a municipality to refer any amendment that meets one or more of the conditions, however, this section does not make reference to the exceptions provided in 4.1 (i.e. as currently drafted, technically an amendment to a sub-area structure plan or planned country residential areas that meets one of the criteria would require CRB referral, despite that it didn t require referral as a new plan). We suggest adding in Section 4.2 after statutory plan except for those referred to in Section 4.1 If an amendment to a sub-area structure plan meets one of the criteria listed in 4.2 it must also require an amendment to the higher ASP, therefore requiring both plans to be submitted for review ensuring that all the information resulting in the amendment is provided for review by the CRB. Whereas if a new sub-area structure plan is consistent with a higher order ASP, and does not require amendment of the higher order ASP, it must already be consistent with the Growth Plan and therefore does not require submission. Leduc County (Oct 26/16) 19 The provisions within the draft REF 2.0 that requires the submission of the statutory amendment where the boundaries of the proposed amendment: are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor as depicted on Schedule 8B: Energy Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan; intersects with a Recreation Trail Corridor as depicted on Schedule 1 DB: Transportation Systems - Regional Transit and Trail Corridor in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan; are within 0.8 km of a park and ride or planned LRT line as depicted on Schedule 1 DB: Transportation Systems - Regional Transit and Trail Corridor in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan; and are within 1.6 km within the Edmonton International Airport (EIA) in its current form seems onerous and needs to be clarified. The need to submit a statutory amendment should not be based solely on its proximity to a regional service, but rather any alteration or impact the proposed amendment may have on the regional service. This would be consistent with other policies within draft REF 2.0. For example, Policy 4.2(e) stipulates that where the effect of a proposed statutory plan amendment requires the extension or increase in the capacity of the regional water and wastewater lines, it shall be referred. As such, Leduc County requests that Policy 4.2 (f), (i), U), It is difficult to measure the impact an amendment may have on one of the items referenced without reviewing the proposed amendment. The regional review is to ensure the referenced item has been planned for as part of the statutory plan amendment. For example, the planning of a new neighbourhood near a pipeline corridor may not physically impact an existing or planned pipeline corridor like it would a road or waterline but if it is not recognized in the plan it may affect the corridor s ability to be expanded or place limits on the type of product that may be shipped. November 29, 2016 Page 7 of 24 Page 25 of 60

26 Municipality # Comment Response/Status and (k) be revised to indicate that where there is an alteration or impact to the regional service, that the statutory plan be referred to the CRB. City of Leduc (Oct 27/16) 20 In REF 1.0, the regulation states that A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed new Intermunicipal Development Plan, Municipal Development and any proposed amendment to an Intermunicipal Development Plan or Municipal Development Plan. In draft REF 2.0, that section has been deleted, along with any direct mention of IDPs. It appears that all new statutory plans (by default MDP, IDP, and ASPs) will still be required to be submitted through REF. However, under the proposed REF, an IDP amendment doesn t expressly require CRB submission, and an MDP amendment only expressly triggers a submission if it a) is for the purpose of updating to conform to the growth plan (most likely a one-time update), or b) if the MDP amendment results in new CR outside of an identified CR area. Unless an MDP or IDP amendment falls under one of the other REF triggers (which generally target ASP-level planning), there appears to quite a bit of latitude to make a number of types of amendments to MDP and IDPs without a CRB referral. The latitude given seems to go above and beyond simple housekeeping items. Note that municipalities with boundaries new the Industrial Heartland and EIA would be the exception to that rule, as the MDPs and any IDP amendments would be triggered every time by being within 1.6 km of those regional assets, excepting minor housekeeping items. This does not seem congruent with the Growth Plan 2.0 Section 5.2 Implementation Mechanisms, which states that the overall intent of REF remains the same, and the at the submission criteria extends screening of regional significant amendments to MDPs and IDPs. Can the CRB please explain the rationale and implications around the apparent submission changes for MDPs and IDPs, and if these were intentional changes to the submission criteria? The City of Leduc has been requested to provide additional clarity regarding this comment. November 29, 2016 Page 8 of 24 Page 26 of 60

27 Municipality # Comment Response/Status 21 Item 4.2 i) references a recreation trail corridor on figure 10B are we targeting the Trans Canada Trail (operational) of Trans Canada Trail (proposed), or both? The item pertains to both existing and proposed. Strathcona County (Oct 28/16) 22 Item 4.2 j) requires a municipality to refer a plan that is within 0.8 km from a park and ride identified on figure 10B. Unfortunately, the resolution of said schedule is very poor and it is extremely difficult to identify the potential location of the park and ride in Leduc. Furthermore, the schedule states that location is conceptual and subject to further technical review. It is therefore the objective of this sub-section to submit a REF application in relation to a location identified within this schedule or in relation to a municipality s statutory plan/document confirming the exact location of said park and ride? 23 Item 6.1 second sentence found complete by the Board. We are not sure if Board is the right body as we don t recall the Board voting to decide if an application is complete or not. To our understanding, the Board s Administration is the body that decides if it is complete or not, and we feel that it should continue to be dealt with at the administrative level. 24 At the last workshop, there was discussion around a REF toolkit. Have any decisions or developments occurred around this since our last discussion? Section 4.2 c) - as per draft REF 2.0 dated September 26, 2016 Strathcona County is not in support of adding clause 4.2 c) as it is currently worded. Further to Section 59 of the Municipal Government Act, the Council of a Municipal District or Specialized Municipality has the authority to designate a hamlet and its boundaries. In addition, the Order In Council that establishes Strathcona County as a Specialized Municipality gives the Council of Strathcona County the ability to amend the boundary of the urban service area. As a result, Strathcona County's urban service area boundary and hamlet boundaries can change without an annexation, unlike other urban communities in the region. If this were to be the only clause that causes a REF to be sent to the CRB, the CRB would be rendering a decision as This requirement is the same as in the current REF except we have reduced it from 1.0 km to 0.8 km. As for determining location our intent is to provide zoomed in maps within the REF Toolkit which give a more detailed location and includes the 0.8 km measurement from the site for easy reference. This sentence is taken directly from the current REF. However, once the updated REF has been approved, the delegation of authority provided to CRB administration by the Board will be reviewed and brought forward to the Board if amendments are required. The REF toolkit is currently being prepared and will be included with REF 2.0 when it goes to the Board for approval. Counties have the ability to revise the boundaries of hamlets and specialized municipalities can revise both hamlets and urban service areas within their jurisdiction. Since the creation or expansion of these areas may have impacts to regional land use, servicing, infrastructure, etc., amendments of this nature should have regional oversight through the REF process, to ensure growth expectations by the member municipality are November 29, 2016 Page 9 of 24 Page 27 of 60

28 Municipality # Comment Response/Status to whether or not to approve a boundary change. Similar to the fact that the CRB does not approve an annexation, it is our opinion for the reasons as indicated above, that the current wording of this clause is venturing outside of the scope of the CRB. consistent with the Growth Plan. We understand the purpose of this clause is to ensure the CRB will review the planning for a new area and we agree that this is under the purview of the CRB. We are only in disagreement with how the clause has been worded; therefore, we have proposed alternative wording we believe captures that intent: "the statutory plan amendment is the result of an expansion to an existing Area Structure Plan or Area Redevelopment Plan boundary" It should be expected that whatever the process is for a municipality to expand a boundary (i.e. annexation or USA change) that the proper planning would be undertaken as part of that process to ensure that it would be compliant with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. The trigger for a REF should be when the planning for an area that has already been added to the hamlet, urban service area, city, town or village needs to be done. We believe the wording as proposed above addresses this and also capture the intent of Section of the plan where substantive amendments to grandfathered ASPs may require a REF. Throughout the drafting of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan it was often communicated that an example of a substantive amendment would be expanding the boundary of an existing ASP. We think that the rewording of the clause as suggested, as well as the requirement to send new ASP's, will ensure that the CRB would have the opportunity to review any land use planning for an expanded growth area. Further, the proposed alternative wording addresses planning that would be undertaken only after the hamlet or USA boundary has been changed. If the boundary change has been approved by the municipality, but has not been reviewed regionally and does not align with the Growth Plan, it may create expectations of growth by landowners and developers that is not anticipated in the Growth Plan. Finally, with respect to the scope of the CRB, it is agreed that the CRB has no authority over Section 59 of the MGA which allows the designation of a hamlet by a county or specialized municipality. However, the CRB does have authority, through REF, when a municipality proposes a bylaw to approve a new statutory plan or an amendment to a statutory plan that the REF is applicable Section 4.2 f) - Strathcona County has suggested that this clause be based on the area subject to the statutory plan amendment and that a qualifier be added similar to 4.2 e) or 4.2 g). We consider the current wording to be too vague. To support this clause additional clarification will be provided in the REF toolkit We believe the purpose of Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan is to not only focus on residential density targets for urban areas but to also create complete communities. Using only the density provision, often amendments that reduce land use mix to predominantly residential suburban development would not have to go Complete communities is a concept within and an objective of the Growth Plan. Through the application of the principles and policies in the Growth Plan through REF, the desired November 29, 2016 Page 10 of 24 Page 28 of 60

