Now getting ready for tonight's OCP Public Hearing, 7 PM at the Municipal Hall (which I'll attend virtually due to my health and bark-like cough.)  The agenda is posted here. It includes the bylaw with revisions current through its second reading. You'll find it in PDF form here. (Save a copy like i do, and you can search its depth to your heart's content.) All of the public engagement and supplemental documents are available here. 

A steady trickle (not floodplain's worth) of form emails are arriving in council's mailbox today that read: "I'm opposed to the new OCP with inclusion of any Development Permits. There are additional edits that must be made." That's it and that's all. There is no further explanation about the why and what of their opposition nor citations about required edits. (All along with some fuller correspondence will be included in a supplemental agenda published later this afternoon). 

I voted on Sept. 8 in favour of moving us to this public hearing because I am a fan of the plan, first and foremost. I agree with the OCP Advisory Committee (Mrs. Lewers notably excepted in a 6-1 vote) that it is ready for primetime. And I want us to get to this legislated next step (which is still short of third reading and adoption).

As one who strives for consensus decisions, I'm upset that council was divided 4-3 on whether to go to the hearing. I respect my colleagues, especially Mayor Tait, whose leadership, views and opinion I so value. (My father, the Colonel's, voice from beyond urges: Follow your leader!). Calling a halt tonight and allowing the next council to finish the job makes good sense as she explains it. A truce would lead to all quiet on the western front and give time for another round of input, and that is both logical and appealing.

Yet I can't shake the idea that an entirely unpredictable new council crew from the 23 contenders could hijack the process and throw this excellent plan under the bus. [No Development Permit Guidelines? No opportunity for staff to regulate the form and character of new development when it comes to sub-divisions of four or more homes and mixed-use larger projects? Where praytell is the sense in that?]

I have tried my very best to address concerns raised by a small, vocal, influential group by asking questions at our OCP meetings and by writing blog entries like the one that precedes this one. 

They will be out in numbers tonight, too, I'm sure, as is the case at all public hearings. (Check out this recent SFU report - https://www.democracydialogue.ca/publichearings. Downsides are captured in this quote: "While a noisy minority tends to dominate public hearings, the silent majority of reasonable people are by definition never heard. Elected officials therefore are forced to pander to the skewed view of the vocal minority of voters present, rather than doing what they have been already elected to do, which is make the best decision for the future of the community overall.")

I'll share the PS from my above-linked blog post in full here with apologies to those of you who prefer the two-line email mode of communcation. Yes, I do tend to complicate things when perhaps I should stick with text-message headlines and bold, context-free statements (this OCP "will clear-cut Sooke," for instance) as others like to do.

Okay, here's the cut-and-paste ...

"Even with all the public feedback to date, I naturally wonder what comments will emerge during the public hearing whenever it's scheduled.

As Councillor Beddows, the OCP Advisory Committee liaison, has noted, council dealt promptly this spring with the major concerns that emerged from the first-wave responses to the draft OCP:

1. The proposed 30m waterfront setback requirement for new subdivisions of four-or-more homes (now reinstated at 15m as per Sooke tradition).

2. Potential density increases in the Whiffin Spit neighbourhood (now returned to its Rural Residential designation).

3. The re-inclusion of phase three of West Ridge Trails in the Community Residential, not rural, designation (while knowing that the development still must secure rezoning and sewer inclusion before it can proceed.)

What else might arise at the public-hearing? I've taken pains to raise concerns from the public engagement packages in my questions to staff during the chapter reviews -- including points raised by Farrell Estates and the Concerned Citizens of Sooke (Randy Clarkston, Dave Saunders, Dave McClimon, Matt Mortenson and Brian Butler). Both Councillor McMath and I drew questions from the latter's correspondence at the July 19 chapter review re: DPA overreach, the "hidden density issue," transportation and costing.

Certainly there's been confusion over the so-called "hidden density issue" during OCP deliberations. The proposed bylaw's Growth Management and Land Use section (starting on pg. 57) cites a maximum density of 70 units per hectare in the Community Residential designation (i.e., the Sewer Specified Area west of the Sooke River).

