Council approved third reading and adoption of Sooke's new Official Community Plan on Monday night with a 4-3 vote: Tait, Beddows, St-Pierre and myself in favour vs. Haldane, McMath and Pearson opposed. The sticking point related to the Development Permit Area Guidelines, not, I think, the document’s vision for our collective future captured in the community policies and actions re: (counting the subject areas in full) transportation, the natural environment, parks & trails, green building, infrastructure, agriculture & food systems, community economic development, arts & culture, housing, recreation & community services, and an equitable community.
Certainly the three in opposition did not openly discuss or share concerns in these areas. Their input and questions focused on the DPAs. So I’m confident a larger majority of us agree with the community vision, policies and recommended actions. [If not Cllr. Haldane, who in the 2022 public hearing minutes is recorded to have called the previous draft "idealistic and radical, and will create divisiveness."]
The split vote was a largely predictable outcome based on earlier comments. It provides one of other meaty campaign issues as the stage is set for the 2026 municipal election 10 short months from now (Oct. 15).
Cllr. Pearson tried to amend the bylaw by moving that the set of three Development Permit Areas from the 2010 OCP be re-instated in lieu of the new guidelines. This amendment was defeated 5-2 (with our two former mayoral candidates, Haldane and Pearson, in favour.) My arguments against focused on the fact that this OCP's fundamental raison d'etre was to deliver clarity and certainty with a new and improved set of DPA guidelines (not hard-and-fast requirements, it must again be stated) that, among much else, encourage best practices for environmental protection -- the #1 expressed community priority in all three of our OCPs over 25 years. [I'm surprised an attempt wasn't made to separate the DPA guidelines for future review and leave instead the DPA designations as required by the Local Government Act.]
Amendments to this new OCP will logically and inevitably follow. (Our two previous plans were tweaked more than two dozen times in total.) This is why I lead the following with a statement about process and the importance of trusting in it. This and future councils can schedule public hearings and make revisions/amendments to Bylaw #800 as they see fit. Viva democracy, still entirely functional and effective even in these hugely (sadly and disturbingly, you surely agree?) polarized times.
I'm reminded of the 2011 election campaign. The 2010 OCP was adopted in the first quarter of that year. Mayor Evans stepped down after three terms, and a new fiscally conservative council led by Mayor Milne was elected. Significant DPA amendments followed in September, 2012. The changes were introduced with all due legislative exactitude and were the right of any Mayor and council making transparent decision to benefit the community.
I know, as do we all, that we live in the age of social media one-liner cut and thrust, where context and the facts are distractions that derail agenda-driven narratives and undercut emotional outrage of the kind we all need to express in one way or another now that punching a pillow isn't sufficient. Flat-out stupidity, misinformation and malevolence is also in the mix too.
This is why i no longer surf Sooke's social media channels, a loss for me since I can’t better track all the good in this community yet still a necessary mental health preservation strategy as I tune out the white noise and stay focused on the rigors of this job.
[Example: Once the OCP was adopted on Monday night, we moved immediately on to a Sooke RCMP presentation that revealed calls for service are up 22% this year – a shocking, sobering number that Council needs to seriously explore, question and address as budget discussions begin next month. The likely 7% or more tax hike question: Does Sooke want a minimal tax increase or sufficient boots-on-ground to ensure community safety? The 2025 budget survey (received Oct. 20, agenda pg. 151-152) revealed that while many in Sooke still feel safe and secure (less so at night), a fifth of respondents are concerned about impacts of crime, drugs and homelessness. Survey data showed that "Fire Rescue, Policing and Emergency Planning received strong support for maintaining readiness as the community grows." We've opted for what we believe are good-parent decisions to date ... and yet (speaking of pre-election strategies) the context-free criticism of our decisions to fund police, fire and asset management continues without reference to any of those needs, just the percentage increase.]
How much easier it is to say, without any document references, that this OCP will be a "nightmare" for Sooke, that "no one is listening" at the District, that the sky will fall and the seventh seal will open for apocalypse now in this community we all love.
That's not my style, however, as I hope I've proven by now. And so onwards with these rather laboured notes i prepared ahead of Monday night. I was trying to craft an overarching statement. Inevitably for me, it became too long and windy in keeping with the gusts blowing in from the Juan de Fuca. As it turned out, I only voiced a few parts of it, reading aloud some sections and ad-libbing others when opportunities arose during council’s two hours of questions and comment. You're welcome to watch the real-time video replay here.