29 Municipality # Comment Response/Status through REF. We suggest a clause be added regarding complete communities to ensure these types of amendments would be required to go through REF. Grandfathered plans should not be allowed to move backwards, away from being a complete community. outcome is complete communities. St. Albert (Oct 28/16) Section 6.0 and Section we believe this section should be amended to reflect the current process Section We understand that if it is a new ASP, then the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan is in effect; however, we believe there should be guidance in this section for amendments to Planned Areas when a grandfathered ASP is send through REF. When a grandfathered ASP is sent through REF due to the criteria in 4.2, does it have to meet the new plan or aspire to the new plan? We think there should be criteria explaining what an amendment to a grandfathered plan must strive to achieve under the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. 30 Based upon my assessment of the new REF Process, I do not see any red flags. In fact the process should be a little more streamlined for St. Albert, especially if we look into adopting what they call sub-area structure plans or neighbourhood structure plans. The biggest change is that not all MDP amendments have to go the board (this is especially great for minor things like park swaps, etc) and referrals regarding road networks are only required if the development results in upgrade to the network. As for rural communities there are additional criteria (regarding These sections currently reflect the existing REF which has allowed the board the flexibility to change the administrative processes as needed (ie. Move from CAO subcommittee to appeal process, etc.) rather than be prescriptive and require ministerial approval for future changes to the process. Added the following after section 8.1: 8.2 Notwithstanding 8.1 above, when evaluating a statutory plan amendment to a statutory plan, other than a municipal development plan, approved by the Board under the Capital Region Growth Plan: Growing Forward, the Board must use the density targets of that plan rather than the density provisions within the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. All other provisions of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be in effect for evaluation purposes. No response required. November 29, 2016 Page 11 of 24 Page 29 of 60

30 Municipality # Comment Response/Status hamlet boundaries and Country Residential product) in this REF process. Based upon my review, these are the criteria that will impact St. Albert. New 1. All new statutory plans must be approved by the board (except sub-area structure plans, as they will follow below an ASP) NO change Amendments 1. All MDP amendments that are being proposed for the purpose of conformance to the Growth Plan. Minor change less restrictive, because before all MDP amendments went to the board full stop 2. All stat plans that result in the conversion of Employment Lands for Non-Employment purposes, in St. Albert this seems to be in the South Riel and Campbell Business Park. Change before not considered, but have no concerns 3. All stat plans that are within 0.8km of a pipeline corridor, in St. Albert that is a very small portion in the northwest Change before not considered, but have no concerns 4. All stat plans that reduce planned density of the stat plan area NO change 5. All stat plans that require improvements to a road of regional significance (Ray Gibbons, STA Trail, and future 127) Minor change, less restrictive 6. All stat plans that have boundary that intersect with a recreation trail corridor (STA Trail) Change before not considered, but have no concerns 7. All stat plans that are within 0.8km of a P&R (north and south St. Albert) - NO Change City of Edmonton (Oct 31/16) 31 Overall Comments/Questions The proposed framework would require all new statutory plans to be submitted which should promote a level of consistency across the region. A higher volume of REF applications could be anticipated in the short term as all municipalities amend their MDPs to align with the Growth Plan. The REF could be used to help ensure that the Key Performance Indicators can be accomplished wherever possible. Our staff have been advised that the technical amendments will not be required as submissions through REF. For example, the River Valley ASP will not No response required for the first 4 bullets. Sub-Area Structure Plan definition removed as suggested in the last bullet. November 29, 2016 Page 12 of 24 Page 30 of 60

31 Municipality # Comment Response/Status need to be referred as top-of-bank is refined. This will ensure only regionally significant plans / amendments (as defined by the new Growth Plan that includes key indicators and policies) are reviewed. We propose the definition in the REF for Sub Area Structure Plan be removed leaving the one in the Glossary to apply. 32 Comments/Questions on Specific Clauses 4.1: Delete section 4.1. Rather than address exceptions consider including only those applications that are to be submitted as a REF. In any case if the exceptions remain: 4.1a) add that is consistent with a higher order plan also remove and, as that implies that the two exceptions (a and b) are related to one another. Replace and with or. 4.1b) considering the Key Performance Indicators not sure why this exception is included and how will CR take-up be monitored (see Key Indicators)? : Why is there no requirement to submit a REF if the plan is adjacent to or within an environmentally sensitive area? 34 Comments on individual clauses within 4.2 Comment re: 4.1 a) - There is an expectation that sub-asp s will be consistent with the higher order asp. If it is not, then the higher order asp must be amended. If an amendment is required, its submission would be subject to 4.2. Replaced and with or as suggested after 4.1 b). Comment re: 4.1 b) The purpose of the REF is to ensure consistency of statutory plans with the Growth Plan. If the purpose of REF was to collect data, then all statutory plans and amendments would be required for submission. Data to support Key Performance Indicators will be collected pursuant Chapter 5 of the Growth Plan under a yet to be determined separate process. ESA s are captured when a new statutory plan is proposed under section 4.1. No response required. a) Amendments to Municipal Development Plans as required to ensure compliance with the Growth Plan. 35 b) add word that between development plan and would result in. Note caution: Schedule 2 is not very precise. Schedule 2 is based on local municipal development plans and area structure plans. More detailed maps will be November 29, 2016 Page 13 of 24 Page 31 of 60

32 Municipality # Comment Response/Status considered as part of the REF toolkit. Addition of that deemed unnecessary. 36 c) mean growth hamlet? Consider adding as per provincial order after urban service area or hamlet. The criteria applies to all hamlets, not just growth hamlets. Considered adding as per provincial order, however, it is not the CRB s role to enforce provincial orders respecting USAs, and hamlets are not subject to provincial orders. 37 d) Convoluted sentence. Conversion of Major Employment Areas to non-employment uses. Chances in boundaries of Major Employment Areas. 38 e) add to submission requirements. Who monitors the impact of regional servicing? (will consultants be hired to review and monitor impacts of servicing?) 39 f) A concern is the requirement for referral within 800 meters of a pipeline. This will necessitate a large number of REFs which may have no regional impact; additional details could be used to refine this requirement. Additional criteria around 4.2.f might be useful since that will encompass a significant area of land there could be merit in only receiving referrals when changes are taking place on greenfield, for example; in built-up areas intensification could be reviewed. 40 h) Presumably the goal here is to identify potential changes in road funding priorities. Question about submission requirements as a result? Question about professional to be hired by CRB to review and monitor impacts on regional roads? No change. The criteria is for submission purposes only. Further, third party consultants undertaking evaluations have access to engineering consultants if required. The Regional Energy Corridors Study highlighted the need to coordinate municipal land use planning and planning for energy corridors which are critical infrastructure that supports the prosperity of the region. Therefore, requiring submission of amendments that are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor provides a regional view on the planning around these corridors. Area Structure Plans are typically required to have transportation impact assessments, especially if the plan area is adjacent to major November 29, 2016 Page 14 of 24 Page 32 of 60

33 Municipality # Comment Response/Status roads identified in the EMRGP. If the statutory plan amendment has to be submitted because of this criterion, the TIA should be submitted as part of the application documents. More clarification will be provided in the REF toolkit. 41 i) A regional parks and trails study and its connectivity to local parks and trails would be useful. Require some criteria to ensure that local parks and trails are connected to the regional system and where trailheads (access) need to be incorporated into the system within a municipal jurisdiction. 42 j) Given the discrete size of a Park and Ride facility, this criteria should be re-worded. Highly likely that there is a Park and Ride located within a larger statutory plan but not within 0.8 km of the boundary. Presumably, those were intended to be captured. The wording can be read in two different ways. A Recreation/Open Space/Wildlife Corridors Study is proposed in the draft CRB 2017/18 budget. Revised as follows: j) The plan area of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan includes a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line or the boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line as identified on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. Criteria would be supported by REF toolkit. 43 k) plural reference to AIH ASPs. Presume this is a reference to the municipalities within AIH - Sturgeon, Fort Sask, Lamont and Strathcona. But it may need to be clearly identified which ASPs this is a reference to. Revised as follows: the Alberta s Industrial Heartland Area Structure Plans in Sturgeon County, Lamont County, Strathcona County, Fort Saskatchewan, and the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park in Edmonton. November 29, 2016 Page 15 of 24 Page 33 of 60

