The question mark is necessary since we are still several steps short of the finish line, with further council input ahead and a Andre De Grasse/Femke Bol-style lunge to the tape in the face of a persistent headwind ...
November Updates
- Public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 3 at 6 PM.
- The District's Let's Talk, OCP site has been updated with the final updated version of Bylaw #800 (top of right-hand column)
- Another package of OCP correspondence has been posted covering the period
- Council made a series of approx. 30 changes at its meetings of Nov. 6 and Nov. 10. Second reading was given to the bylaw on Nov. 10, allowing the District to schedule the public hearing.
2025-417
MOVED by Councillor Jeff Bateman, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows:
THAT Council give second reading to the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, as amended to incorporate the changes identified at the November 6 and 10, 2025 Committee of the Whole meetings, as outlined in the Summary of Proposed Edits; AND THAT Council direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing for the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, as amended.
CARRIED
Opposed: Councillor Herb Haldane and Councillor Kevin Pearson
Morning-after (Oct. 28) update: Council has opted to schedule a special council meeting in November (date TBA) at which we as a group of seven will ask questions and suggest final input that will be incorporated into the public hearing package. Community members will next be welcome to speak at the public hearing, again with no fixed date at this point but earlier scheduled tentatively for Monday, Dec. 8.
Another 30 minutes of public comment was presented last night, focused as a legislative requirement on the OCP process to date, not its content (as Deputy Mayor Pearson clearly articulated at the outset.) Last night we did hear opposition from some on various themes expressed previously over the months and years, but we were also urged to move forward to a public hearing by the likes of former CRD Director Diane Bernard and former Councillor/CRD Director Ron Dumont. Both noted the extended timeframe and the ample public input to date, with Dumont adding wisely that dissension is to be expected and that council cannot be expected to please everyone.
I sincerely hope supporters and critics alike take the time to read the refined and updated OCP. As I said last night, clarity has been added (in the Development Permit Area guidelines in particular) and I too believe the document is ready again for primetime consideration and final review.
- District's OCP home page
- District's Let's Talk OCP micro-site
Tonight's Council meeting is another landmark in Sooke's pilgrim's progress towards a new Official Community Plan, the successor to the current 2010 model and the third since incorporation.
* A final round of public input is now complete and the latest What We Learned (see pp. 183-306) report has been received by the Land Use and Development Committee (Oct. 7) and Council (Oct. 14).
* This input joins the other thick stacks of feedback packaged in ...
* April 2021 - Phase Two What We Heard Report (see right-hand links column here)
* November 2021 - Phase Three What We Heard Report (see right-hand links column here)
* Sept. 27, 2022 public hearing (see meeting minutes at end of this post)
* Committee of the Whole minutes of July 17, 2023 (pp. 183-188)
* Council minutes of July 10, 2023
* Council is receiving an updated "red-line" version of the draft bylaw and a companion Table of Changes tonight
* We can then act directly on the next step -- rescinding second reading of Bylaw #800 from Sept. 27, 2022 and scheduling a public hearing for later this year
* Additionally, we can redirect the document for feedback either to the Land Use & Development Committee or schedule a special meeting at which the updated version can be debated and discussed by council, with or without still further community input.
* This timeline is necessitated by the following ...
i) The Province's Bill 44 requires all BC municipalities to complete new OCPs that incorporate Bill 44's Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing regulations by its Dec. 31 deadline. (See its "Proactive Planning" requests in full.)
ii) We are long past due to get this critical document updated and completed.
Back on July 15, a majority of council voted 4-1 in moving ahead with a final opportunity for public engagement. Councillor Pearson voted against while Cllr. McMath was absent. The former would like the current OCP to remain in place with addition of the required new housing legislation.
Newly elected Cllr Haldane was in the audience on July 15 and stated he will be voting with Pearson to either affix the Province's required new land-use legislation to the existing OCP and leave it as is for now ... or seek an exemption in the Dec. 31 deadline from the province. Both have held firm on this strategy in meetings between then and now.
Worth noting that the version we're working with now does indeed include the required Provincial content. As you'll read in the following, this new OCP is also a significant and necessary modernized upgrade on the 2010 model. There are relatively few updates in the latest red-line edition of the draft bylaw (pp. 795-1043) outside of the Development Permit Area Guidelines.
The OCP's climate targets (pg. 46) are now aligned with those of the Sooke 2030 Climate Action Plan, i.e., a 50% reduction in community GHG emissions by 2030, a goal approved by council in 2021 as an aspirational yet admittedly impossible number exceeding the equally impossible -40% target mandated to all local governments by the Province of BC. The latest 2024 GHG stats for the region are to be released by the CRD next month, however Sooke's emissions in 2022 (see item 4.4, appendix B, pg. 61) were 64k tonnes of CO2e, up +22.6% from the 2007 baseline. This is a direct and unavoidable result of our doubled population growth. (The good news is that our per-capita emissions are down from 5.1 to 3.9 tonnes per person annually, a 20%+ decline since 2007. The Sooke Climate Action Plan identifies and urges continued personal action while requiring whole-of-organization climate leadership by the District.)
Within the Community Policies - Housing section's "Enhance housing affordability" objectives, a new policy line (4.9.4.5, pg. 135) reads: "Streamline development application and permitting to improve efficiency and reduce cost that impact housing affordability." As Mr. Riley notes, this "reflects Council's commitment to streamlining permitting and approvals as a means of supporting attainable and affordable housing delivery, consistent with Bill 44 and the District's Housing Needs Report."
On the recommendation of the BC Archeological Branch and given the rich First Nations heritage hidden in plain sight throughout this coastal community, a new policy statement and action item (#4, pg. 157) asks this and future councils to consider development of a "Heritage Management Policy" in partnership with the Province and the T'Sou-ke Nation. (I'll ask whether this includes First Nations and settler heritage; Sooke has its small share of heritage buildings as documented by a Sheila Whincup-edited Sooke Region Museum team in their book 101 Historical Buildings of the Sooke Region (1985). The late Cllr. Brenda Parkinson was keen for the District to develop a heritage bylaw or community registry of such buildings. (Examples: Ladysmith, Town of Qualicum, District of Oak Bay.)
The lion's share of changes and simple-language clarifications are focused in Part 7, Development Permit Areas (pg. 171 onwards). The District has listened carefully to the feedback of the building/development community and made dozens of revisions to "improve clarity, legal defensibility, and administrative efficiency" as Director of Community Planning Jayden Riley states in tonight's report. These respond point-by-point to feedback provided in recent engagements with the development community and the Sooke Builders Association. The latter produced a table of recommended changes as part of this summer's community feedback.