As addendums, I'm attaching the drafts I prepared in response to various continuous issues raised at last week's lively Public Hearing, which consistently echoed what we heard in 2022 (despite all the tweaks, additions and changes in the document this year). I’m also sharing largely direct comments heard at the Public Hearing as I typed them on the night. And, as a reference for what I'm sure will be a continuing debate about the perceived merits and shortfalls of this OCP into 2026, I've added my synopsis of Mr. Riley's staff report, which you'll find in full on pp. 15-29 of Monday's agenda.
All this is too much of a muchness, I know, but I reserve the right to do what I will with this ever-unrolling blog. Wherever you fall on the continuum between happy and not regarding this OCP, I do hope you will continue to do your homework, read the document itself and ask questions (via email to [email protected] with a cc to [email protected]) as informed, engaged, free-thinking and empowered citizens. We need more of you.
Best way to do so is by routinely visiting the archive on the District's Let's Talk, OCP page and by following along with the OCP's implementation, to be guided by council, staff and perhaps also a newly created OCP Monitoring and Implementation Committee as recommended on page 111 of my dog-eared 2010 OCP, bless it and all who cared enough to dedicate immense effort to its creation and execution.
You'll also want to read the District's adoption press release and especially the myth-busting FAQ within it.
Feel free to revisit my own WWF tangles with the OCP these last five years:
* OCP - Picture Sooke: The Final (?) Frame (Oct. 27, 2025)
* 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)
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Notes for an OCP statement - Monday, Dec. 8
Over these last seven years, I have heard repeatedly a singular piece of wisdom about surviving and thriving as an elected official. This has been repeated by workshop speakers at conferences, local government experts hired to lead council workshops and fellow electeds from multiple BC communities. The wisdom, equally applicable to all aspects of this finite human life, is this: Trust the process.
I’m proud to have been part of this necessarily long, legislatively rigorous, unexpectedly bumpy, COVID-impacted and Provincially-elongated (thank you, Bill 44) process that has brought us to tonight. And I confidently trust that it will serve us well for the next five years until the Provincially required review of the document in 2030.
The best intentions for this particular Official Community Plan – the third since incorporation – began almost exactly a decade ago at the council meeting of Dec. 14, 2015 when the first council led by Mayor Tait prioritized a new OCP in the Strategic Plan it introduced that night.
Since then there have been no less than 38 distinct council meetings and Committees of the Whole at which the OCP was an agenda item for three successive councils. Atop this, you can factor in a baker's dozen of OCP Advisory Committee meetings, two open houses and numerous public input opportunities.
It was a wholly transparent, rigorous and (and frankly exhausting) process … extensively publicized and with significant, formally documented council and public participation in 2017, again in 2020/21/22, renewed in spring/summer 2023 (until Bill 44 demanded attention) and finally here in 2025.
Throughout our per-capita participation rate has been (my rough calculation) in the 6 to 7% range … above the average for OCPs in this province. This is direct evidence of the creative and multiple engagement efforts during COVID and its aftermath. All credit to citizen participants responding to the District’s communications out-reach online, via email, print format (wrapped around the front of the Sooke News Mirror) and roadside electronic signage.
If, as some have said, you were unaware all this was going on, well, look in the mirror and be reassured that you’re not alone. Citizen awareness about technical documents like community plans is generally low to moderate -- lower even than municipal voter turnout rates (woe democracy when fewer than four in 10 registered voters, at best and often worse, turn out to elect their municipal governing bodies, but that's the reality of it).
Personally, I'll acknowledge, I don’t believe I ever cracked an OCP in any community I lived in over my first 50+ years while nonetheless appreciating all the basic essentials these plans and the municipal governments that they guided delivered to we fortunate citizens.
First Contact
My first direct experience with the OCP as an elected representative was on Dec. 16, 2019 when then-Manager of Planning Ivy Campbell brought a backgrounder report to council. It addressed issues within the 2010 plan that have “either hindered or made difficult its implementation.” She noted that updates were needed to capture changes in the Local Government Act and to keep pace with the rapid growth of the community overall. First and foremost was the need for Development Permit Areas for environmentally sensitive lands (riparian/foreshore); hazard lands (fire/steep slope/flood); and intensive residential development as well as design guides for areas not included in DPA 1 - Town Centre.