Does this mean that Community Residential landowners would be free to dramatically densify their single-family lots and we'd see cluster housing on what are now single-family streets, turning Sooke into wall-to-wall suburbia? What a nightmare!

I personally have asked staff in public meetings about this at least four times now in response to public concerns. They and the OCP consultants have replied with what the document itself (pg. 60) states: "Maximum densities within each designation will be informed by the policy direction of the OCP and the site-specific zoning provided in the Zoning Bylaw."

The OCP policy direction is for density in the Town Centre Core, Town Centre Transitional and Town Centre Waterfront designations. Period. (And up to a point: The 2009 Town Centre Plan, which is due to be revised as a first priority action following OCP adoption, envisions net growth in the TC of 1400 residents by 2050.) It in no way recommends density (i.e., sprawl) beyond this town centre.

A new Zoning Bylaw is required following the adoption of every new OCP in BC. Our pending OCP allows six-storey buildings in (zoning-specified spots only) north of Sooke Rd. in the Town Centre and only along the two sides of Brownsey Blvd. south of it. (Interestingly, the current zoning bylaw's High-Density Multi-Family RM-4 category allows a maximum of 90 units per hectare. Ayre Manor and West Wind Harbour are the only spots so designated. The CD7 zoning for Mariner's Village allows 50 units per hectare maximum.)

Regarding costing, no OCP I've ever seen includes a price tag for proposed actions. Instead, they are subject to cost analysis when prioritized by council and staff for consideration in each successive year's Five-Year Financial Plan. If the money's not there or the tax hit too heavy, then a specific action remains on paper and aspirational, as so many have done in the 2010 OCP. Still entirely worth honouring community OCP input, however, by capturing our wishes and best aspirations on paper, of course.

[Predicted capital expenses in 2020 dollars are, however, included for actions recommended by theTransportation (pg. 67-69) andParks & Trails (pp. 71-75) master plans. There are also very loose estimates of costs for Appendix H items in theClimate Action Plan, whose one $$$ item relates to implementation costs for those same master plans. See my lengthy explanation in the PPS below.]

The plan concludes with a set of Development Permit Area (DPA) guidelines that are critical in particular for the town centre as growth picks up momentum. They include Sooke's first set of DPAs for "energy and water conservation, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions,"permitted by the Local Government Act not long after BC introduced (and Sooke promptly signed) the B.C. Climate Action Charter in 2008.

I believe this is where the OCP is criticized as being "overly perscriptive," yet I'm not sure how these flexible rules, applicable on a case-by-case basis, can be anything but exact and on point. As the province states, they "govern locations that need special treatment for certain purposes, including the protection of development from hazards, establishing objectives for form and character in specified circumstances or revitalization of a commercial use area."

Some municipalities include these guidelines in their zoning bylaws, others in their OCPs. I honestly can't fathom suggestions from some that the the DPA section be axed entirely, especially after seeing how the guidelines are so central in ongoing staff/developer negotiations re: the mixed-use proposal for Brownsey Blvd.'s west side. How else can we ensure the community gets what it wants and expects from incoming developers as determined by documents like the Town Centre Plan?

(DPA exemptions apply, incidentally, to anyone building a single-family home, duplex or accessory building, those needing to remove hazardous trees or undertake yard and garden landscaping, among other exceptions. See pg. 178/79.)
​
Unsurprisingly, the OCP conversation this year has been led by a minority with specific concerns. These concerns are absolutely valid, as are those of all 15,086 (2021 census) residents of Sooke. It's great that other engagement methods -- online surveys, community sounding boards, virtual stakeholder consultations with numerous community groups and organizations, school sessions and more -- captured wide input, too, but arguably less than had COVID not struck and eliminated in-person town halls and the like."

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800 returns for another special council meeting tomorrow evening (Sept. 8) at 5 PM. We'll be looking at the latest (third) version that includes changes we suggested during our chapter reviews.

At this second-reading stage (where no public input is legislatively permitted, but you're entirely welcome to attend), we will contemplate three options as stated in the opening pages of the massive agenda package that includes the April (second) draft, a track-change iteration and a file of public commentary received since the first draft was released 11 months ago. 