Kudos to both parties -- the building sector for itemizing its long-standing concerns with chapter-and-verse references to the draft OCP, and Mr. Riley for his precise, clearly communicated responses. This exchange has certainly helped me, for one, better understand the nature, purpose and limitations of the DPA guidelines, a required (Local Government Act) section of all OCPs.
While I'm taking the following out of context, these replies to the SBA from Riley within the latest What We Learned report are useful in understanding that the DPAs are, as stated, guidelines to be check-listed by staff as future development plans are submitted for District approval: "Intent is to provide high-level guidance to encourage awareness and innovation, not add new technical requirements that would increase costs and extend timelines ... Policy intended as broad direction, not a mandate ... Not intended to create rigid requirements or to conflict with other guidelines with the BC Building Code or the Sooke Building Code ... Not intended as a requirement nor to override market preferences or Building Code standards ... Guidelines should provide direction for best practices, but cannot impose technical standards beyond the Building Code ... DPAs (must be) aspirational, practical and within the District’s authority."
Among the latest set of referral comments in tonight's agenda (pg. 1061-1091) from the CRD, the Department of Fisheries & Oceans Canada, the Archeological Branch and various DOS departments, I'm moved to share a clip from the District's Land Development Technician Nikki Zerr. She notes that the current OCP's Development Permit Area guidelines have caused confusion: "Historically," she writes, "the existing DP process for subdivision proposals has proven to be redundant, resource intensive and lacking clear evaluative parameters. This has led to administrative inefficiencies and prolonged processing times, without adding demonstrative value to the subdivision approval process."
The current set of three DPAs, in other words, are seemingly a root cause (among others) of the well-documented dysfunction we so routinely have heard about from the building community these last 15 years. The new proposed DPAs are set to stand with the modernized Development Procedures Bylaw #900 (2024) and Subdivision and Development Standards Bylaw #925 (2025) in ushering in a new era when implemented with recommendations of the Development Application Process Review (2024, see agenda pp. 117-174). To quote Riley, Sooke is "open for business" while still honouring the OCP's community direction for our collective future.
As a layman on the outside looking in, I'm now near fully convinced that these new DPA guidelines will serve the everyday working relationship between developer/builders and District staff well. I deeply appreciate the care and close attention that both sides have paid to reforming and enhancing the ground rules underlying what is ideally a cooperative and co-dependent relationship. The guidelines will serve their professional interactions and, more importantly, the community as a whole well over the OCP's lifespan.
Final point: The Province has also mandated that all Official Community Plans be reviewed on a five-year cycle, and so in addition to the inevitable amendments, Sooke will be formally tweaking and refining its OCP again in 2030.
Quotes from the Planning Department's Oct. 27 OCP report
* Read Manager of Community Planning Jayden Riley's report in full on pp. 497-506 of the Oct. 27 Council agenda
* I've cut-and-paste broad swathes of it below for my own work purposes and ready access in future
* See pp. 795-1043 for the second set of "red-line" changes based on public input since July 2025
* See pp. 507- 794 for the first set of red-line changes based on public input since October 2022
* See pp. 1045-1079 for the complete Table of Changes documenting all changes to the draft OCP
* See pp. 1093-1327 for a "clean" version of the OCP as revised and minus red-line mark-ups
Item 10.2 OCP Bylaw 800
Recommendation: Rescind second reading of OCP Bylaw 800 and schedule a public hearing
"These refinements enhance clarity, usability and legal defensibility, producing a single, coherent framework to guide growth to 2050.
The revised OCP maintains the community’s long-term vision of a vibrant, net-zero- emissions small town that balances growth, affordability, and environmental protection. It ensures consistency with provincial housing requirements and alignment with the District’s key supporting plans, including the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, and Housing Needs Report.
In January 2025, Council endorsed the OCP Restart and Next Steps report and approved a focused work plan to complete the bylaw by year-end in accordance with Bill 44. Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive update, incorporating amendments to satisfy Bill 44 within the OCP Bylaw No. 800.
This approach recognized that, while Bill 44 required all local governments to incorporate housing-needs reporting and provisions for Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH), those updates alone would not address the broader clarity, usability, and alignment issues identified during the 2022–2023 review.
Phase I red-line: Edits clarified Development Permit Area intent, triggers, and exemptions; removed redundant or overly prescriptive language; and updated references and statistics. Cross-references were added to the Climate Action Plan (2022), Transportation Master Plan (2020), Parks and Trails Master Plan (2020), and Housing Needs Report
(2019/2024 update), reinforcing the OCP’s umbrella role.
Phase 2 red-line: integrated legislative updates under Bill 44 with refinements from engagement and internal review. Key changes included clearer Development Permit Area language and exemptions, refined Foreshore DPA wording, strengthened cross-references to major plans, and final mapping and formatting improvements.
Phase II produced a single, internally consistent, and legally defensible OCP reflecting five years of policy development, professional diligence, and community input – ready for second reading (as amended) and Public Hearing.
Proactive Planning aspects to be dealt with by all British Columbia OCPs as required by the Province:
1. Enable SSMHU
2. Housing Needs Report projections
3. Seven classes of housing types
Updating the OCP solely to meet these requirements – without addressing structural inconsistencies, outdated references, and long-standing interpretation issues – would have perpetuated the same implementation challenges that have hindered the existing Bylaw 400.
Proceeding with the comprehensive OCP update allows the District to achieve compliance and create a modern, legally defensible framework that supports housing delivery, environmental protection, and climate resilience in a unified way.
This comprehensive approach fulfills all legislative requirements while reinforcing Sooke’s vision of a compact, connected, and sustainable community. It provides Council with a single, modern OCP – one that integrates provincial housing obligations, environmental stewardship, and local priorities into a unified and implementable framework, avoiding the risks of piecemeal amendments or interim policy fixes.
Development Permit Area Framework
A key focus of the OCP review has been modernizing the Development Permit Area (DPA) framework to improve clarity, legal defensibility, and administrative efficiency. The updated OCP establishes nine DPAs that address environmental protection, energy and water conservation, and the form and character of new development.
Under OCP Bylaw 400 (2010), only three broad DPAs were designated. These covered wide objectives with limited guidance, leading to interpretation gaps, inconsistent application, and uncertainty for both staff and applicants.
The new framework corrects these issues by providing clear intent statements, defined boundaries, plain-language objectives, and well-structured exemptions, ensuring stronger alignment with Section 488 of the Local Government Act.
A single Development Permit (DP) application will continue to apply, even when multiple DPAs overlap. Staff and applicants simply confirm that designs or environmental management plans meet all applicable guidelines or qualify for exemptions. This structure promotes a more transparent, consistent, and efficient review process without adding procedural burden.