Campbell added that a legal review of the plan was conducted by Lidstone and Company in 2016. She wrote that it confirmed the plan fell short in areas such as the Regional Context Statement, Development Permit Areas and the organization of policies throughout the document. Overall, the needs were ...
* Effective and consistent communication
* An OCP that provides clear & consistent guidance and direction for Council, staff and the development community
* A user-friendly OCP easily understood by the public, applicants, decision makers and staff
I do recall that Councillors in the period 2011-18 were routinely saying that the document was contradictory in its policies and actions, and left too many gray areas open to interpretation (especially in the DPAs).
The Consultants
Council and its new CAO Norm McInnis (who began work in July, 2019) focused on completion of the Transportation and Parks & Trail Master Plans in 2019 so as to follow through on decisions made and processes initiated by the previous council in May 2018 (based on recommendations from a Land Use Committee led by Cllr. Berger and including members Haldane and Clarkston). Staff were also authorized to produce a Sooke Economic Analysis and the provincially mandated Housing Needs Assessment that same year.
Nine BC consultancy firms (none from Sooke) responded to the Request for Proposals to develop this new OCP. In June, 2020, we approved the staff recommendation of DIALOG … a respected, highly professional, "multi-disciplinary" firm with offices in Vancouver and Victoria. It had completed numerous OCPs and other community planning documents – Campbell River, Ladysmith, White Rock, North Cowichan, Tofino and Abbotsford included. Senior Planner Katherine Lesyshen had recently worked on the Colwood OCP with the project lead and others on a diverse team of specialists – the transportation planner and the GIS (Geographic Information Specialist) expert included. Council agreed it was a good fit and awarded the $200k project budget to DIALOG.
Council Engagement
Those (as Cllr. Haldane contended the other night) who state that this and the last council have not had a direct hand in shaping this document are simply wrong. In fact, we were involved from the get-go, i.e. our first meeting with DIALOG staff, in the open at a Committee of the Whole workshop on July 28, 2020. Each of us on council were presented with a series of pre-prepared questions circulated beforehand, and each replied in turn in conversation with project lead Jennifer Fix. [My comments, expressed through an ill-fitting mask, are reproduced in the latter half of this Aug. 5, 2020 blog entry.]
A week later we selected the OCP Advisory Committee and appointed Councillor Beddows as our council liaison. Thereafter at public meetings we received a series of substantial engagement summaries, backgrounders and technical reports (all available at the Let’s Talk, OCP website) and Advisory Committee meeting minutes. Each time we had the opportunity to provide constructive input and various of us took it up to varying degrees. [Dates: Sept. 28, 2020; May 10, July 12 and Dec. 13, 2021; March 20, March 28, April 11, May 16, June 15, June 27 and July 19, 2022; April 11, June 19 and July 10, 2023; Oct. 14, Oct. 27, Nov. 6 and Nov. 10, 2025.]
More to the point, we as a council recognized that this Community Plan is not nor should be our creation but rather a product of the community, or more precisely that part of it that was paying attention and chose to accept one or more of invitations across multiple channels to participate (often virtually given COVID restrictions, an unanticipated reality met with creativity and persistence). This input from all ages (spanning John Muir Elementary to Ayre Manor) was crunched in Zoom meetings by the OCP Advisory Committee, staff and the consultants, then melded with local government best practices in BC. [Phrase du jour then as less-so now: "You're muted"]
Importantly, the resultant drafts of the emergent plan also captured and maintained the themes of the current OCP, the 2001 version and CRD area plans before them -- environmental stewardship, Sooke Smart Growth town planning, T'Sou-ke reconciliation and complete-community live/work/play aspirations included.
Public Participation
As the Phase 1, Phase 2 and 2025 reports demonstrate along with the thick correspondence packages, an active minority – with views and options both pro and con and all points in between -- did participate. As noted, OCPs are infamous for drawing modest citizen involvement. Just 0.3% of the City of Vancouver’s population contributed to its latest Official Development Plan, for instance. Approx. 1,500 from the City of Langford’s 58k population took part in its latest OCP; its OCP open house in fall 2004 drew 85 attendees. Ours this last September attracted 103. Langford’s population is 3x our size.