34 Municipality # Comment Response/Status : not which but that 4.3 Replaced which with 5.1: review wording: must/will/shall that. 5.1 no change : review wording: must/shall/will Recognizing that the listed submission requirements are as per the existing REF regs, and that there will be administrative checklists that identify the requirements; wonder if there is a need to be more specific about requirements and suggest it may be valuable to align with Key Indicators. Confirm that the requirements to identify the criteria leading to the referral in the current checklist will carry forward into the new REF. The clauses that are often included in stat plans are formulae and often so high level that they may not get at the intent. Examples of potential submission requirements to add: Add submission requirement: Professional assessments that describe why any policy cannot be achieved Add submission requirement: A red-lined version of the revised previously approved statutory plan. Add submission requirement: Professional evaluation of impacts on regional roads and servicing : rationale by professional to explain why policies of growth plan cannot be met. Suggest must changed to may as they have the choice not to. As it reads as must it contradicts 7.2 No change to wording. The use of must is consistent with the rest of the document. With respect to submission requirements, the level of detailed suggested is not required to be listed in the REF. However, there will be further details of mandatory and optional requirements in the REF toolkit. Rationale will be left to the municipality s discretion. Comment regarding must appears to refer to Replaced must with may : What does full implementation mean? Can this be objectively determined? Full implementation is taken from the current REF and is meant to address consistency of a fully implemented statutory plan with the Growth Plan rather than just a phase or stage of the plan. November 29, 2016 Page 16 of 24 Page 34 of 60

35 Municipality # Comment Response/Status 48 Comments/Questions on missing elements or gaps The legal question will be Definitions (3.0): A legal question: The REF is created by Ministerial Order but under the current wording, a change in a definition in the Growth Plan would unilaterally change a meaning within the REF. Is this a correct interpretation / understanding? The problem with the glossary is that it is already approved by the Board and submitted to the Province. The REF is more regulatory and the GPU definitions could be problematic in this context. reviewed with the Province. As indicated the glossary and definitions have been approved by the Board as part of the EMRGP. No revisions are being considered at this time. 49 Suggestions re: Growth Plan Definitions that make up the REF: Park and Ride: Not a good definition as it could refer to any facility (including non Park and Rides) that are located at an intercept with regional LRT customers. Recreation Corridor/Areas: The definition is fine but the map only outlines the Trans Canada Trail for protection under this section. Protection or Protect: This is a standard dictionary term; however, the provided definition is quite extravagant and is not the standard definition. Statutory Plan: A plan adopted by bylaw The REF makes reference to the processing of unadopted statutory plans. IDPs and ARPs are included in the definition of Statutory Plan, but not explicitly excluded here. Further, should the definition be updated to include but not limited to as under the MGA ICFs may be introduced. Sub-Area Structure Plan: The definition is substantially different than those drafted in 3.2. These should be reconciled. See comment above. 50 Growth Plan Policies that are missing from the REF: 2.1: Conserve and restore natural living systems through an ecological network approach. 2.2: Protect regional watershed health, water quality and quantity. 2.3: Plan development to promote clean air, land and water and address climate change impacts. The definitions in the glossary are provided to support the interpretation of the Plan and therefore may vary from local or standard planning definitions. Sub-Area Structure Plan has been reconciled per Comment #31 above. The REF is not a policy document. It is a tool that provides criteria for the submission of statutory plans that are evaluated for consistency with the policies of the EMRGP. November 29, 2016 Page 17 of 24 Page 35 of 60

36 Municipality # Comment Response/Status 2.4: Minimize and mitigate the impacts of regional growth on natural living systems. 3.2: Plan for and promote a range of housing options. 4.7: Ensure compatible land use patterns to minimize risks to public safety and health. 6.1: Identify and conserve an adequate supply of prime agricultural lands to provide a secure local source of food security for future generations. 6.2: Minimize the fragmentation and conversion of prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. REF Meeting (Nov 23/16) City of Edmonton (Nov 24/16) 51 Comments/Questions on formatting 4.1/4.2/4.3: headings should follow the practice in the rest of the document of having heading number followed by the section heading. 8.0: has an additional tab space before the heading that 1.0 through 7.0 don t have. 52 Subsection 4.2 c) re: amendments resulting in boundary change to statutory plans. There was a concern that this subsection may result in a significant number of applications for minor boundary amendments. Consider additional conditions/triggers for 4.2 c). 53 Replace must with may in 8.2. Plans may propose higher densities than the density range in previous growth plan. Do not want to restrict Board decision. 54 Subsection concern that developers may propose amending old stat plans to include adjacent greenfield areas so they can be planned at previous densities. 55 Purpose - consider some clarification Clarify that the purpose of the REF is 1. to identify the criteria or conditions under which a member municipality will submit MDPs and land use Headings and additional tab fixed as suggested. Recommending no change at this time. Minor changes such as aligning boundaries to top of bank, or corrections to boundaries based on additional technical information, may be covered by subsection 4.3. CRB Administration will monitor the applications received and report back to the Board on the number applications submitted based on this subsection. Replaced must with may in section 8.2 The change from must to may in above comment gives flexibility to the Board when to apply previous or current densities depending on the proposal. No change. November 29, 2016 Page 18 of 24 Page 36 of 60

37 Municipality # Comment Response/Status plans to the CRB as a REF; and, 2. to clarify that the CRB will consider and make a decision on the application on the basis of the objectives and policies identified in the relevant growth plan. 56 Definitions Have the definitions (the glossary) been vetted to determine how an appeal board or a judge would interpret them within the hierarchy of provincial, regional, and municipal plans? 57 Referral Conditions New Stat Plans: Clarify the intent for new plans Suggest that to at least clarify the intent / concern raised around SASPs consider: 4.1 a) a new subarea statutory plan that is subordinate to and consistent with its Area Structure Plan or Area Redevelopment Plan (rationale for the above suggestion) There is no condition for a new or amended subarea statutory plan that is NOT consistent with the ASP. Under what conditions could that occur? For example, should the ASP be approved by the Board and a municipality proceeds to approve a SASP that deliberately or unintentionally is inconsistent with the ASP and potentially negatively impact an adjacent municipality and the goals of the region. 4.1 d) Consider adding Downtown Edmonton as an exception to the Major Employment conversion clause (new and amended) to simplify the clause in the Amendments section (4.2). 58 Amendments Questions / considerations for the amendment conditions in Address inconsistent subarea plan amendments to make it clear that they are to be submitted as information along with amendments to ASPs (statutory plans) (to keep it simple suggest that this be part of a document requirement in 5.2) 2. Currently a hamlet can consist of as little as 5 buildings. An MDP is not required for a municipality with a population of less than 3500 (per the current MGA). is there an impact to 4.2 c? d) is unnecessarily convoluted see above suggest to adding an exception 4.1 should simplify the clause. Growth Plan glossary is not in the scope of the preparation of the REF. Added to 4.1 a): that is subordinate to and consistent with its higher order area structure plan or area redevelopment plan; 4.1 d) no change. Regional oversight of new ASPs or ARPs in Downtown Edmonton, as in any other municipality, is required to ensure plan is consistent with provisions of Growth Plan. 1. Documentation requirements are addressed in REF Toolkit and will be noted there regarding subasps. 2. No impact anticipated. 3. No change at this time. 4. The purpose of REF is to provide a review of local plans as one of many checks and balances on growth in the region. The referral criteria has been developed to identify a limited number of regionally significant attributes that November 29, 2016 Page 19 of 24 Page 37 of 60

38 Municipality # Comment Response/Status The proposed statutory plan amendment would result in conversion of major employment land to nonemployment uses or would change the boundaries of major employment areas 4. How to address amendments that reduce in some way the ability to achieve the objectives and policies of the previously approved plan that have not been considered in 4.2? This was raised on the Nov 23 rd session and was raised in a number of comments listed in the summary of comments. trigger submission of statutory plans. It is not meant to take over the local authority and responsibility in ensuring the provisions of the growth plan and any other legislative requirements are met. Rationale: there are 7 major policy areas, each of which is influenced in some way by integrated land use. The integration of the policy areas are important for regional facilities. Consider how the policy areas not included in 4.2 might trigger an amendment due to proposed changes in land use. Examples of potential 4.2 clause by policy area are: a. Economic Competitiveness and Employment dealt with by 4.2 d), e), f), h), k) (as well as transportation items) b. Natural Living Systems (applicable to all statutory plans) i. (on the assumption that all applications MUST be consistent with Policies 2.1 and 2.2 due to Provincial oversight, the following are context landuse based but have potential impacts on regional natural systems). Consider 1. The proposed statutory plan amendment has impacts on local or offsite natural drainage or living systems 2. The proposed statutory plan amendment does not consider energy conservation, energy recovery, or green energy c. Communities and Housing (not applicable to statutory plans that are entirely nonresidential) i. When proposed statutory plan amendment does not contribute to or decreases the development of inclusionary housing, and nonmarket housing. d. Integration of Land Use and Infrastructure much of the policy area is addressed in consider: i. When proposed statutory plan amendment is inconsistent with public safety and health, or (for example, is it possible that new HI might be added to an existing statutory plan?) ii. reversal of clause d) when nonemployment lands are converted to employment lands. (Especially as this may have impacts on regional transportation (i.e November 29, 2016 Page 20 of 24 Page 38 of 60