These options are: 

1. Approve the amendments, give the OCP its second reading and book a public hearing (tentatively set for Tues., Sept. 27).

2. Suggest further text amendments as alterations or additions. 

​3. Reject the amendments and offer alternative actions, among which (as council has already discussed) is the option of shelving it during this election period so that the new council can decide next steps when it takes office two short months from now.

For our part, this here-and-now council has demonstrated, and will likely do so again tomorrow, that we're of multiple minds about this. Some want to move forward and complete the work. Others would like to pause and further consider the one community planning document that rules them all. 

As ever with my middle-way mindset, I can see the logic in both approaches. Whatever the case, I believe we've met objective 3.1.2 in the 2019-22 Strategic Plan to "develop a new Official Community Plan." After two years, this one has definitely been developed to a ripe if perhaps not quite ready for primetime stage. 

Personally, as I've said at previous meetings, I believe this OCP is a solid, timely, best-practice community plan that meets legislative requirements, captures a compelling vision of Sooke's future and offers a comprehensive range of policies backed by an implementation plan to get us there given all the imponderables and budget considerations that can hinder progress. (Such as basic operational costs subject to 7.6% inflation, for instance.)  

As the OCP Advisory Committee states in its preamble (aka executive summary, see pg. 4-7), its members heard six recurring themes from the public during the 2020/21 engagement period: 

1. The strong desire to maintain and enhance the unique character of Sooke
2. The importance of protecting our natural environment
3. The need for focused growth and support for infrastructure enhancements in the Town Centre
4. The importance of building upon and enhancing Sooke's historic and productive relationship with the T'Sou-ke
5. The need for improved transportation infrastructure and strategies to address vehicular congestion
6. Our community's united support for collective efforts to address climate change. 

These matters are all addressed fully in the draft OCP, writes the OCP-AC (which voted six to one early this year in favour of approving the draft; Chair Helen Ritts, Norm Amirault, Terry Cristall, Steve Grundy, Linda MacMillan and Siomonn Pulla in favour; Ellen Lewers against.)

Chiefly for me, the pending OCP is absolutely consistent with earlier District OCPs (2010, 2001) and CRD plans dating back to the 1976 Sooke Area Settlement Plan. in all these documents, the public and their elected representatives have recognized that population growth is to be focused on the town centre as the heart of the "complete and compact community" that the CRD Regional Growth Strategy requires of Sooke.  Also reaffirmed is that relatively modest growth is to take place in the sewer-specified area and that elsewhere the District is to retain its rural and forested nature. 

Mission accomplished with a modernized Sooke Smart Growth plan. In the new OCP, the TC is given better definition with core, waterfront and transitional designations.  The document critically aligns itself with all the other orders of government, Canadian and international, that recognize we must rethink business as usual on the increasingly electric highway to 2050.  

This it does through a positive (not alarmist) community development perspective captured so sweetly and simply in the 29-word OCP vision statement (honed from first-wave public input in 2020): "Sooke is a small town with a big heart. It is a vibrant net-zero emissions community, cradled in the stunning beauty and vitality of the ocean and forest." Text-message short, but a nice summary of public opinion about the hometown in which we all want to reside

As for enacting its ambitions, half the OCP is dedicated to policies and actions regarding paramount community priorities -- transportation, natural environment, parks and trails, green building, infrastructure, food security, community economic development, arts and culture, housing, recreation and fair, equitable, compassionate values made real. (And it makes clear how these topics are explored in suitable depth in mostly recently updated District plans and reports that must legally align with the OCP.) 

The time-stressed are advised to read the preamble, the Growth Management and Land Use section (starting on pg. 57) and also the Delivering Picture Sooke implementation section (pp. 157-174) with its 120 ongoing, short and medium-term actions in grid format. These pages should give you a sound basis for an informed opinion about the document as a whole. Reading the thing cover-to-cover is recommended, of course. 

The plan concludes with a set of Development Permit Area (DPA) guidelines that are critical in particular for the town centre as growth picks up momentum. They include Sooke's first set of DPAs for "energy and water conservation, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions," permitted by the Local Government Act not long after BC introduced (and Sooke promptly signed) the B.C. Climate Action Charter in 2008. 