Some have rose-coloured memories of an eager community coming out in force and shaping earlier plans. Interesting to read the 2001 OCP, however, and learn that 160 people in total attended two related open houses and two workshops. Our population at the time was 8,735, so that’s a participation rate of about 2 percent. A three-times higher rate this time is proof that hiring the District’s first communications coordinator in 2020 was a significant plus for local democratic engagement. [Context: According to an Ipsos poll cited in this University of Calgary School of Public Policy report, just one in five Canadians have ever participated in a community engagement opportunity.]
Broad Community Input
We hear repeatedly that this OCP involved “2,000 touchpoints,” i.e. distinct individual participants. Yet the consultation was more than a numbers game, it involved direct involvement with the following groups and organizations (partial list; a broad range of Sooke groups were invited, not all participated) either one-on-one (T'Sou-ke, SD #62) or in workshop sessions.
- T’Sou-ke Nation
- SD #62
- Capital Regional District
- BC Transit
* Chamber of Commerce
* Rotary Club
- Sooke development community
* Victoria Residential Builders Association
* Ayre Manor
* Island Health
* Sooke Elderly Citizens Society
* Sooke Fine Arts Society
* Sooke Region Communities Health Network
* Transition Sooke
* Sooke Region Museum
* Sooke Shelter Society
* Edward Milne Community School
* Sooke Garden Club
* Juan de Fuca Community Trails Society
* Sooke Bike Club
Quoting from the Phase 2 Engagement Report on the March 21, 2021 meeting with the T'Sou-ke: "The discussions included feedback from the First Nation advocating for environmental protections and food sovereignty and security by protecting our shared resources, including the harbour and all waterways, respect for wildlife, and through protection of forestlands. Specific concern was shared regarding continued shoreline development with proliferation of docks and marinas. There was strong support for sewer expansion into the Kaltasin neighbourhood, with preference for Growth Scenario C, citing both harbour health and economic co-benefits for T’Sou-ke and the District. In creating stronger relationships with the District, T’Sou-ke would like to be involved with acknowledging the shared territory through education and signage, and also indicated the importance of reconciliation being acknowledged as part of this community plan."
And, in that same report, from the Development Community workshop attended by 17 builder/developers that same spring: "The development community described challenges with the existing OCP, including challenges with implementation and misalignment with the Zoning Bylaw 600. They felt that the development process is unclear, and should be clarified. Although some wished that timelines could be faster, participants acknowledged the challenges of the District staff’s high workload and limited personnel and the need for a comprehensive review of application materials. Additionally, participants expressed that their goal is to develop properties and housing that people enjoy, with consideration given to the environment. Some noted that the OCP should not respond to current housing preferences, but should consider future needs. Developers noted that there is sometimes misalignment between policy, their design, and community preferences."
OCP Advisory Committee
There were 13 OCP Advisory Committee Meetings between Sept. 2020 and Nov. 2021. I’d like to formally again thank the participants for their service: Chair Helen Ritts, Councillor Al Beddows, Norm Amirault, Terry Cristall, Steve Grundy, Ellen Lewers, Linda MacMillan and Siomonn Pulla.
These people are not lightweights. They are respected members of this community for various good reasons. Each brought a wealth of diverse experience and expertise. Council selected them from a stack of applications based on requirements of the OCP Terms of Reference.
When it came time to approve the document, they voted 6 to 1 to move it forward to council … the one vote against registered by Mrs. Lewers – and so be it, that’s the wonder and joy of democracy. Everyone can do their best to work towards a consensus decision and yet the system has been custom-made to allow dissent without throwing critical community documents and decisions like the OCP off the rails.
I’d like to again quote the six recurring themes the OCP Advisory Committee heard from the public …
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 themes are a framework over the short and longer terms. The same six remain at the forefront today, and all require patient action and advocacy as we responsibly navigate the economic cycles, the recessions and future good times, which in turn will again evolve ever onwards. This imperfect (as they always are) OCP provides essential foundational guidance for the community no matter its flaws (which, in my opinion, are minor and amendable).
Closing Statements
To quote the staff report, the 2025 OCP is a substantially updated and modernized plan. It has been revised significantly in response to public and stakeholder input since 2022 and is now ready for primetime (IMO).