39 Municipality # Comment Response/Status requiring new dangerous goods routes, public transit impacts)) e. Transportation Systems i. When proposed statutory plan amendment diminishes or removes multimodal transportation options that reduce the ability to achieve mode shift objectives or has impact on the coordination of transportations systems. f. Agriculture (currently CR as a fragmentor of Agricultural lands is included however other kinds of uses could also fragment ag lands; rural areas only?) Consider: i. When proposed statutory plan amendment increases agriculture land fragmentation Strathcona County (Nov 25/16) 59 Section 5 Referral of Statutory Plan consider changing the title to Referral and Evaluation of Statutory Plans (and Deleting section 8) 5.1 (the when between 1st and 3rd reading of a bylaw) 5.2 Consider replacing with: The CRB will consider the application on the basis of the objectives and policies identified in the relevant Growth Plan. The submission must include documentation, information, studies, analysis and proposed bylaws to adequately show how the submission meets the objectives and policies of the Growth Plan. A submission must also include: (list of documents) 5.3 add the notwithstanding clause Suggested Minor Edits Second line in Introduction: Consider replacing subsequent to its with following. Second line in Purpose: consider conditions rather than criteria. (or use both) Consider (there may be disadvantages to this) listing the 4.2 clauses by Policy Area) 4.2 b) second sentence consider replacing zoned and/or to the 4.2 d), & e) change and/or to or 8.2 must should the amendment recommend more better as may (that is the density should be able to increase) Section 4.2 c) - as per previous correspondence to CRB Administration in a letter dated October 27, 2016, Strathcona County is not in support of clause 4.2 c) as it is currently worded. No change at this time. 8.2 has been changed to may as suggested at the REF meeting. No other changes proposed at this time. See comment #25 above. November 29, 2016 Page 21 of 24 Page 39 of 60

40 Municipality # Comment Response/Status Section 4.1 c) - Strathcona County request an See comment #25 above. exception also to Hamlets. Sturgeon County (Nov 29/16) 63 Upon review of the latest REF draft 2.0 dated November 14, 2016, and in consideration of discussions held on November 25, 2016, at the CRB offices, Sturgeon County offers the following comments. As a partner in regional planning, Sturgeon County recognizes the value of the Growth Plan to set out a 50- year vision to guide regional development in a collaborative and sustainable manner. We see the Growth Plan as a visionary tool that should serve to reinforce a common focus to achieve responsible growth. We have considered the proposed amendments in view of this objective and question whether the new REF criteria support this vision. The plan requires that municipalities bring their MDP's into compliance with the Growth Plan within three years. And specifically, completing Regional Context Statements that will serve to demonstrate how municipalities are ensuring their plans will become compliant with Growth Plan principles and therefore provide the desired oversight to ensure all municipalities are regionally compliant. The region must also be mindful that these additional levels of review will burden municipalities and development applications with greater costs and delay to administer. The Growth Plan seeks to encourage efficient and cost-effective development, yet these additional criteria will only add delay and cost to applications and may ultimately serve to deter development applications that are otherwise regionally compliant. There also seems to be a disproportionate onus placed on rural municipalities to enact statutory plans. Exemptions exist for plan changes in urban circumstances, whereas almost all elements of rural planning are now identified as criteria that would trigger a REF application. Equity in process and autonomy should be established for all municipalities participating in the REF process. To address these concerns, you may wish to consider whether certain criteria could be changed from a REF application trigger to a referral to CRB for information purposes. Sturgeon County has been requested to provide additional clarity regarding this comment. (Note that the REF meeting was on November 23 rd and not November 25 th as stated in the comment.) 64 Sturgeon County also offers the following specific comments. 4.1 (c) Suggest that hamlets also be listed for REF exemption as their growth potential and impact will be identified as part of Regional Context Statements. Regional Context Statements will describe how MDP s will be brought into conformance with the Growth Plan including identifying growth hamlets. However, there is no November 29, 2016 Page 22 of 24 Page 40 of 60

41 Municipality # Comment Response/Status requirement in preparing an RCS to describe their growth potential and impact (c) Suggest that this clause be amended to only require plans that propose changes in plan density or resulting in a net increase or decrease of the total plan area be submitted as a REF. Statutory plans that propose changes to boundaries that result in no additional net Hamlet or Urban Service Area should not need to be referred to the CRB, as there arguably is no net regional impact caused by a simple boundary adjustment. This requirement may also interfere with the designation of hamlets (and their associated boundaries) as governed by the MGA. The REF requirement to submit statutory plans that change a hamlet boundary contravenes a municipality's entitlement under the MGA to determine the boundary independent of the CRB (e) Suggest that these criteria only require plan referral to the Board for information, recognizing that all local statutory plans must be regionally compliant. Compliant plans, signifying desired growth, in a major employment area (as an example) may result in a need for increased service capacity. The plan in effect will be pursuing growth that is still consistent with the regional Growth Plan and changes in service intensity would only be of regional information interest. The Growth Plan already contemplates referral of infrastructure master plans to the board for information. This suggested revision would be consistent with this practice contemplated in the revised Growth Plan (f) Suggest that the requirement to refer plans within 0.8 km of pipeline corridors only apply to regionally identified corridors that exist (minimally) through established easements. The requirement that plans within 0.8 km of a conceptual corridor should be removed, as this criteria is not practically enforceable and is difficult to justify knowing that the alignment of these desired corridors could be altered significantly from their current conceptual delineation. We suggest further consultation be conducted with both industry and the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association to ensure that future pipeline corridors are planned in a practical and realistic manner. We will monitor the number of simple boundary adjustment applications and make a recommendation for changes to the REF if warranted. With regard to designation of hamlets see comment #25. Review of plans that require the extension of regional water and wastewater services provides the Board with an opportunity to confirm that local plans align with the principles and policies of the Growth Plan such as compact and contiguous growth, optimizing infrastructure investment, etc. The Growth Plan supports the planning and coordinating of future energy corridors. By reviewing proposed statutory plan amendments in proximity to existing and conceptual corridors, the Board can ensure that local planning is consistent with the long term interests of the region. Further, the CRB is exploring consultation opportunities with all energy stakeholders to discuss refinement of corridor alignments. November 29, 2016 Page 23 of 24 Page 41 of 60

42 Municipality # Comment Response/Status (h) Further definition is required on what constitutes an improvement. What scale of improvements are contemplated? Are these improvements initiated by the local municipality or by Alberta Infrastructure? As part of the REF Toolkit, an interpretive guide is being developed to define road improvements that would trigger the submission of an amendment (i) Suggest that this clause be removed or changed to a referral to the Board for information. Submission of an application occurring in Alberta's Industrial Heartland, triggered by the plan's intersection with Recreation Trail corridors could have the unintended consequence of adding uncertainty to the process of pursuing heavy industrial applications in an area established for heavy industrial development, and deemed economically significant for the region & 7.0: It is understood from discussion with Mr. Neal Sarnecki (October 11, 2016) that there are no changes to the current REF process related to rendering a decision on a submitted application that has been deemed complete whereby: 1. Upon receipt of a REF, CRB administration has 25 working days to provide a recommendation to the Board to approve or reject the plan. The recommendation is made through notification to CRB members. 3.If consensus is not achieved by CRB members to approve the REF (where a municipality expresses an appeal of the recommendation to approve), the REF will then be subject to a formal vote of the Board for final decision. 71 Finally, with the addition of these criteria triggering a REF application, there exists a greater propensity for an increase in the number of REF applications, that are otherwise compliant. These additional applications will add cost to the process of development approval in the Capital Region. Consideration should be given to the costs that will be incurred by municipalities, developers, and CRB staff to research, prepare, evaluate, and represent an increased number of REF applications. This cost should be evaluated before additional criteria are implemented that will add to the volume of REF's being considered by the Capital Region Board. Pursuant to 4.2 k) all amendments within proximity of the Heartland will have to be submitted for review regardless if it intersects with a trail corridor or not. No comment required. CRB administration reviewed all of the REF applications received over the past 6 years against the draft criteria and estimated that there would be a 30% decrease in applications. However, the number of applications will be monitored and reported on annually for review by the Board. November 29, 2016 Page 24 of 24 Page 42 of 60