By expanding the number of DPAs while refining their scope and clarity, the District has improved predictability, accountability, and confidence in implementation. The framework better reflects community values, provides clear expectations for applicants, and supports staff in delivering consistent, legally sound permitting decisions.
DPA 1 – Energy and Water Conservation / GHG Reduction
Legal advice: staff confirmed that municipalities cannot regulate or require the use of specific building materials, internal systems, or components covered by the BC Building Code through Development Permits.
Accordingly, all references to internal building materials or embodied-carbon metrics
were removed. The focus has shifted toward building siting, orientation, landscaping, and exterior design — aspects that directly influence energy performance and are clearly within local jurisdiction.
To preserve the District’s climate leadership role, an “informational guidance” note was added to encourage voluntary best practices in lifecycle carbon accounting and GHG reduction. This guidance is explicitly non-regulatory; a Development Permit cannot be refused on this basis. This approach balances statutory compliance with continued
climate action ambition.
DPA 3 – Foreshore Area
The revised DPA 3 now applies only to land‐altering activities within roughly 15 metres of the natural boundary of the sea that could affect slope stability, drainage, or shoreline habitat.
The intent statement has been rewritten in plain language to clarify that the DPA’s purpose is to protect environmental and geotechnical stability – not to regulate routine property maintenance.
Activities such as gardening, lawn care, pruning, invasive‐species removal, and hazardous‐tree work are explicitly exempt when completed in a way that maintains slope and shoreline integrity.
Existing single‐family dwellings are not affected, and foreshore property owners can continue normal use and maintenance. Only new or substantial development involving land alteration within the buffer may require a permit.
A proportionate approach applies ~ minor works, such as removal of a single hazardous tree, may be supported through a brief memo from a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) or Arborist, while larger projects – such as shoreline stabilization or retaining wall construction – require more detailed professional input.
The 15‐metre buffer functions as a guideline rather than a fixed limit, allowing site‐specific adjustments where a QEP or geotechnical professional confirms that stability and habitat values are maintained. The updated guidelines also clarify coordination with archaeological assessments, DFO authorizations, and other regulatory approvals.
Collectively, these refinements make DPA 3 a clear, balanced, and defensible tool that safeguards shoreline ecosystems and public safety while maintaining practical flexibility for landowners.
Structure, Clarity & Accessibility
- The updated OCP improves clarity, tone, and usability while maintaining the overall structure and policy direction established through earlier engagement.
- Prescriptive or technical language has been softened to guide decision-making and avoid unintended regulatory barriers.
- Development Permit Area guidelines now clearly distinguish between requirements and encouraged best practices
- Housing policies more directly support small-scale multi-unit and infill development in alignment with Bill 44.
- Supportive language around housing diversity and affordability ensures the plan reflects both community values and emerging provincial priorities.
- The two previous Town Centre DPAs (“Core” and “Waterfront”) have been consolidated into a single, unified DPA. This reduces duplication and provides one set of form and character guidelines for the Town Centre, Sooke’s primary growth area.
- New images, infographics, and updated statistics enhance readability and engagement
without altering policy intent.
- Following adoption, an updated OCP webpage will make the document easier to navigate by topic, such as DPAs, growth management, or land use designations – consistent with modern municipal best practices.
These improvements ensure the OCP is visually clear, accessible, and user-friendly for residents, applicants, and staff, reflecting the District’s commitment to transparency and continuous improvement in communicating planning information.
Implementation and Costing
- Implementation will occur gradually through Council’s Strategic Plan, Five-Year Financial Plan, and annual work programs.
- Each action will be advanced as resources, grant opportunities, and Council priorities allow.
- In this way, the OCP serves as a “roadmap” toward community goals such as achieving net-zero emissions, expanding housing diversity, and improving mobility – recognizing that progress will occur incrementally over the 25-year horizon.
- Public questions about cost were addressed directly: adoption of the OCP does not create new or immediate financial obligations. The plan functions as a strategic framework that informs budgeting and helps prioritize actions when funding or capacity becomes available.
- Some policies, such as promoting net-zero buildings or low-carbon infrastructure, are aspirational, setting a direction consistent with the Climate Action Plan (2022) and other master plans. Implementation will depend on evolving technology, resources, and partnerships.
- By maintaining this forward-looking but flexible approach, the OCP provides clear direction without adding fiscal pressure, allowing the District to advance its long-term vision responsibly within Council’s established means and priorities.
Alignment with Council Direction and Community Values
- The updated OCP strikes a balance between long-term community vision and day-to- day practicality, ensuring Sooke remains both a desirable place to live and a community that welcomes responsible investment.
- Looking ahead to 2050, the plan emphasizes compact growth, environmental protection, and climate resilience while maintaining a predictable and supportive development environment.
- Throughout its evolution, the OCP has upheld its core vision of managing growth efficiently, protecting natural assets and rural character, and advancing a transition toward a low-carbon future.
- Refinements made through the Phase I and II processes strengthen this vision and improve clarity for applicants, residents, and staff – guiding development without adding unnecessary procedural or financial barriers.
- The OCP recognizes that public interest is multifaceted: protecting the environment, improving housing choice, and supporting economic opportunity are interdependent goals.
- A well-planned community requires both strong environmental standards and a transparent, consistent development review process. The updated plan achieves this through clear policies and proportionate regulatory tools, such as refined DPA guidelines and exemptions, that maintain environmental integrity while providing confidence and predictability for applicants.
- In this way, Sooke remains “open for business” in alignment with community expectations. The OCP balances aspirational vision with practical implementation, ensuring growth contributes to, rather than conflicts with, Sooke’s environmental and social values.
- It is a forward-thinking yet grounded plan that reflects community input, supports sustainable development and responsible fiscal management, and fosters an investment climate that is both welcoming and well-defined.
Final Frame Public Engagement
- Public feedback expressed general support for the revised OCP. Residents emphasized the importance of environmental protection, greenspace access, and compact growth centred on the Town Centre, while encouraging implementation that remains fiscally responsible.
- Feedback from the development community was more mixed, focusing on potential implications for housing delivery and interpretation of certain policies. However, input was detailed and constructive. Staff met with development representatives, provided written clarifications, and incorporated appropriate refinements into the Phase II red-line version now before Council.
Next Steps and Legislative Procedure
- Because OCP Bylaw No. 800 has been substantially amended since its original readings in 2022, staff recommend that Council rescind the previous second reading and re-read the bylaw as amended prior to scheduling a new Public Hearing.
- This approach ensures that the version before Council is the clean, consolidated bylaw, reflecting all refinements made through the 2025 engagement process, technical review, and legislative updates under Bill 44.