I will argue that Council made a wise and prudent unanimous decision not to approve a rather more imperfect document in 2022. We knew it was, at best, 90% of the way there. We’d heard at the public hearing that September that the DPAs were causing confusion and anger despite the best intentions. It used too much prescriptive, “thou shalt” language. It lacked clarity and required refinement. And so we left it to the next council to move forward with the plan as they (largely we, as it turned out) determined.
I’ve known all along that the DPAs would be the primary sticking point. For a while earlier this year I believed it would be logical to remove them from the main document and revisit after adoption. And yet I had several Damascus moments this year as I read the staff revisions and rationales for their changes to Part 7 (DPAs).
1. The first and second red-line edits done by the District’s planning staff in response to the feedback in 2022/23 and this year; and 2. Especially the exchange, focused largely on the DPAs, between the Sooke Builders Association and Mr. Riley captured in the What We Heard report presented to council on Oct. 14.
I’ve asked repeatedly that those providing feedback and critiques do so with exact page and paragraph references. Instead, there has been, up to and including last week’s Public Hearing, an immense amount of generalized feedback that captured the emotional tone of people’s beliefs, but not the black-and-white content of the OCP itself.
The SBA, which represents a significant share of the building/development sector locally, heeded the call with a detailed critique It itemized its long-standing gripes with chapter-and-verse references to the draft OCP. Mr. Riley responded with precise, clearly communicated responses that expressed a willingness to modify the plan accordingly and as possible.
As a result of this exchange and other input, the Development Permit Area guidelines have been carefully revised in delivering “clarity, usability and legal defensibility” as per the staff report of Oct. 27 (see agenda, pp. 497-506). This report provides a thorough look at all changes to the OCP, the lion’s share of them focused on the DPAs.
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.
The DPAs provide, to quote the staff report, “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.”
What's needed next as the document is road tested ...
Regular updates, monitoring and continued public participation are essential to ensure the OCP remains relevant and effective for Sooke’s residents. We absolutely need an OCP Implementation and Monitoring Committee, a recommendation in the 2010 plan (pg. 111) never enacted (though council and various committees, Land Use and Development in particular, did do this monitoring and made amendments as deemed necessary).
My crystal ball tells me this and future councils will want to consider ...
- Prioritization of short-term action items listed in Part 6 - Implementation Plan
- Amendments in response to gaps and problem areas discovered during application of the DPAs
- Closer look at further clarifications to DPA #3 - Foreshore Area
- Creating Major and Minor Developments Permit distinctions as is done in Sidney and elsewhere
- Complete the inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
- Address claims that the DPAs have created a de facto tree bylaw
- Consider the establishment of Special Study Area for the agricultural land west of Gatewood
- Master Plan updates to align with the OCP – this includes eliminating the aspirational dotted-line trail around the harbour and zooming in on the town centre section where an offshore boardwalk extension is entirely possible; it is indicated in red on Map 2, pg. 19 of the Parks & Trails Master Plan. The disclaimer on this page reads: "This map is for illustrative purposes only. The District of Sooke does not condone the use of trails on private property. Future trails shown on current private land will be planned as and when development occurs."
- At the same time, continue the policy of acquiring, through fair negotiation, 5m rights of way when possible during rezoning of future major (not single family) waterfront projects.
If you don’t like this Plan or its impacts, then there are remedies …
1. As the 2024 Development Procedures Bylaw #900 states clearly (pg. 16), if an applicant doesn’t agree with a staff decision on a DP application or any other matter, they are welcome to file notice within 30 days and ask that Council weigh in directly at an open meeting.
2. Per the Local Government Act, section 584, take your complaints to a higher authority: Ministerial override orders in the public interest. <clip> “If the Minister considers that all or part of the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of British Columbia, then he/she/they can order alterations ,,, this applies to OCPs, zoning bylaw, Development Approval Information Requirements, Development Permits, Temporary Use Permits, etc."
3. The 2026 municipal election will soon be upon us (Oct. 15). Vote for candidates with a worldview that reflects and supports your own. With majority will, they can amend this OCP as legislation allows.