I believe this is where the OCP is criticized as being "overly perscriptive," yet I'm not sure how these flexible rules, applicable on a case-by-case basis, can be anything but exact and on point. As the province states, they "govern locations that need special treatment for certain purposes, including the protection of development from hazards, establishing objectives for form and character in specified circumstances or revitalization of a commercial use area."  

Some municipalities include these guidelines in their zoning bylaws, others in their OCPs. I honestly can't fathom suggestions from some that the the DPA section be axed entirely, especially after seeing how the guidelines are so central in ongoing staff/developer negotiations re: the mixed-use proposal for Brownsey Blvd.'s west side. How else can we ensure the community gets what it wants and expects from incoming developers as determined by documents like the Town Centre Plan?

(DPA exemptions apply, incidentally, to anyone building a single-family home, duplex or accessory building, those needing to remove hazardous trees or undertake yard and garden landscaping, among other exceptions. See pg. 178/79.) 

Unsurprisingly, the OCP conversation this year has been led by a minority with specific concerns. These concerns are absolutely valid, as are those of all 15,086 (2021 census) residents of Sooke. It's great that other engagement methods
-- online surveys, community sounding boards, virtual stakeholder consultations with numerous community groups and organizations, school sessions and more -- captured wide input, too, but arguably less than had COVID not struck and eliminated in-person town halls and the like.   

(The current system by which local governments receive public input is like Churchill's comment about democacy: seriously flawed but better than the alternatives. Simon Fraser University's Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue published a series of reports on BC public hearings earlier this year as part of its Strengthening Canadian Democracy program. Their downsides are captured in this statement: "While a noisy minority tends to dominate public hearings, the silent majority of reasonable people are by definition never heard. Elected officials therefore are forced to pander to the skewed view of the vocal minority of voters present, rather than doing what they have been already elected to do, which is make the best decision for the future of the community overall.")

Tomorrow Night's Meeting

I stated during the last chapter review that the OCP was likely "95% complete" - a guesstimate, of course, but that feels about right to me (always and ever, in my opinion). Revisions contributed by council, recommendations from referring agencies and any potential rewrites based on issues raised during the public hearing would get it to the finish line. 

At meeting's end on July 19, I  took the opportunity to read aloud a note council had received that day from OCP Advisory Committee Chair Helen Ritts: 

"Dear Mayor and Council: I am writing to voice my support for Council to give the draft OCP 2nd reading and work to finalize this OCP before the October municipal election. The April 2022 draft OCP is an accurate reflection of a specified and open OCP process, created through 18 months of public engagement. 

The role of Sooke residents in the OCP was to share their future vision of our community. The OCP Advisory Committee understood its role was to ensure that the OCP was brought to Council for 1st reading was an accurate summary of the majority of public respondents. As the chair of the OCP Committee, I am confident that our committee understood and delivering on this responsibility. The role of Council is to pass bylaws in support of the OCP and community vision. Barring any concerns about procedure, this OCP should be accepted as it is and put forward for public hearing. 

Sooke is growing rapidly. We need this plan ASAP to manage our growth successfully. 

Sincerely, Helen Ritts, Sooke, BC 
 
 I resonate with all Ms. Ritts writes, yet I still find myself on the fence and interested in hearing from my colleagues tomorrow.  
 
I do like the thought of moving to second reading and setting the stage for a public hearing late this month. Election season is soon to be in full swing, and it would be an opportunity for the community to gather for a robust discussion focused on our community's most significant document. I can't imagine a more substantial election issue than that.
 
Then again, as i think further, a public hearing at this pivotal point in the election cycle would likely give an unfair advantage to incumbent councillors, we who've gained intimate knowledge by pouring through its 240 pages repeatedly. Whereas other candidates for office would get their turn at the mic like everyone else, we would remain front-and-centre to a degree throughout the night. That's arguably unfair to others on the ballot, and I suspect that's how I'd feel if I was on the outside looking in. 
 
I also understand the logic that the District might be wise to develop this OCP a little further still through another round of public engagement -- this time minus the distant and distanced COVID restrictions, conducted in-person and using the text as it now stands as the starting point for discussion and review of the proposed policies and actions. 