Conclusion
- The revised Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800 is the culmination of five years of community dialogue, technical work, and Council direction.
- The two phases of red-line updates demonstrate a methodical, transparent approach to policy development, balancing public feedback with legal and legislative requirements.
- The document before Council now provides a clear, forward-looking, and implementable framework for managing Sooke’s growth to 2050.
- Giving second reading (as amended) will enable the District to move confidently toward Public Hearing and final adoption before year-end, ensuring a modern, legally sound, and community-supported plan for Sooke’s future."
Further Reading
Foundations
- District's OCP home page
- District's Let's Talk OCP micro-site
From this blog
* Patience and Process: Back to the OCP (June 18, 2023)
* OCP Public Hearing Preview (Sept. 27, 2022)
* Next Step for the Official Community Plan (Sept. 7, 2022)
* 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)
OCP Advisory Committee's six-point summary of the final draft document
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.
Minutes from the Sept. 27, 2022 OCP Public Hearing
"Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022: The Mayor provided an overview of the proceedings for the meeting and reviewed the steps that have led to the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, arriving at this public hearing.
Public Input (35 speakers):
- William Wallace, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, specifically supporting the protection of parks and agricultural lands.
- Alan Dolan, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, acknowledging the importance of development, and the need to improve safe pedestrian connectivity, noting that resistance to the approval of the OCP seemingly comes from those reluctant to view the effect of climate change.
- Susan Clarke, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of encouraging the approval of the OCP to assist the future Council with solid steps towards a commitment to action climate change initiatives.
- Kief Elliott, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour noting that he participated in most of the engagement opportunities and advised that bylaws would be reviewed to harmonize with the OCP once adopted, providing additional opportunities for discussion and debate on the effects of individual issues.
- Malcolm McNaughton, a Langford resident, spoke in opposition as the document is missing feasibility and cost impacts, suggesting that further analysis and consultation are required in advance of approval.
- Patrick Marsden, a Saanich resident, spoke in opposition as the bylaw will negatively impact the building and development community.
- Lily Ma-Sen, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour offering appreciation for the committees' work on the document and supporting the land use policies, as they will encourage town core growth.
- Keith Rimstad, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour suggesting there are details that can be finalized once a guide has been created and that no plan will address all concerns for the community.
- Chris Moss, an Otter Point resident, spoke in favour advising that no one document can accurately predict or plan the future and that the guidelines included in the current version are more than adequate to support the community.
- Michael Thorton, a developer in the community, spoke in opposition to the bylaw, specifically the financial impacts on developers.
- Roland Alcock, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of providing support for adoption as the plan displays a commitment to climate change mitigation and addressing transportation challenges.
- Brian Butler, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition to restrictive land use designations, impacts on development, and a requirement for further consultation.
- Susan Belford, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of supporting the culmination and careful consultation undertaken with a broad spectrum of the community, the clear and concise policies, advising that the OCP needs to be for the people who live in the community, not just those who build in it.
- Jeff Zigay, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition citing concerns related to the lack of cost impact estimates associated with implementation and the lack of current town core development, even though the previous OCP also encouraged core growth.
- Karine Bordua, a Langford resident, spoke in opposition to the costs associated with the implementation of the plan and concerns with several areas which seemingly limit resiliency.
- Doug Bexson, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition as the document goes beyond guidance offering limited flexibility through prohibiting language.
- Gisela Kumar, a Sooke resident (via written submission read aloud by Ellen Lewers), expressed opposition as the community does not require an increase in high-density housing but rather should encourage residents to consider limiting their impact on the area.
- Ellen Lewers, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition encouraging reduced development to maintain a small-town appeal.
- Steve Anderson, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting public engagement was not adequate and the plan is an unbalanced representation of the community’s vision.
- Ramsay Milne, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, citing difficulty in the general understanding of language utilized in the document and the associated delays and cost impacts of the proposed Development Permit process.
- Rob Anderson, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, reiterating previous comments and concerns about the consequences associated with the proposed policies.
- Ryan Chamberland, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting a delay in approval and reinvesting in conversations with the community on the plan.
- Herb Haldane, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, stating that the document is idealistic and radical, and will create divisiveness.
- Mick Rhodes, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, noting there is no mention of waterfront access.
- Helen Ritts, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, providing an overview of the comprehensive public engagement undertaken by the committee, consultants, and staff, to ensure community voices were heard and encouraged Council to move the plan forward.
- Jay Ryan, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, citing the lack of quality consultation due to the pandemic.
- Scot Taylor, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting additional public input be undertaken in advance of approval and that there was not enough consultation with the First Nations.
- Dave Saunders, a Colwood resident, spoke in opposition, with concerns about density and that the unintended consequences of implementing this plan should be examined.
- Don Brown, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, stating that implementation will mean applying rules rather than principles and as they are written will create an adversarial process rather than a collaborative approach.
- Eliane Hamel, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, with concerns with the consultation being undertaken during the pandemic, and questioned the deliverables and cost impacts.
- Anna Russell, an Otter Point resident, spoke in favour, noting that the current OCP does not meet the needs of the community and a new plan is required.
- Robin Holm, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, supporting the new plan and advising that changes can be made along the way if required, it's not set in stone.
- Cindy Ross, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting additional consultation is required and expressing concerns with Development Permit Areas.
- Natalia Saddington, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition highlighting the cost impacts associated with the heavy climate action initiatives.
- Lorraine Pawlivsky-Love, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition suggesting further community consultation and cautioned rushing to the adoption with a divide in the community."
Council Discussion
* Clarity regarding cost impacts associated with climate goals and proposed initiatives.
* The Master Plans, adopted by Council and in use for planning the community, are in place and utilized for projects such as traffic and parks.
* Concern that the OCP is a significantly large document with a multitude of layers, which is not easily read cover to cover, and that this has led to some confusion among readers.
* Desire to conduct further engagement with enhanced communication to the public, to ensure all affected parties are afforded the opportunity to fully discuss the impacts and enhancements the document contains.
& Reminder that the OCP is a visionary document, and the removal of the Development Permit Areas (DPA) will not be a quality revision worth consideration.
* Concerns with the financial impacts of implementation are unknown.
* More time is needed to provide education on the development processes, to ensure everyone fully understands the requirements and associated outcomes.
* Appreciation was offered to the members of the public who attended and provided their comments.
2022-267
MOVED by Councillor Al Beddows, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT Council close the public hearing and do not consider 3rd reading of the bylaw; AND THAT the bylaw, public input, and minutes from all meetings will be presented to the new Council for their consideration.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, Councillor Tony St-Pierre, and Councillor Dana Lajeunesse
November Updates
- Public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 3 at 6 PM.