(Interestingly, as I said earlier, a new council and Mayor came to power in 2011, a year after adoption of the current OCP. Sure enough, on Oct. 12, 2012, the same night Council ordered a new Zoning Bylaw, significant OCP text amendments were introduced via Bylaw #548 re: DPA exemptions for townhouses and cluster units in lands zoned Multi-Family Residential, Comprehensive Development, Mixed Use and Town Centre Commercial. As far as I can tell, this opened the door for local housing development without strong municipal oversight.)
All this said ...
As difficult and extended as its birth has been, I think this document does accurately and largely reflect this community’s goals and aspirations. Its themes and overall direction are entirely consistent with the previous two OCPs and Area Plans before them. The DPAs alone have been the quicksand trap where lack of information (and clarity in the 2022 language) has generated fears. But overall, to quote the vision statement on pg. 40: “We are a caring community where people and the environment are treated with dignity and respect.” That is still a commonly held belief for all of #Sooke, I hope/trust/know.
I thought I might grow tired of the pithy “Small Town With A Big Heart” vision statement, but no, I have not. We remain a small town with a big heart entirely as it should be for a bona fide Compassionate Community. It’s evident in the work of so many volunteers and community organizations who've done the heavy lifting week in/out for many years. What a great t-shirt slogan and rallying cry to affirm the values of long-time residents and by which to welcome newcomers and greet the intended growing number of tourists.
We are privileged to live in one of the most desirable, beautiful and remarkable places on the earth. So I count my blessings, recognize that nothing is ever perfect, and likely unsurprising by now, vote for adoption.
Addendum
1. Other Issues Raised In OCP Feedback
Procedural Fairness
Mr. Clarkston produced a series of submissions this year as in 2022. One claim, taken up and repeated by others, is that waterfront landowners were not given fair notice. With all due respect, this group is one of many in our town of 17,128 (summer 2025 estimate) residents. Starting in 2020, the District has necessarily sent notifications to the entire community that the OCP review was underway. These were circulated via all available mediums, and, in turn, triggered word-of-mouth sharing (via chain emails to some degree) as is the norm in all communities. Among recent District efforts, one page of the four-page flyer included with all tax notifications sent in May focused on the 2025 restart of the OCP. There is a point where citizens must be proactive and many have been.
The DPA waterfront issues raised this year were also heard in 2022 (thanks again to the widely distributed emails of Mr. Clarkston, acting independently and rightfully exercising his own democratic rights). He's not alone in asking questions about fairness in public engagement. It's raised frequently enough across the province, in fact, that the BC Ombudsperson released the Fairness In Practice guide for local governments in 2023.
Public participation rights are explored on pp. 15-16. By this measure, I believe the District has followed best practices throughout.
<clip> "A fair process is one where reasonable notice of the decision being made is provided, along with sufficient time for the person to gather information and evidence and prepare a response. Decision makers should also consider whether there are any circumstances or factors that could affect a person’s ability to make a submission or provide a response. In these circumstances, decision makers should make appropriate allowances – for example, provide an extension, where appropriate .... [yes, to say the least, we have given this process time for reflection and further rounds of input, entirely appropriately given the hiccups caused by COVID and Bill 44] ... Persons must have a fair opportunity to present their case, to challenge or correct the facts that the decision maker is relying on, and to provide alternative or contrary information in support of their position. A person affected by a decision should have an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way before a final decision is made."
Density
The draft OCP allows a maximum of 70 units/ha. throughout the Community Residential (sewer-serviced) land use designation. All single lots within this area are restricted to an optional maximum of four units per lot as per the Province’s Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing guidelines. The OCP states this explicitly on page 63. The current zoning as quoted a few paragraphs below allows up to 90 units/hectare in the town centre and varying significant maximum numbers in other zones.
To be clear: The market does not determine density, the District does through its zoning bylaws, the next of which is to be undertaken in 2026. Future pre-zoning, if this is determined by council to be the way forward, will allow the District to identify where these relatively rare 70 unit/maximums would be allowed, certainly only at strategic and logical spots along major corridors.
Current Zoning Bylaw #600 allows ...
- Six storeys – RM5 - Town Centre Apartment Zone
- Four storeys – RM6 – Town Centre Townhouse Zone
- Principal Buildings: Three storeys up to a maximum height of 10 m except for properties fronting Lincroft Road, Goodmere Road, Otter Point Road and Church Road, where the height may be increased to four storeys up to a maximum height of 13 m.
Maximum densities allowed under the current Zoning Bylaw #600 (2013) ...