43 Capital Region Planning Toolkit Re-imagine. Plan. Build. Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 1.0 INTRODUCTION On DATE, 201#, the Provincial Government adopted the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (the Growth Plan). The Growth Plan provides a compelling vision, guiding principles and six interrelated regional policy areas to guide growth and development of the Capital Region over the next 30 years. The Growth Plan places an emphasis on responsible growth through minimizing the expansion of the urban footprint, integrating land use and infrastructure decisions, building resilient, adaptable and complete communities, ensuring the Region s transportation systems are interconnected and support economic prosperity, while protecting the environment and encouraging the growth of the agriculture sector. The Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) is the principal means through which the Growth Plan is implemented by Capital Region Board (CRB) member municipalities. It is intended that this guide be read in conjunction with the REF. 2.0 PURPOSE The REF is a review and approval process that is designed to ensure that the new statutory plans and statutory plan amendments of Capital Region Board (CRB) member municipalities are consistent with the principles and policies of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. The REF was established concurrently with Provincial approval of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan pursuant to Ministerial Order (M.O.) L:#### on DATE, 201#. The M.O. requires member municipalities of the CRB to submit statutory planning documents that meet the submission criteria for CRB approval. Statutory plans in the Municipal Government Act are defined as Intermunicipal Development Plans (IDPs), Municipal Development Plans (MDPs), Area Structure Plans (ASPs) and Area Redevelopment Plans (ARPs). Statutory plans establish the long term planning for the growth and development of a municipality. By assessing the statutory plans of member municipalities the CRB can be confident that the principles and policies of the Growth Plan are being implemented across the region in a consistent manner. The REF process can also be used by the Board to approve proposals that are not consistent with the Growth Plan. While the primary purpose of the process is to assess plans for conformance with the Growth Plan, municipalities may use the process to present (or bring forward) proposals that are not consistent with the Growth Plan due to unique or extenuating circumstances, or to promote innovative planning and design that will benefit the region. 3.0 DEFINITIONS The Definitions section clarifies that the definitions contained in the Capital Region Board Regulation (the Regulation) and words defined in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan shall be given the same meaning for the purposes of the Regional Evaluation Framework. Page 1 of 9 Page 43 of 60

44 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 4.0 STATUTORY PLAN REFERRAL BY A MUNICIPALITY Whenever a municipality is considering a new statutory plan or statutory plan amendment it must review the submission criteria in the REF to determine if the proposed plan or amendment must be submitted to the CRB for approval. Only those statutory plans and statutory plan amendments that meet the submission criteria laid out in the REF must be referred to the CRB. Submission Criteria The submission criteria are outlined in three subsections: 4.1 New Statutory Plans; 4.2 Amendments to Statutory Plans; and 4.3 Statutory Plan Consolidations and Housekeeping Bylaws. 4.1 New Statutory Plans The New Statutory Plans subsection has submission criteria for any proposed new statutory plan. A new statutory plan is a proposed statutory plan for lands that are currently not subject to that type of statutory plan, and any proposed statutory plan bylaw whose purpose and intent is to repeal and/or replace an existing statutory plan through the adoption of a new or updated statutory plan. For example: A new Municipal Development Plan for a municipality that has never had an MDP. A proposed Municipal Development Plan that replaces the current MDP in a municipality. A proposed Area Structure Plan for a new neighbourhood in a Greenfield Area. A proposed new Area Structure Plan that replaces an old ASP that was never developed or was started but is being substantially changed and/or updated to accommodate an evolving development environment and the old ASP is being repealed rather than amended. Note that a bylaw to consolidate statutory plan amendments is not considered a proposed new statutory plan and is addressed under subsection 4.3 of the REF. Statutory plans are the primary planning documents of municipalities. Having a regional view on the plans is an important means of ensuring alignment of local level policies with the regional policies in the Growth Plan. In this regard, subsection 4.1 states that all new statutory plans must be referred to the CRB for approval except for three specific area structure plans: a) a new sub-area structure plan that is subordinate to and consistent with its higher order area structure plan or area redevelopment plan; Sub-Area Structure Plan means an area structure plan that is subordinate to a higher order area structure plan. See REF Interpretive Guide 1 Sub-Area Structure Plans (under development) b) a new area structure plan for country residential development within the zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan; or, The Growth Plan identifies areas for country residential development based on current plans within member municipalities. Requiring additional oversight on areas already planned for what is essentially a single land use type is redundant. See REF Interpretive Guide 2 Country Residential (under development) Page 2 of 9 Page 44 of 60

45 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK c) a new area structure plan in a town or village with a population of less than 5000 that is consistent with the town or village municipal development plan. The Growth Plan supports the use of an MDP for establishing the minimum greenfield density for a plan area for municipalities with a population of less than 5,000 and to satisfy the provisions and requirements of Policy Amendments to Statutory Plans The Amendments to Statutory Plans subsection outlines the submission criteria for any proposed amendments. Statutory plans are rarely static and unchanging. Communities evolve over time and so must the plans that chart their future growth and development. Further, the reasons for amending a statutory plan can be wide ranging. However, not all amendments will have regional implications or be related to regional policies. In this regard, the criteria have been carefully selected to identify only those amendments of regional substance for CRB review and approval. The following table lists the criteria and includes a commentary describing the rationale for regional review of amendments that fall within the criteria: A municipality must refer to the Board any proposed amendment to a statutory plan that meets one or more of the following conditions: a) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan is pursuant to Chapter 5, section of the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan for the purpose of updating the municipal development plan to conform to the Growth Plan. b) The proposed amendment to a municipal development plan would result in the development of new country residential outside of zoned and/or designated country residential areas as depicted on Schedule 2: Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Structure to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. c) The proposed statutory plan amendment would result in a change to the boundaries of an area structure plan, area redevelopment plan, intermunicipal development plan, urban service area or hamlet. d) The proposed statutory plan amendment is outside Downtown Edmonton, as depicted on Schedule 3A: Major Employment Areas in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, and would result in the conversion of lands within a major employment area from major employment uses to nonemployment uses and/or would result in a change to the boundaries of a major employment area. e) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires the extension and/or increase in the capacity of the Regional Water and Wastewater Lines, as identified on Schedule 8A: Infrastructure Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan, or to Regional Water or Wastewater treatment facilities. Commentary The Growth Plan requires that all MDP s be updated to comply with the new growth plan. There are two ways to go about complying with this requirement. Prepare a new MDP, which will require submission pursuant to Subsection 4.1, or amend a current MDP. This condition captures those proposals to amend a current MDP to comply with the Growth Plan. Policy i) of the Growth Plan requires new CR development (in areas outside those already designated or zoned) to be submitted for REF. While the policy requires a new ASP for new CR development, which is covered under proposed section 4.1 of REF, this condition covers instances where an MDP would have to be amended to support the new ASP or future intent to allow CR development. Revising the boundaries of a statutory plan, urban service area or hamlet is a signal of future growth. Ensuring the growth is undertaken in a responsible manner and is supported by infrastructure and amenities consistent with the Growth Plan requires a regional review. The Growth Plan designates vast areas for major employment activities. Projections indicate that the amount of land far exceeds the timeframe of the Growth Plan. Therefore, any proposal to expand the area or change the land use to non-employment must be understood within this context. Further, Major Employment Areas have specific infrastructure needs. Therefore, if there is a proposal to expand an area, there is likely going to be significant investment in infrastructure and servicing. Reviewing the proposal at the regional level ensures the development aligns with the long term interests of the region identified in the Growth Plan. One of the objectives of the Growth Plan, as stated in the Regulation, is to consider key future infrastructure investments that would best complement existing infrastructure, services and land uses in the Capital Region. Therefore any proposal to extend or increase the capacity of regional servicing is likely going to require significant investment. Reviewing at the regional level ensures the development aligns with the long term planning of the region identified in the Growth Plan and maximizes benefits to the region as a whole. Page 3 of 9 Page 45 of 60