- The District's Let's Talk, OCP site has been updated with the final updated version of Bylaw #800 (top of right-hand column)
- Another package of OCP correspondence has been posted covering the period
- Council made a series of approx. 30 changes at its meetings of Nov. 6 and Nov. 10. Second reading was given to the bylaw on Nov. 10, allowing the District to schedule the public hearing.
2025-417
MOVED by Councillor Jeff Bateman, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows:
THAT Council give second reading to the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, as amended to incorporate the changes identified at the November 6 and 10, 2025 Committee of the Whole meetings, as outlined in the Summary of Proposed Edits; AND THAT Council direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing for the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, as amended.
CARRIED
Opposed: Councillor Herb Haldane and Councillor Kevin Pearson
Morning-after (Oct. 28) update: Council has opted to schedule a special council meeting in November (date TBA) at which we as a group of seven will ask questions and suggest final input that will be incorporated into the public hearing package. Community members will next be welcome to speak at the public hearing, again with no fixed date at this point but earlier scheduled tentatively for Monday, Dec. 8.
Another 30 minutes of public comment was presented last night, focused as a legislative requirement on the OCP process to date, not its content (as Deputy Mayor Pearson clearly articulated at the outset.) Last night we did hear opposition from some on various themes expressed previously over the months and years, but we were also urged to move forward to a public hearing by the likes of former CRD Director Diane Bernard and former Councillor/CRD Director Ron Dumont. Both noted the extended timeframe and the ample public input to date, with Dumont adding wisely that dissension is to be expected and that council cannot be expected to please everyone.
I sincerely hope supporters and critics alike take the time to read the refined and updated OCP. As I said last night, clarity has been added (in the Development Permit Area guidelines in particular) and I too believe the document is ready again for primetime consideration and final review.
- District's OCP home page
- District's Let's Talk OCP micro-site
Tonight's Council meeting is another landmark in Sooke's pilgrim's progress towards a new Official Community Plan, the successor to the current 2010 model and the third since incorporation.
* A final round of public input is now complete and the latest What We Learned (see pp. 183-306) report has been received by the Land Use and Development Committee (Oct. 7) and Council (Oct. 14).
* This input joins the other thick stacks of feedback packaged in ...
* April 2021 - Phase Two What We Heard Report (see right-hand links column here)
* November 2021 - Phase Three What We Heard Report (see right-hand links column here)
* Sept. 27, 2022 public hearing (see meeting minutes at end of this post)
* Committee of the Whole minutes of July 17, 2023 (pp. 183-188)
* Council minutes of July 10, 2023
* Council is receiving an updated "red-line" version of the draft bylaw and a companion Table of Changes tonight
* We can then act directly on the next step -- rescinding second reading of Bylaw #800 from Sept. 27, 2022 and scheduling a public hearing for later this year
* Additionally, we can redirect the document for feedback either to the Land Use & Development Committee or schedule a special meeting at which the updated version can be debated and discussed by council, with or without still further community input.
* This timeline is necessitated by the following ...
i) The Province's Bill 44 requires all BC municipalities to complete new OCPs that incorporate Bill 44's Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing regulations by its Dec. 31 deadline. (See its "Proactive Planning" requests in full.)
ii) We are long past due to get this critical document updated and completed.
Back on July 15, a majority of council voted 4-1 in moving ahead with a final opportunity for public engagement. Councillor Pearson voted against while Cllr. McMath was absent. The former would like the current OCP to remain in place with addition of the required new housing legislation.
Newly elected Cllr Haldane was in the audience on July 15 and stated he will be voting with Pearson to either affix the Province's required new land-use legislation to the existing OCP and leave it as is for now ... or seek an exemption in the Dec. 31 deadline from the province. Both have held firm on this strategy in meetings between then and now.
Worth noting that the version we're working with now does indeed include the required Provincial content. As you'll read in the following, this new OCP is also a significant and necessary modernized upgrade on the 2010 model. There are relatively few updates in the latest red-line edition of the draft bylaw (pp. 795-1043) outside of the Development Permit Area Guidelines.
The OCP's climate targets (pg. 46) are now aligned with those of the Sooke 2030 Climate Action Plan, i.e., a 50% reduction in community GHG emissions by 2030, a goal approved by council in 2021 as an aspirational yet admittedly impossible number exceeding the equally impossible -40% target mandated to all local governments by the Province of BC. The latest 2024 GHG stats for the region are to be released by the CRD next month, however Sooke's emissions in 2022 (see item 4.4, appendix B, pg. 61) were 64k tonnes of CO2e, up +22.6% from the 2007 baseline. This is a direct and unavoidable result of our doubled population growth. (The good news is that our per-capita emissions are down from 5.1 to 3.9 tonnes per person annually, a 20%+ decline since 2007. The Sooke Climate Action Plan identifies and urges continued personal action while requiring whole-of-organization climate leadership by the District.)
Within the Community Policies - Housing section's "Enhance housing affordability" objectives, a new policy line (4.9.4.5, pg. 135) reads: "Streamline development application and permitting to improve efficiency and reduce cost that impact housing affordability." As Mr. Riley notes, this "reflects Council's commitment to streamlining permitting and approvals as a means of supporting attainable and affordable housing delivery, consistent with Bill 44 and the District's Housing Needs Report."
On the recommendation of the BC Archeological Branch and given the rich First Nations heritage hidden in plain sight throughout this coastal community, a new policy statement and action item (#4, pg. 157) asks this and future councils to consider development of a "Heritage Management Policy" in partnership with the Province and the T'Sou-ke Nation. (I'll ask whether this includes First Nations and settler heritage; Sooke has its small share of heritage buildings as documented by a Sheila Whincup-edited Sooke Region Museum team in their book 101 Historical Buildings of the Sooke Region (1985). The late Cllr. Brenda Parkinson was keen for the District to develop a heritage bylaw or community registry of such buildings. (Examples: Ladysmith, Town of Qualicum, District of Oak Bay.)
The lion's share of changes and simple-language clarifications are focused in Part 7, Development Permit Areas (pg. 171 onwards). The District has listened carefully to the feedback of the building/development community and made dozens of revisions to "improve clarity, legal defensibility, and administrative efficiency" as Director of Community Planning Jayden Riley states in tonight's report. These respond point-by-point to feedback provided in recent engagements with the development community and the Sooke Builders Association. The latter produced a table of recommended changes as part of this summer's community feedback.
Kudos to both parties -- the building sector for itemizing its long-standing concerns with chapter-and-verse references to the draft OCP, and Mr. Riley for his precise, clearly communicated responses. This exchange has certainly helped me, for one, better understand the nature, purpose and limitations of the DPA guidelines, a required (Local Government Act) section of all OCPs.