- Low Density Multi-Family RM1 allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/ha;
- Medium Density Multi-Family RM2 – 50 units/ha;
- High Density Multi-Family (town centre) RM3 – 70 units/ha;
- High Density Multi-Family (town centre) RM4 – 90 units/ha.
Land Use Designations in new OCP dictate …
- Community Residential (i.e. sewer zone) – 3 storeys (max. 70 units per hectare)
- Gateway Residential – 3 storeys (quarter hectare minimum lot size)
- Rural Residential – 3 storeys (4-hectare minimum lot size)
- Town Centre Core – up to 6 storeys (Maximum 2.5 FAR density)
- Town Centre Waterfront – up to 4 storeys east of Ed Mac, 3 storeys west of it, 6 storeys on Brownsey Blvd. (Maximum 2.0 FAR)
- Transitional Residential – 3-4 storeys (2.0 FAR)
- Employment Lands
- Agriculture
- Park
- Comprehensive Development (flexible, innovative development options)
If I have done my math correctly, there are 6,164 housing lots in the District as of 2024 ...
- 3,274 of them are exempt from SSMUH regulations – 55% of them
- 2,890 do meet these regulations in the sewer-specified zone and can add up to 4 units
- 650 homes in Sunriver do not qualify for SSMUH
- therefore 2,241 lots in Sooke can optionally host 4 units … or about 30 percent of all lots
SSMUH legislation allows:
1. The main dwelling
2. Secondary Suite
3. Accessory Dwelling Unit – Small Suite
4. Extra building
There is no obligation to build a multi-unit home on a single-family lot where water and sewage is available. This remains a choice of the homeowner or developer responding to market needs. All zones in Sooke permit a secondary suite and/or accessory dwelling less than 90m squared (968 sq. feet). Key regulations:
* Maximum Size: An ADU is typically limited to a maximum floor space of 90 m² (968 sq. ft.).
* Percentage of Principal Dwelling: The ADU's floor area often cannot exceed 40% of the habitable floor space of the main house, whichever is less.
* Type of ADU: The rules can vary slightly between a secondary suite (located within the main dwelling) and a detached suite/carriage house.
* One Per Lot: Only one ADU (either a secondary suite or a detached suite) is generally permitted per legal lot with a single-family dwelling.
FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
Professional developers and planning departments understand this zoning tool as it is commonly used in many municipalities and urban centres.
Explainer here. Example: "Maximum 2.0 Floor Area Ratio" (FAR) is a zoning regulation that limits the total floor area a building can have to be no more than two times the area of the land (plot) it is built on. This regulation provides flexibility in how the building is designed vertically and horizontally, as long as the total floor area limit is not exceeded.
For a 10,000 sq ft lot with a 2.0 FAR, you could build:
* A two-story building that covers the entire 10,000 sq ft footprint of the lot (10,000 sq ft/floor x 2 floors = 20,000 sq ft total).
* A four-story building that covers only 5,000 sq ft of the lot's footprint (5,000 sq ft/floor x 4 floors = 20,000 sq ft total).
* Any other combination that results in a total of 20,000 square feet of floor space or less.
The final building size is also typically shaped by other zoning rules, such as maximum height limits, setbacks, and lot coverage requirements, which dictate how much of the actual ground the building can cover."
District Sewer Capacity
The wastewater treatment plant expansion was completed in May, 2024. It adds 50% additional daily capacity (from 3k to 4.5k cubic meters); the plant is designed for a future additional expansion of 1.5k cubic meters.
Transportation System and Alternate Route to #14
A borrowing referendum is on track for Oct. 15, 2026 to potentially fund the eastern half of the
Grant/Throup/Phillips connector route. (Full details to follow in 2026 well ahead of voting day.) The District continues to work closely with MOTT on Highway 14 improvements.
The OCP necessarily focuses on transportation infrastructure over which the District has direct responsibility.
Action 7 (pg. 157) states: “Update the existing MOU with the Ministry of Transportation to realized shared multi-modal objectives for Highway 14, the Grant Road Connector and associated municipal streets.” [In answer to my question the other week, staff noted that the current MOU provides a framework for the ongoing relationship with MOTT and that an amendment is planned for 2026/27.]