46 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK f) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a pipeline corridor as depicted on Schedule 8B: Energy Corridors in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. g) The proposed statutory plan amendment results in a decrease of the planned density of the statutory plan area. h) The effect of the proposed statutory plan amendment requires improvements to a road identified on Schedule 10A: Transportation Systems Regional Roads to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. i) The boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan intersect with a Recreation Trail Corridor as depicted on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. j) The plan area of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan includes a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line or the boundaries of the proposed amendment to the statutory plan are within 0.8 km of a Park and Ride or Planned LRT line as identified on Schedule 10B: Transportation Systems Regional Transit and Trails to 2044 in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. k) The boundaries of the proposed statutory plan amendment are within 1.6 km of the boundaries of the Edmonton International Airport or the Alberta s Industrial Heartland Area Structure Plans in Sturgeon County, Lamont County, Strathcona County, Fort Saskatchewan, and the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park in Edmonton. Critical to the Region s economic competitiveness is the planning and coordination of future pipeline corridors. These corridors are needed to provide efficient and cost-effective access into and out of the Region from petroleum producing sources. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the corridors are protected from incompatible development and that growth areas be reviewed and planned in conjunction with new alignments or changes to alignments and/or location of major regional infrastructure. See REF Interpretive Guide 3 Pipeline Corridors (Under development) The Growth Plan sets minimum densities for urban communities throughout the region. Increasing density supports the achievement of compact growth that optimizes infrastructure investment. It also reduces the consumption of prime agricultural land. While there may be a valid reason for a decrease in the planned density, understanding the context of a proposal requires a regional review to ensure the principles and policies of the growth plan are being maintained. One of the objectives of the growth plan is to consider key future infrastructure investments that would best complement existing infrastructure, services and land uses in the Capital Region. Therefore any proposal that requires improvements to the regional road network is going to have significant costs that are likely to be funded in whole or part through provincial dollars. A regional review ensures the investment aligns with the long term planning of the region identified in the Growth Plan and maximizes benefits to the region as a whole. See REF Interpretive Guide 4 Improvements to a Road (Under development) The Growth Plan identifies a number of future studies and initiatives, one of which is the Integrated Regional Open Space Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to identify a regional strategy to connect parks, open spaces, greenways and trails in the Region. Until the master plan is developed the alignment of the TransCanada trail shown on Schedule 10B will be used to ensure that recreation corridors are incorporated into future plans. Park and Ride facilities and the LRT are integral components of the future intermunicipal regional transit system. They also provide opportunities for Transit Oriented Development and higher density mixed use initiatives, which are important in optimizing investment in infrastructure and creating complete, compact communities. A regional review ensures that development proposals maximize those opportunities in accordance with the Growth Plan. See REF Interpretive Guide 5 Park & Rides/LRT Corridors Alberta s Industrial Heartland and the Edmonton International Airport are recognized as two of the most important economic drivers of the region. A regional review ensures that proposals in proximity to these developments are compatible and align with the long term planning of the region identified in the Growth Plan and maximizes benefits to the region as a whole. 4.3 Statutory Plan Consolidations and Housekeeping Bylaws The purpose of subsection 4.3 is to clarify that consolidation bylaws and housekeeping bylaws do not need to be submitted for REF. Page 4 of 9 Page 46 of 60

47 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 5.0 REFERRAL OF STATUTORY PLANS Submission Process Statutory plans or statutory plan amendments that meet with one of the criteria above must be submitted to the CRB for review and approval. Subsection 5.1 requires that it be submitted after receiving 1 st reading but before receiving 3 rd reading of a bylaw or bylaws. It is up to the municipality to decide whether or not to submit the statutory plan before or after holding a public hearing on the bylaw(s). Subsection 5.2 outlines the information and documentation that must be included in the referral to the CRB. a) the proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment bylaw; b) sufficient documentation to explain the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment; c) sufficient information to ensure that the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment can be evaluated pursuant to the evaluation criteria in section 8.1; and d) a copy of the most recent amended plan without the proposed amendment. A more detailed list and explanation of the information and documentation to be submitted is provided in Appendix A REF Application Package. 6.0 BOARD ADMINISTRATION REVIEW Subsection 6.1 requires Board Administration to present a report and recommendation, to either approve or reject the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment, to the Board within 25 working days of the date on which the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment referral is found to be complete by the Board. See Appendix B CRB Administrative Procedures for the Regional Evaluation Framework 7.0 BOARD REVIEW AND DECISION This section outlines the decision making process for the Board to follow on REF applications including voting procedures and who the Board must hear from prior to making a decision. See Appendix B CRB Administrative Procedures for the Regional Evaluation Framework 8.0 EVALUATION OF A STATUTORY PLAN OR STATUTORY PLAN AMENDMENT Section 8.0 briefly describes the purpose and objective of evaluating a statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. In this regard, the approval and full implementation of the plan must be consistent with the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. To assist municipalities in preparing their statutory plans and/or statutory plan amendments the following table lists the policy areas and their objectives with an accompanying guiding statement which is intended to provide additional clarification of the objective and its policies. Page 5 of 9 Page 47 of 60

48 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Principles and Objectives Guiding Principle Promote global economic competitiveness and regional prosperity. 1.1: Promote global economic competitiveness and diversification of the regional economy 1.2: Promote job growth and the competitiveness of the region s employment base 1.3: Enhance competitiveness through the efficient movement of people, goods and services to, from and within the Region 1.4: Promote the livability and prosperity of the Region and plan for the needs of a changing population and workforce Guiding Principle Protect natural living systems and environmental assets. 2.1: Conserve and restore natural living systems through an ecological network approach Guiding Statement for each Objective Alignment and consistency with the objective and its policies means We will foster a diverse and innovative economy that builds upon our existing infrastructure and employment areas to achieve sustained economic growth and prosperity. supporting diversification through policy, ensuring a supply of land for employment growth and facilitating the development of infrastructure that accommodates a variety of land uses. ensuring a supply of land for employment growth, directing employment growth to lands designated for employment growth, intensification of employment growth at multi-modal nodes, and directing investment to support diversification ie. Telecommunications, etc. establishing policies that support uninhibited movement of goods services and people throughout the region and beyond; coordinating links between municipalities and other jurisdictions when planning infrastructure; protecting corridors to support future infrastructure; and minimizing impacts to airport operations. designing communities that take into consideration proximity to employment areas, provides amenities to residents, access to multi-modal transportation, etc. We will practice wise environmental stewardship and promote the health of the regional ecosystem, watersheds, airsheds, and environmentally sensitive areas. conserving, restoring, and connecting natural living systems through local policies. 2.2: Protect regional watershed health, water quality and quantity 2.3: Plan development to promote clean air, land and water and address climate change impacts 2.4: Minimize and mitigate the impacts of regional growth on natural living systems recognizing and adhering to federal and provincial legislation to ensure a healthy water system. establishing policies that support the development of low impact, green practices that reduce energy consumption, improve air quality, and respect climate change impacts. requiring environmental studies that address and minimize adverse impacts of development on natural living systems. Page 6 of 9 Page 48 of 60

49 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Guiding Principle Recognize and celebrate the diversity of communities and promote an excellent quality of life across the Region. 3.1: Plan and develop complete communities within each policy tier to accommodate people s daily needs for living at all ages In planning for growth, we will recognize and respond to the different contexts and scales of communities and provide a variety of housing choices with easy access to transportation, employment, parks and open spaces, and community and cultural amenities. including policies that support the concept of complete communities. 3.2: Plan for and promote a range of housing options supporting through policy the development of a range of housing types, forms and levels of affordability. 3.3: Plan for and promote market affordable and non-market housing to address core housing need Guiding Principle Achieve compact growth that optimizes infrastructure investment. 4.1: Establish a compact and contiguous development pattern to accommodate employment and population growth 4.2: Enable growth within built-up urban areas to optimize existing infrastructure and minimize the expansion of the development footprint 4.3: Plan and develop greenfield areas in an orderly and phased manner to contribute to complete communities 4.4: Plan for and accommodate rural growth in appropriate locations with sustainable levels of local servicing 4.5: Plan and develop mixed use and higher density centres as areas to concentrate growth of both people and jobs 4.6: Prioritize investment and funding of regional infrastructure to support planned growth 4.7: Ensure compatible land use patterns to minimize risks to public safety and health identifying strategies through policy that support increasing the supply of market affordable and non-market housing in local plans. We will make the most efficient use of our infrastructure investments by prioritizing growth around existing infrastructure and optimizing use of new and planned infrastructure. that no new stand-alone communities are created and policies support minimizing the impact to prime agricultural lands through compact and dense development. intensification and infill of existing and mature areas will be supported in order to maximize use of existing infrastructure. all new plans for Greenfield areas shall include policies that ensure densities are met, mixed land uses are supported, the various modes of transportation are accessible, a variety of housing forms are planned for, and prime agricultural lands have been addressed through an agricultural impact assessment. the various types of rural growth will be support to take advantage of and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. growth policies will support mixed use development and higher densities per schedule 6 in the Growth Plan. the development of new regional infrastructure or impacts to existing infrastructure by new development will be evaluated for consistency with regional infrastructure priorities. including policies that address the separation of incompatible uses and the mitigation of risks to ensure public health and safety. Page 7 of 9 Page 49 of 60