While I'm taking the following out of context, these replies to the SBA from Riley within the latest What We Learned report are useful in understanding that the DPAs are, as stated, guidelines to be check-listed by staff as future development plans are submitted for District approval: "Intent is to provide high-level guidance to encourage awareness and innovation, not add new technical requirements that would increase costs and extend timelines ... Policy intended as broad direction, not a mandate ... Not intended to create rigid requirements or to conflict with other guidelines with the BC Building Code or the Sooke Building Code ... Not intended as a requirement nor to override market preferences or Building Code standards ... Guidelines should provide direction for best practices, but cannot impose technical standards beyond the Building Code ... DPAs (must be) aspirational, practical and within the District’s authority."
Among the latest set of referral comments in tonight's agenda (pg. 1061-1091) from the CRD, the Department of Fisheries & Oceans Canada, the Archeological Branch and various DOS departments, I'm moved to share a clip from the District's Land Development Technician Nikki Zerr. She notes that the current OCP's Development Permit Area guidelines have caused confusion: "Historically," she writes, "the existing DP process for subdivision proposals has proven to be redundant, resource intensive and lacking clear evaluative parameters. This has led to administrative inefficiencies and prolonged processing times, without adding demonstrative value to the subdivision approval process."
The current set of three DPAs, in other words, are seemingly a root cause (among others) of the well-documented dysfunction we so routinely have heard about from the building community these last 15 years. The new proposed DPAs are set to stand with the modernized Development Procedures Bylaw #900 (2024) and Subdivision and Development Standards Bylaw #925 (2025) in ushering in a new era when implemented with recommendations of the Development Application Process Review (2024, see agenda pp. 117-174). To quote Riley, Sooke is "open for business" while still honouring the OCP's community direction for our collective future.
As a layman on the outside looking in, I'm now near fully convinced that these new DPA guidelines will serve the everyday working relationship between developer/builders and District staff well. I deeply appreciate the care and close attention that both sides have paid to reforming and enhancing the ground rules underlying what is ideally a cooperative and co-dependent relationship. The guidelines will serve their professional interactions and, more importantly, the community as a whole well over the OCP's lifespan.
Final point: The Province has also mandated that all Official Community Plans be reviewed on a five-year cycle, and so in addition to the inevitable amendments, Sooke will be formally tweaking and refining its OCP again in 2030.
Quotes from the Planning Department's Oct. 27 OCP report
* Read Manager of Community Planning Jayden Riley's report in full on pp. 497-506 of the Oct. 27 Council agenda
* I've cut-and-paste broad swathes of it below for my own work purposes and ready access in future
* See pp. 795-1043 for the second set of "red-line" changes based on public input since July 2025
* See pp. 507- 794 for the first set of red-line changes based on public input since October 2022
* See pp. 1045-1079 for the complete Table of Changes documenting all changes to the draft OCP
* See pp. 1093-1327 for a "clean" version of the OCP as revised and minus red-line mark-ups
Item 10.2 OCP Bylaw 800
Recommendation: Rescind second reading of OCP Bylaw 800 and schedule a public hearing
"These refinements enhance clarity, usability and legal defensibility, producing a single, coherent framework to guide growth to 2050.
The revised OCP maintains the community’s long-term vision of a vibrant, net-zero- emissions small town that balances growth, affordability, and environmental protection. It ensures consistency with provincial housing requirements and alignment with the District’s key supporting plans, including the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Parks and Trails Master Plan, and Housing Needs Report.
In January 2025, Council endorsed the OCP Restart and Next Steps report and approved a focused work plan to complete the bylaw by year-end in accordance with Bill 44. Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive update, incorporating amendments to satisfy Bill 44 within the OCP Bylaw No. 800.
This approach recognized that, while Bill 44 required all local governments to incorporate housing-needs reporting and provisions for Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH), those updates alone would not address the broader clarity, usability, and alignment issues identified during the 2022–2023 review.
Phase I red-line: Edits clarified Development Permit Area intent, triggers, and exemptions; removed redundant or overly prescriptive language; and updated references and statistics. Cross-references were added to the Climate Action Plan (2022), Transportation Master Plan (2020), Parks and Trails Master Plan (2020), and Housing Needs Report
(2019/2024 update), reinforcing the OCP’s umbrella role.
Phase 2 red-line: integrated legislative updates under Bill 44 with refinements from engagement and internal review. Key changes included clearer Development Permit Area language and exemptions, refined Foreshore DPA wording, strengthened cross-references to major plans, and final mapping and formatting improvements.
Phase II produced a single, internally consistent, and legally defensible OCP reflecting five years of policy development, professional diligence, and community input – ready for second reading (as amended) and Public Hearing.
Proactive Planning aspects to be dealt with by all British Columbia OCPs as required by the Province:
1. Enable SSMHU
2. Housing Needs Report projections
3. Seven classes of housing types
Updating the OCP solely to meet these requirements – without addressing structural inconsistencies, outdated references, and long-standing interpretation issues – would have perpetuated the same implementation challenges that have hindered the existing Bylaw 400.
Proceeding with the comprehensive OCP update allows the District to achieve compliance and create a modern, legally defensible framework that supports housing delivery, environmental protection, and climate resilience in a unified way.
This comprehensive approach fulfills all legislative requirements while reinforcing Sooke’s vision of a compact, connected, and sustainable community. It provides Council with a single, modern OCP – one that integrates provincial housing obligations, environmental stewardship, and local priorities into a unified and implementable framework, avoiding the risks of piecemeal amendments or interim policy fixes.
Development Permit Area Framework
A key focus of the OCP review has been modernizing the Development Permit Area (DPA) framework to improve clarity, legal defensibility, and administrative efficiency. The updated OCP establishes nine DPAs that address environmental protection, energy and water conservation, and the form and character of new development.
Under OCP Bylaw 400 (2010), only three broad DPAs were designated. These covered wide objectives with limited guidance, leading to interpretation gaps, inconsistent application, and uncertainty for both staff and applicants.
The new framework corrects these issues by providing clear intent statements, defined boundaries, plain-language objectives, and well-structured exemptions, ensuring stronger alignment with Section 488 of the Local Government Act.
A single Development Permit (DP) application will continue to apply, even when multiple DPAs overlap. Staff and applicants simply confirm that designs or environmental management plans meet all applicable guidelines or qualify for exemptions. This structure promotes a more transparent, consistent, and efficient review process without adding procedural burden.