With at least five of us running for re-election in October, I want to discuss what precisely we suggest be done next with this OCP should we indeed pause the process, retain our seats and find ourselves dealing with it in the New Year.  An important question, and one I will ponder further over the next 24 hours. 
 
​More from this blog ... 

* Draft OCP: My Appreciative Inquiry (Oct. 20, 2021)
* OCP Update - Fall 2021 (Sept. 4, 2021)
* Team OCP: Introducing the Advisory Committee (Aug. 8, 2020) 
* Masterplanning Sooke's Smart Growth: OCP Preview (Dec. 20, 2019) 
 
PS Even with all the public feedback to date, I naturally wonder what comments will emerge during the public hearing whenever it's scheduled.  
 
As Councillor Beddows, the OCP Advisory Committee liaison, has noted, council dealt promptly this spring with the major concerns that emerged from the first-wave responses to the draft OCP:

1. The proposed 30m waterfront setback requirement for new subdivisions of four-or-more homes (now reinstated at 15m as per Sooke tradition).

2. Potential density increases in the Whiffin Spit neighbourhood (now returned to its Rural Residential designation).

3. The re-inclusion of phase three of West Ridge Trails in the Community Residential, not rural, designation (while knowing that the development still must secure rezoning and sewer inclusion before it can proceed.) 


What else might arise at the public-hearing? I've taken pains to raise concerns from the public engagement packages in my questions to staff during the chapter reviews -- including points raised by Farrell Estates and the Concerned Citizens of Sooke (Randy Clarkston, Dave Saunders, Dave McClimon, Matt Mortenson and Brian Butler). Both Councillor McMath and I drew questions from the latter's correspondence at the July 19 chapter review re: DPA overreach, the "hidden density issue," transportation and costing.  

Certainly there's been confusion over the so-called "hidden density issue" during OCP deliberations. The proposed bylaw's Growth Management and Land Use section (starting on pg. 57) cites a maximum density of 70 units per hectare in the Community Residential designation (i.e., the Sewer Specified Area west of the Sooke River).  

Does this mean that Community Residential landowners would be free to dramatically densify their single-family lots and we'd see cluster housing on what are now single-family streets, turning Sooke into wall-to-wall suburbia? What a nightmare!  

I personally have asked staff in public meetings about this at least four times now in response to public concerns. They and the OCP consultants have replied with what the document itself (pg. 60) states: "Maximum densities within each designation will be informed by the policy direction of the OCP and the site-specific zoning provided in the Zoning Bylaw." 

The OCP policy direction is for density in the Town Centre Core, Town Centre Transitional and Town Centre Waterfront designations. Period.  (And up to a point: The 2009 Town Centre Plan, which is due to be revised as a first priority action following OCP adoption, envisions net growth in the TC of 1400 residents by 2050.)  It in no way recommends density (i.e., sprawl) beyond this town centre. 

A new Zoning Bylaw is required following the adoption of every new OCP in BC.  Our pending OCP allows six-storey buildings in (zoning-specified spots only) north of Sooke Rd. in the Town Centre and only along the two sides of Brownsey Blvd. south of it.  (Interestingly, the current zoning bylaw's High-Density Multi-Family RM-4 category allows a maximum of 90 units per hectare. Ayre Manor and West Wind Harbour are the only spots so designated. The CD7 zoning for Mariner's Village allows 50 units per hectare maximum.) 

Regarding costing, no OCP I've ever seen includes a price tag for proposed actions. Instead, they are subject to cost analysis when prioritized by council and staff for consideration in each successive year's Five-Year Financial Plan. If the money's not there or the tax hit too heavy, then a specific action remains on paper and aspirational, as so many have done in the 2010 OCP. Still entirely worth honouring community OCP input, however, by capturing our wishes and best aspirations on paper, of course. 

[Predicted capital expenses in 2020 dollars are, however, included for actions recommended by theTransportation (pg. 67-69) andParks & Trails (pp. 71-75) master plans. There are also very loose estimates of costs for Appendix H items in theClimate Action Plan, whose one $$$ item relates to implementation costs for those same master plans. See my lengthy explanation in the PPS below.]