50 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Guiding Principle Ensure effective regional mobility. 5.1: Develop a regional transportation system to support the growth of the Region and enhance its regional and global connectivity 5.2: Encourage a mode shift to transit, high occupancy vehicles and active transportation modes as viable alternatives to private automobile travel, appropriate to the scale of the community 5.3: Coordinate and integrate land use and transportation facilities and services to support the efficient and safe movement of people, goods and services in both urban and rural areas 5.4: Support the Edmonton International Airport as northern Alberta s primary air gateway to the world 5.5: Ensure effective coordination and alignment of regional transportation policies and initiatives between all jurisdictions Guiding Principle Ensure the wise management of prime agricultural resources. 6.1: Identify and conserve an adequate supply of prime agricultural lands to provide a secure local source of food security for future generations 6.2: Minimize the fragmentation and conversion of prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses 6.3: Promote diversification and value-added agriculture production and plan infrastructure to support the agricultural sector and regional food system Recognizing the link between efficient movement of people and goods and regional prosperity, we will work towards a multimodal and integrated regional transportation system. local policies must support and not inhibit the regional transportation system. statutory plan policies are encouraged to include support for transportation choices within communities other than the private automobile. the planning of new land uses and transportation facilities shall be coordinated to ensure the optimization of the infrastructure. the planning around the airport should not interfere with the operation or expansion of the airport. Plan for future higher order access to the airport (LRT). planning for coordination and alignment of transportation infrastructure between municipalities and with the province. In the context of metropolitan growth, we will ensure the wise management of prime agricultural resources to continue a thriving agricultural sector. that local policies will support the protection and conservation of prime agricultural lands as defined by the policy tiers in the Growth Plan. local policies will support the minimization of fragmentation and conversion of prime agricultural lands as defined by the policy tiers in the Growth Plan. local policies will support and promote the growth of the agricultural sector. Page 8 of 9 Page 50 of 60

51 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Grandfathered Plans Subsection 8.2 supports the continued development of plans that were based on the density targets of the previous growth plan - Capital Region Growth Plan: Growing Forward. Servicing and infrastructure would have been designed to a certain size to accommodate the density targets in Growing Forward. Requiring amendments to those plans may have unanticipated infrastructure costs, ie. increasing the capacity of water and sewer lines, road widening, etc., that may make the plans undevelopable if forced to comply with the new higher density targets in the Growth Plan. In this regard, the following table and map are applicable to amendments to statutory plans approved by the Board under Growing Forward: DISCLAIMER: The Planning Toolkit is a series of guides to aid in the implementation of Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan. This guide is to aid in the understanding of the Regional Evaluation Framework (REF). The Planning Toolkit and this guide are not substitutes for reading and understanding the Growth Plan and the REF. For certainty, the reader is advised to refer to the Growth Plan, the REF, and related legislation available through the Capital Region Board. Page 9 of 9 Page 51 of 60

52 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Appendix A - REF APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST 1. COVER LETTER A cover letter on municipal letterhead must accompany the REF application and include the following: Ministerial Order number The cover letter must cite the correct Ministerial Order. M.O. L:### is the Ministerial Order of record. Submission Criteria The cover letter must identify the submission criteria (ie. Section 4.1 or 4.2 a) thru k) ) that apply to the REF application. The municipality must explain its reasons for submitting the application. This explanation assists CRB Administration in processing the application. The explanation also assists the third party consultants, and, if applicable, the CRB, to understand the rationale for the application. Bylaw(s) The cover letter must indicate the date on which the bylaw(s) received 1st reading. A bylaw that has been given 1st reading indicates that the bylaw has standing on Council s agenda, and Council s willingness to consider a land use policy decision. As the municipal land use authority, the REF application is a Council submission to the CRB for approval. 1st reading also means that the proposed bylaw is sufficiently advanced for REF evaluation purposes, and can still be revised after the public hearing. Purpose of Bylaw Include a brief description of the proposed statutory plan(s) or statutory plan amendment(s). Consultants The cover letter should reference any land use, engineering or other consultants that were contracted by the municipality to assist in the preparation of the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. When CRB Administration receives the application and conducts the initial review, this information helps with the selection of a third party consultant to carry out the evaluation. Requested action The cover letter needs to say what the applicant municipality wants. This requires one or two sentences at most to request the CRB s consideration and approval of the REF application. Unless, the municipality s intent is clear, the application could be misconstrued, for example, as a request for a pre-application review. Contact information The cover letter must identify the municipal representative that CRB Administration may contact for further information or clarification of the application submission. Page 1 of 3 Page 52 of 60

53 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 2. PROPOSED STATUTORY PLAN OR STATUTORY PLAN AMENDMENT Bylaw(s) The Bylaw(s) document being read into the record by Council. Since the practice of adding dates to bylaws varies between municipalities, it is not necessary to submit the bylaw(s) with dates shown. Nor is it necessary to have the bylaw signed before submission. Including a copy of the draft bylaw(s) with the application package is sufficient, provided the date of 1st reading is specified in the cover letter. Statutory Plan(s) or Statutory Plan Amendment(s) Copies of the proposed Statutory Plan(s) or Statutory Plan Amendment(s) that are the subject of the Bylaw(s). 3. SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO EXPLAIN THE STATUTORY PLAN OR STATUTORY PLAN AMENDMENT There are many ways of providing sufficient documentation to explain the Statutory Plan(s) or Statutory Plan Amendment(s). It is recommended that any of the following be submitted with the Statutory Plan(s) or Statutory Plan Amendment(s): Administration/staff report to Council Sufficient documentation can be addressed by including the administration/staff report that accompanies the bylaw(s) when it is submitted to Council for 1st reading. This report can be submitted as it was submitted to Council it is not necessary to revise it for the REF application. Background Information Document(s) Some bylaws and statutory plans are proposed based on reports, studies, projects, etc. These documents may assist the CRB Administration and third party consultants understand the purpose and intent of the statutory plan or statutory plan amendment. Summary of Proposed Bylaw(s) Sufficient documentation can be addressed by including a brief summary that describes the purpose and intent of the proposed bylaw(s). 4. SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ENSURE THAT THE STATUTORY PLAN OR STATUTORY PLAN AMENDMENT CAN BE EVALUATED PURSUANT TO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SECTION 8.0 OF REF It is important that the applicant municipality prepare statutory plans and statutory plan amendments that align with the principles, objectives and policies in the Growth Plan. In this regard, it is expected that the proposed bylaws have been prepared with the Growth Plan in mind and that sufficient information is provided to support the review and evaluation of the Plan s consistency with the Growth Plan. Supporting Documentation Sufficient documentation that demonstrates and/or supports consistency with the principles, objectives and policies of the Growth Plan. REF Report - Optional Summary of the principles and objectives with an explanation of the statutory plan(s) or statutory plan amendment(s) consistency with the Growth Plan. Although optional, many applicant municipalities prepare and submit REF Reports which analyze the proposed statutory plans and statutory plan amendments against the principles, objectives and policies in the Growth Plan and include the relevant information/documentation that demonstrate consistency. Page 2 of 3 Page 53 of 60

54 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 5. A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT AMENDED PLAN WITHOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Existing Bylaw This element does not apply to a new statutory plan. In the case of a statutory plan amendment, previous amendments to the subject bylaw form part of the bylaw and change the original form of the bylaw. If the bylaw has been amended frequently, it is important to submit the most recent amended plan (or the original plan, with all amendments) so that the proposed amendment that is the subject of the application can be read, reviewed, and understood in the proper context. 6. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS Information such as referral agency comments, technical reports (e.g. hydrogeological, historical resources), public hearing summaries and public hearing comments packages are items that can be considered for submission with a REF application. However, this information may not be necessary. The applicant municipality is encouraged to consider whether the information addresses the regional issue(s) that is raised by the REF application. If not, the applicant municipality should not include the information. 7. TECHNICAL ELEMENTS Submission format All REF application documents must be submitted in a PDF (Portable Document Format) format, via , disc (CD or DVD), or USB drive. Page 3 of 3 Page 54 of 60