By expanding the number of DPAs while refining their scope and clarity, the District has improved predictability, accountability, and confidence in implementation. The framework better reflects community values, provides clear expectations for applicants, and supports staff in delivering consistent, legally sound permitting decisions.
DPA 1 – Energy and Water Conservation / GHG Reduction
Legal advice: staff confirmed that municipalities cannot regulate or require the use of specific building materials, internal systems, or components covered by the BC Building Code through Development Permits.
Accordingly, all references to internal building materials or embodied-carbon metrics
were removed. The focus has shifted toward building siting, orientation, landscaping, and exterior design — aspects that directly influence energy performance and are clearly within local jurisdiction.
To preserve the District’s climate leadership role, an “informational guidance” note was added to encourage voluntary best practices in lifecycle carbon accounting and GHG reduction. This guidance is explicitly non-regulatory; a Development Permit cannot be refused on this basis. This approach balances statutory compliance with continued
climate action ambition.
DPA 3 – Foreshore Area
The revised DPA 3 now applies only to land‐altering activities within roughly 15 metres of the natural boundary of the sea that could affect slope stability, drainage, or shoreline habitat.
The intent statement has been rewritten in plain language to clarify that the DPA’s purpose is to protect environmental and geotechnical stability – not to regulate routine property maintenance.
Activities such as gardening, lawn care, pruning, invasive‐species removal, and hazardous‐tree work are explicitly exempt when completed in a way that maintains slope and shoreline integrity.
Existing single‐family dwellings are not affected, and foreshore property owners can continue normal use and maintenance. Only new or substantial development involving land alteration within the buffer may require a permit.
A proportionate approach applies ~ minor works, such as removal of a single hazardous tree, may be supported through a brief memo from a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) or Arborist, while larger projects – such as shoreline stabilization or retaining wall construction – require more detailed professional input.
The 15‐metre buffer functions as a guideline rather than a fixed limit, allowing site‐specific adjustments where a QEP or geotechnical professional confirms that stability and habitat values are maintained. The updated guidelines also clarify coordination with archaeological assessments, DFO authorizations, and other regulatory approvals.
Collectively, these refinements make DPA 3 a clear, balanced, and defensible tool that safeguards shoreline ecosystems and public safety while maintaining practical flexibility for landowners.
Structure, Clarity & Accessibility
- The updated OCP improves clarity, tone, and usability while maintaining the overall structure and policy direction established through earlier engagement.
- Prescriptive or technical language has been softened to guide decision-making and avoid unintended regulatory barriers.
- Development Permit Area guidelines now clearly distinguish between requirements and encouraged best practices
- Housing policies more directly support small-scale multi-unit and infill development in alignment with Bill 44.
- Supportive language around housing diversity and affordability ensures the plan reflects both community values and emerging provincial priorities.
- The two previous Town Centre DPAs (“Core” and “Waterfront”) have been consolidated into a single, unified DPA. This reduces duplication and provides one set of form and character guidelines for the Town Centre, Sooke’s primary growth area.
- New images, infographics, and updated statistics enhance readability and engagement
without altering policy intent.
- Following adoption, an updated OCP webpage will make the document easier to navigate by topic, such as DPAs, growth management, or land use designations – consistent with modern municipal best practices.
These improvements ensure the OCP is visually clear, accessible, and user-friendly for residents, applicants, and staff, reflecting the District’s commitment to transparency and continuous improvement in communicating planning information.
Implementation and Costing
- Implementation will occur gradually through Council’s Strategic Plan, Five-Year Financial Plan, and annual work programs.
- Each action will be advanced as resources, grant opportunities, and Council priorities allow.
- In this way, the OCP serves as a “roadmap” toward community goals such as achieving net-zero emissions, expanding housing diversity, and improving mobility – recognizing that progress will occur incrementally over the 25-year horizon.
- Public questions about cost were addressed directly: adoption of the OCP does not create new or immediate financial obligations. The plan functions as a strategic framework that informs budgeting and helps prioritize actions when funding or capacity becomes available.
- Some policies, such as promoting net-zero buildings or low-carbon infrastructure, are aspirational, setting a direction consistent with the Climate Action Plan (2022) and other master plans. Implementation will depend on evolving technology, resources, and partnerships.
- By maintaining this forward-looking but flexible approach, the OCP provides clear direction without adding fiscal pressure, allowing the District to advance its long-term vision responsibly within Council’s established means and priorities.
Alignment with Council Direction and Community Values
- The updated OCP strikes a balance between long-term community vision and day-to- day practicality, ensuring Sooke remains both a desirable place to live and a community that welcomes responsible investment.
- Looking ahead to 2050, the plan emphasizes compact growth, environmental protection, and climate resilience while maintaining a predictable and supportive development environment.
- Throughout its evolution, the OCP has upheld its core vision of managing growth efficiently, protecting natural assets and rural character, and advancing a transition toward a low-carbon future.
- Refinements made through the Phase I and II processes strengthen this vision and improve clarity for applicants, residents, and staff – guiding development without adding unnecessary procedural or financial barriers.
- The OCP recognizes that public interest is multifaceted: protecting the environment, improving housing choice, and supporting economic opportunity are interdependent goals.
- A well-planned community requires both strong environmental standards and a transparent, consistent development review process. The updated plan achieves this through clear policies and proportionate regulatory tools, such as refined DPA guidelines and exemptions, that maintain environmental integrity while providing confidence and predictability for applicants.
- In this way, Sooke remains “open for business” in alignment with community expectations. The OCP balances aspirational vision with practical implementation, ensuring growth contributes to, rather than conflicts with, Sooke’s environmental and social values.
- It is a forward-thinking yet grounded plan that reflects community input, supports sustainable development and responsible fiscal management, and fosters an investment climate that is both welcoming and well-defined.
Final Frame Public Engagement
- Public feedback expressed general support for the revised OCP. Residents emphasized the importance of environmental protection, greenspace access, and compact growth centred on the Town Centre, while encouraging implementation that remains fiscally responsible.
- Feedback from the development community was more mixed, focusing on potential implications for housing delivery and interpretation of certain policies. However, input was detailed and constructive. Staff met with development representatives, provided written clarifications, and incorporated appropriate refinements into the Phase II red-line version now before Council.
Next Steps and Legislative Procedure
- Because OCP Bylaw No. 800 has been substantially amended since its original readings in 2022, staff recommend that Council rescind the previous second reading and re-read the bylaw as amended prior to scheduling a new Public Hearing.
- This approach ensures that the version before Council is the clean, consolidated bylaw, reflecting all refinements made through the 2025 engagement process, technical review, and legislative updates under Bill 44.
Conclusion
- The revised Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800 is the culmination of five years of community dialogue, technical work, and Council direction.