The plan concludes with a set of Development Permit Area (DPA) guidelines that are critical in particular for the town centre as growth picks up momentum. They include Sooke's first set of DPAs for "energy and water conservation, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions,"permitted by the Local Government Act not long after BC introduced (and Sooke promptly signed) the B.C. Climate Action Charter in 2008. 

I believe this is where the OCP is criticized as being "overly perscriptive," yet I'm not sure how these flexible rules, applicable on a case-by-case basis, can be anything but exact and on point. As the province states, they "govern locations that need special treatment for certain purposes, including the protection of development from hazards, establishing objectives for form and character in specified circumstances or revitalization of a commercial use area."  

Some municipalities include these guidelines in their zoning bylaws, others in their OCPs. I honestly can't fathom suggestions from some that the the DPA section be axed entirely, especially after seeing how the guidelines are so central in ongoing staff/developer negotiations re: the mixed-use proposal for Brownsey Blvd.'s west side. How else can we ensure the community gets what it wants and expects from incoming developers as determined by documents like the Town Centre Plan?

(DPA exemptions apply, incidentally, to anyone building a single-family home, duplex or accessory building, those needing to remove hazardous trees or undertake yard and garden landscaping, among other exceptions. See pg. 178/79.) 

Unsurprisingly, the OCP conversation this year has been led by a minority with specific concerns. These concerns are absolutely valid, as are those of all 15,086 (2021 census) residents of Sooke. It's great that other engagement methods -- online surveys, community sounding boards, virtual stakeholder consultations with numerous community groups and organizations, school sessions and more -- captured wide input, too, but arguably less than had COVID not struck and eliminated in-person town halls and the like.   

PPS Cutting-and-pasting comments I've prepared for use about the Climate Action Plan as required. I'm told at least one climate-change skeptic is running for office and has already cited this cost misinformation.  Yes, I know all this is complicated and boring and bureaucratic, but hey, that's how this kind of local government rocket science works and my only option in cases like this is to bring out the facts. Thank you for your patience in trying to follow along. 

I want to address a misunderstanding about the high-level cost and staff resource estimates in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) – namely the suggestion that the plan will cost $4.5 million and require 22 FTE, as Councillor McMath stated at both our July 15 and 19 meetings. I understand the source of this confusion, I think, so here's an attempt to set it straight ...

The CAP’s high-level estimates are related to the Master List of Recommended Actions (Appendix H, pp. 56-78).  They are “meant to be an estimate to provide context for work planning and budgeting purposes, not a firm requirement.” 
 
Appendix H is comprised of all climate-related actions found in existing DOS plans, notably the Transportation Master Plan, the Parks & Trails Master Plan and the draft Official Community Plan. These cover the period 2022-2050. 
 
Duplicating cost estimations in the master plans, the only big-ticket item ($$$$ “over $1 million”) in Appendix H is related to “funding and implementing major PTMP and TMP capital projects” -- the costliest of which is the complete streets build-out that will provide active transportation corridors along new connector roads led by the Throup/Grant Rd. West bypass. (Active transportation = climate action). 
 
In the Climate Action Plan’s Appendix H, there are 21 categories for departmental action spread across the five focus areas.  19 of these categories qualify as $ Low - $0 - $50,000.  
 
Appendix I (pp. 74-88) features the 25 high-impact actions that District staff believe can be executed over the next five years. These actions will be costed out and presented to the next council during budget deliberations, as Ms. Gray told us. 
 
Last Monday night, Raechel and Maia answered questions about the staff icons in Appendix H. They do indeed add up to 22 FTE, however there is a great deal of overlap and much of the work is already built into workplans now and in future for existing employees. 
 
There is zero suggestion that 22 more employees would have to be hired. In fact, a long-awaited replacement for Sue Welke as Community Development Officer – aided and abetted by a Climate Action Coordinator, as the Climate Action Committee suggests in its July 25 motion – is what’s required. 

In calculating her figures, Cllr. McMath has cited the high end of all cost estimations, missed the point about duplication with costs of the roads projects that this council endorsed in approving the master plans,and has understandably misread the nature of the staff icons. Or so I interpret it at any rate.