55 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Appendix B - CRB ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE REF Purpose: To clarify the CRB s Administrative Procedures for the Regional Evaluation Framework (REF). Step i Description of CRB Administrative Procedures Pre-Application Consultation CRB staff may be consulted by an Applicant for advice relative to submission of a REF application The best professional advice shall be provided to the Applicant by staff in writing. At this stage there shall be no consultant yet engaged by the CRB. 1 Receipt of Application by CRB An application is received by the CRB. CRB Administration date stamps the documents. If the application is submitted in paper only, CRB Administration requests an electronic copy from the Applicant Municipality. 2 Preliminary CRB Administration Review The application is reviewed by CRB Administration to determine if all required documents have been received in accordance with Section 3.5 of the REF. Applications do not proceed until an electronic copy of all required documents have been received. If all required documents have not been received, CRB Administration contacts the Applicant Municipality. CRB Administration reviews the Application to determine whether or not the Application relates to a statutory plan that must be referred to the CRB under Section 3 of the REF. If yes, then the Application is referred for Third Party review. If the Application does not appear to relate to a condition under Section 3 of the REF, then CRB Administration contacts the Applicant Municipality. 3 Application Deemed Complete When all required documents are received, and it is determined that the Application meets conditions required for referral to the Board for review under Section 3 of the REF, the Application is assigned a REF number (e.g. REF ). An is sent to the Applicant Municipality noting the date the Application is deemed to be complete and the date by which a CRB Administration Recommendation must be issued (within 25 working days from date Application is deemed complete). This is copied to Board members, CRB Chair, CRB Chief Officer and CAOs. The Applicant Municipality s documentation is posted to the CRB website. After an application is deemed complete no further advice will be given by CRB staff and/or CRB consultants, and no changes may be made to the application whatsoever. By sending the Deemed Complete , that action clarifies what the final document is that is to be evaluated. Clarification may be sought but no changes are allowed whatsoever (other than typos, grammar, immaterial errors, etc.) to the documents from this point forward until a decision is made by the CRB. If the Third Party Consultant requires clarification regarding an Application, a supplemental report may be submitted by the Applicant for clarity, but there shall be no alteration made to the original Application. Date approved by CRB: April 10, 2014 Effective Date: July 1, Page 55 of 60

56 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Step Description of CRB Administrative Procedures 4 Referral for Third Party Evaluation CRB Administration sends an to the Third Party reviewer asking for an Evaluation to be prepared within 14 working days. The , which is copied to the CAOs, advises that the Applicant Municipality s documentation is posted and available on the CRB website. The Third Party Evaluation is prepared with reference to the criteria set out in Section 5.4 of the REF. If a Third Party reviewer advises that they have a conflict of interest, CRB Administration actions the review with another Third Party reviewer with an Evaluation to be prepared within 14 working days. On receipt of a Third Party Evaluation, CRB Administration reviews the Evaluation for completeness. 5 CRB Administration Recommendation CRB Administration reviews the Application and the Third Party Evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section 5.4 of the REF and prepares a CRB Administration Recommendation on or before the 25 working days. The Third Party Evaluation and CRB Administration Recommendation are posted to the website as soon as available and the Applicant Municipality, CRB Members, and CAOs are notified. Approve Recommendation: A CRB Administration Recommendation to approve an Application will stand as the final decision on a REF Application after a 28 calendar days appeal period, unless a member municipality appeals the recommendation to the Board. If no appeal is received within the appeal period the application is Deemed Approved and CRB Administration will confirm in writing to the applicant municipality, Board members, and CAOs of the disposition of the REF within one week after the appeal period expires. Reject Recommendation: If a CRB Administration Recommendation is to not approve an Application, CRB Administration notifies the Applicant Municipality, Board members, CAOs and indicates that the Application will be brought to the next Board meeting for disposition. 6 Appeals 1. Any CRB member municipality may appeal the CRB Administration recommendation to approve a REF application. 2. An appeal may be commenced by submitting a notice of appeal within 28 calendar days after the CRB Administration recommendation is posted to the CRB website. Note that the date of the recommendation and posting of the recommendation may be different due to the logistics of posting the recommendation to the website. 3. The notice of appeal must be accompanied by a resolution of Council in support of the appeal. 4. The reasons for the appeal must be included in the resolution and shall reference the section(s) of the CRB Regulation and/or the Capital Region Growth Plan that the submitted statutory plan does not conform. 5. All appeals must be submitted by 4:30 pm at the CRB offices on or before the 28 th day of the appeal period. If the 28 th day falls on a weekend or statutory holiday, the appeal deadline is Date approved by CRB: April 10, 2014 Effective Date: July 1, Page 56 of 60

57 REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Step Description of CRB Administrative Procedures extended to the end of the next business day at 4:30 pm. A notice of appeal will be accepted by at info@capitalregionboard.ab.ca provided it includes a record of the Council resolution with the reasons for the appeal. 6. If a notice of appeal is received within the appeal period CRB administration shall send the notice of appeal, including the Council resolution, by to the applicant municipality, CRB members, and CAOs, within one business day of receipt the appeal. Further, the notice of appeal, including the Council resolution, will be posted to the CRB website. 7. An appeal period does not end with the submission of a notice of appeal. Appeals will continue to be accepted until the final day of the appeal period. 8. If a REF application is appealed and the appeal period ends within 10 working days of an upcoming Board meeting, the REF will be added to the agenda of the following Board meeting. 9. CRB Administration will present the appeal(s) at the Board meeting the REF application is presented. The municipality(s) that submitted the appeal will be identified by CRB Administration, however, they are under no obligation to speak to the appeal at the Board meeting. 7 Capital Region Board Review and Decision An Application is considered by the Board if a CRB Administration Recommendation is to not approve the Application or if a member municipality appeals the CRB Administration Recommendation to approve an Application. At a Board meeting, the Applicant Municipality and CRB Administration are offered an opportunity to inform the Board (Section 5.3 REF). The Board must, by consensus, approve or reject the Application. If consensus is not reached, a formal vote of the Board must be conducted in accordance with the Capital Region Board Regulation (Section 5.2 REF). If an Application is reviewed by the Board, following a decision, CRB Administration will issue a letter to the Applicant Municipality indicating approval or rejection of the Application (copied to Board members, CRB Chair, CAOs and the Third Party reviewer). Decisions of the Board taken under Section 22 of the Capital Region Board Regulation (approval of statutory plans) are final and not subject to appeal. Date approved by CRB: April 10, 2014 Effective Date: July 1, Page 57 of 60

58 2017 Regional Transportation Priorities Integrated Regional Transportation Master Plan February 23, 2017 Background On July 11, 2014, the Capital Region Board approved the first Regional Transportation Priorities Report. The motion to approve the report directed that the report be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. On December 10, 2015, the Board approved the Business Plan and Budget, which included the annual update of the Regional Transportation Priorities Report by the. Project Schedule Activity Date Distribute 2016 Report to member municipalities - Request project updates January 26 Review Project Schedule with Land Use Committee February 23 Receive updated projects lists from municipal members March 10 Transportation Meeting #1 - Review of Criteria/Methodology, March 24 Project Ranking & Drafting of Priority Lists Transportation Meeting #2 - Review and Finalize Priority Lists April 7 Final Report to LUP for approval and recommendation to Board April 27 Final report to Board for approval June 8 Final report to Province June 9 Page 1 of 1 Page 58 of 60

59 2017/18 Land Use & Planning Work Plan Budget Requests List # in Priority Project Description Approx. Start Rationale for project Proposed Budget A B LUP- 2017/18-1 LUP- 2017/18-2 Recreation/Open Space/Wildlife Corridors Study Sustainable Development Index Target Setting Review the definitions in the Growth Plan; inventory existing corridors; develop framework for future regional master plan; and identify criteria for prioritizing missing linkages. Develop an index to understand the effectiveness of the implementation of the GP through achievement of targets. 2017/18 Identified as future work in the December 2009 Addendum of the Growth Plan. 2018/19 Building upon the baseline measures established in GP 2.0, develop targets to strive for and measure our progress towards a sustainable region. Committee Oversight List Project # Project Description Approx. Start Rationale for project Proposed Budget A OPR- 2017/18-3 A GPI / Regional Transportation Priorities Regional Ag Master Plan and Land Evaluation and Site Selection Tool Review and update of Regional Transportation priorities of the Board. (Oversight falls to Land Use and Planning Committee) To develop and implement of a policy framework and tool set to gather the evidence to establish the appropriate approach for preserving and maintaining a stable, predictable supply of prime agricultural land in the region, growing and diversifying the agri-food economy, including development of a value-added strategy, and guiding agriculture- supportive infrastructure investment. 2017/18 Annual review of the transportation priorities will ensure that the list reflects, and is responsive to, changing circumstances in the Capital Region. 2017/18 New Policy Area with the Growth Plan that requires further study to inform policies to support the growth, viability and diversification of the Ag industry and contribute to the provincial economic diversification strategy. $50,000 $50,000 In house $200,000 February 14, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Page 59 of 60