- The two phases of red-line updates demonstrate a methodical, transparent approach to policy development, balancing public feedback with legal and legislative requirements.
- The document before Council now provides a clear, forward-looking, and implementable framework for managing Sooke’s growth to 2050.
- Giving second reading (as amended) will enable the District to move confidently toward Public Hearing and final adoption before year-end, ensuring a modern, legally sound, and community-supported plan for Sooke’s future."
Further Reading
Foundations
- District's OCP home page
- District's Let's Talk OCP micro-site
From this blog
* Patience and Process: Back to the OCP (June 18, 2023)
* OCP Public Hearing Preview (Sept. 27, 2022)
* Next Step for the Official Community Plan (Sept. 7, 2022)
* 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)
OCP Advisory Committee's six-point summary of the final draft document
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.
Minutes from the Sept. 27, 2022 OCP Public Hearing
"Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022: The Mayor provided an overview of the proceedings for the meeting and reviewed the steps that have led to the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022, arriving at this public hearing.
Public Input (35 speakers):
- William Wallace, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, specifically supporting the protection of parks and agricultural lands.
- Alan Dolan, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, acknowledging the importance of development, and the need to improve safe pedestrian connectivity, noting that resistance to the approval of the OCP seemingly comes from those reluctant to view the effect of climate change.
- Susan Clarke, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of encouraging the approval of the OCP to assist the future Council with solid steps towards a commitment to action climate change initiatives.
- Kief Elliott, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour noting that he participated in most of the engagement opportunities and advised that bylaws would be reviewed to harmonize with the OCP once adopted, providing additional opportunities for discussion and debate on the effects of individual issues.
- Malcolm McNaughton, a Langford resident, spoke in opposition as the document is missing feasibility and cost impacts, suggesting that further analysis and consultation are required in advance of approval.
- Patrick Marsden, a Saanich resident, spoke in opposition as the bylaw will negatively impact the building and development community.
- Lily Ma-Sen, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour offering appreciation for the committees' work on the document and supporting the land use policies, as they will encourage town core growth.
- Keith Rimstad, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour suggesting there are details that can be finalized once a guide has been created and that no plan will address all concerns for the community.
- Chris Moss, an Otter Point resident, spoke in favour advising that no one document can accurately predict or plan the future and that the guidelines included in the current version are more than adequate to support the community.
- Michael Thorton, a developer in the community, spoke in opposition to the bylaw, specifically the financial impacts on developers.
- Roland Alcock, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of providing support for adoption as the plan displays a commitment to climate change mitigation and addressing transportation challenges.
- Brian Butler, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition to restrictive land use designations, impacts on development, and a requirement for further consultation.
- Susan Belford, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour of supporting the culmination and careful consultation undertaken with a broad spectrum of the community, the clear and concise policies, advising that the OCP needs to be for the people who live in the community, not just those who build in it.
- Jeff Zigay, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition citing concerns related to the lack of cost impact estimates associated with implementation and the lack of current town core development, even though the previous OCP also encouraged core growth.
- Karine Bordua, a Langford resident, spoke in opposition to the costs associated with the implementation of the plan and concerns with several areas which seemingly limit resiliency.
- Doug Bexson, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition as the document goes beyond guidance offering limited flexibility through prohibiting language.
- Gisela Kumar, a Sooke resident (via written submission read aloud by Ellen Lewers), expressed opposition as the community does not require an increase in high-density housing but rather should encourage residents to consider limiting their impact on the area.
- Ellen Lewers, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition encouraging reduced development to maintain a small-town appeal.
- Steve Anderson, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting public engagement was not adequate and the plan is an unbalanced representation of the community’s vision.
- Ramsay Milne, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, citing difficulty in the general understanding of language utilized in the document and the associated delays and cost impacts of the proposed Development Permit process.
- Rob Anderson, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, reiterating previous comments and concerns about the consequences associated with the proposed policies.
- Ryan Chamberland, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting a delay in approval and reinvesting in conversations with the community on the plan.
- Herb Haldane, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, stating that the document is idealistic and radical, and will create divisiveness.
- Mick Rhodes, an Otter Point resident, spoke in opposition, noting there is no mention of waterfront access.
- Helen Ritts, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, providing an overview of the comprehensive public engagement undertaken by the committee, consultants, and staff, to ensure community voices were heard and encouraged Council to move the plan forward.
- Jay Ryan, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, citing the lack of quality consultation due to the pandemic.
- Scot Taylor, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting additional public input be undertaken in advance of approval and that there was not enough consultation with the First Nations.
- Dave Saunders, a Colwood resident, spoke in opposition, with concerns about density and that the unintended consequences of implementing this plan should be examined.
- Don Brown, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, stating that implementation will mean applying rules rather than principles and as they are written will create an adversarial process rather than a collaborative approach.
- Eliane Hamel, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, with concerns with the consultation being undertaken during the pandemic, and questioned the deliverables and cost impacts.
- Anna Russell, an Otter Point resident, spoke in favour, noting that the current OCP does not meet the needs of the community and a new plan is required.
- Robin Holm, a Sooke resident, spoke in favour, supporting the new plan and advising that changes can be made along the way if required, it's not set in stone.
- Cindy Ross, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting additional consultation is required and expressing concerns with Development Permit Areas.
- Natalia Saddington, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition highlighting the cost impacts associated with the heavy climate action initiatives.
- Lorraine Pawlivsky-Love, a Sooke resident, spoke in opposition suggesting further community consultation and cautioned rushing to the adoption with a divide in the community."
Council Discussion
* Clarity regarding cost impacts associated with climate goals and proposed initiatives.
* The Master Plans, adopted by Council and in use for planning the community, are in place and utilized for projects such as traffic and parks.
* Concern that the OCP is a significantly large document with a multitude of layers, which is not easily read cover to cover, and that this has led to some confusion among readers.
* Desire to conduct further engagement with enhanced communication to the public, to ensure all affected parties are afforded the opportunity to fully discuss the impacts and enhancements the document contains.
& Reminder that the OCP is a visionary document, and the removal of the Development Permit Areas (DPA) will not be a quality revision worth consideration.
* Concerns with the financial impacts of implementation are unknown.
* More time is needed to provide education on the development processes, to ensure everyone fully understands the requirements and associated outcomes.
* Appreciation was offered to the members of the public who attended and provided their comments.
2022-267
MOVED by Councillor Al Beddows, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT Council close the public hearing and do not consider 3rd reading of the bylaw; AND THAT the bylaw, public input, and minutes from all meetings will be presented to the new Council for their consideration.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, Councillor Tony St-Pierre, and Councillor Dana Lajeunesse
RSS Feed