This council has advocated strongly for phased improvements to Hwy 14 in light of MOTI’s dismissal of alternate routes in its various corridor studies on the grounds of cost and watershed impacts. The Idlemore and Charters road intersections are next on MOTT's work list along with planning for right-turn lanes at Phillips, Charters and Church and sidewalk extension along the West Coast Road to Whiffin Spit Rd.
As the TMP states (pg. 44), “the planned improvements identified in the TMP align with and would not preclude the long-term pursuit of a secondary access and alternative to Highway 14.” At the moment, Sooke is dealing with internal and incoming (PM rush) traffic issues. Signalization at Idlemore and Charters is to be expected in the next two years. We also can anticipate $50m action on one-half-of-a-bypass if the community so votes with a suitable majority.
First Nations Territorial Acknowledgement
One speaker raised fears about potential legal implications of territorial land acknowledgements in the wake of the Cowichan Tribes decision (about which I have compiled links in my 2025 BC legislation tracker.) In brief: The BC government and others are appealing on the grounds that private property ownership is sacrosanct. The resultant legal process will take many years. Private property rights remain entirely valid under the BC Land Titles Act. No question this is a complicated matter that will take time to resolve. In the meantime, current fears are stoked by the fringe One BC party and its vocal supporters.
As commonly understood, territorial acknowledgements are ceremonial, non-binding statements of respect. The land acknowledgement in the OCP (pg. 3) reads: "The District of Sooke makes this land acknowledgment to raise awareness of ongoing Indigenous presence and land rights in the territory that includes and encompasses Sooke. It invites us, a local government, to reflect on how colonial processes are ongoing – and from which we have benefited – as well as the changes we must make to honour the Indigenous peoples and their lands that we inhabit.”
The OCP references the Te’mexw Treaty Association, a non-profit society formed of five Coast Salish Nations - Beecher Bay (Sc’ianew), Malahat, Snaw-Naw-As, Songhees and T’Sou-ke. They are collaborating to negotiate five Nation-specific modern treaties with the federal and provincial governments. See pg. 15 of this public report released last year for T'Sou-ke proposed treaty lands, namely parcels at Sooke Mountain Provincial Park and Broom Hill crown lands along with small tracts in Otter Point and at French Beach. No privately held or District-owned land in Sooke is involved.
Te’mexw Nations explain their relationship to the Douglas Treaties here. ("James Douglas had the leaders sign blank papers and had the text of the Treaties written in after the fact ... he provided a few material goods (mostly cash, clothing and blankets.") It has been repeatedly argued over the years that the Douglas Treaty area is indeed unceded territory (or land that has never been surrendered historically.) The District of Sooke and the Sooke School District acknowledge this. Perspective from the BC Treaty Commission here.
Richmond, Port Coquitlam and Surrey councils do not offer territorial acknowledges due to ongoing treaty land disputes (see Richmond example.) West Vancouver opted in 2022 to print the acknowledgement on all public meeting documents rather than voice it aloud.
United Nations Agenda 2030
One speaker stated, in as many words, that the OCP is in thrall to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Enacted unanimously by all 193 member nations in 2015, it is the source of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ~ a set of 169 targets that are the core of the agenda, covering social, economic, and environmental dimensions of development. The SDGs are utilized as a benchmark checklist in many contexts, including as a framework for the Victoria Foundation’s annual Vital Signs surveys. Canada's federal government tracks its commitments here (latest update, Oct. 2025). Google AI tells me that the SDGs are embedded in local government planning documents in Winnipeg, Kitchener, Kelowna, Fort St. John, Victoria, London, Peterborough and Quebec City.
The Sustainable Development Goals are not referenced in the Sooke OCP. (The word "sustainable" is cited 22 times in the document. "Development" is mentioned 411 times and "goals" 68 times.)
The UN 2030 conspiracy theory identifies a plot to establish a single world government, abolish private property, depopulate the planet, implement mass surveillance and destroy traditional western family values through woke ideology. You'll have seen reference to it on the Barry Marine sign. In a quaint and old-fashioned word when blunter terms are appropriate: Poppycock.
Climate Change
I reject climate arguments made at the public hearing (by one speaker) out of hand, especially given the reference to recent data from a US Environmental Protection Agency stripped bare of climate science by the rogue Trump administration, i.e. all EPA statements that climate change is directly impacted by human activity have been removed.
Here in Sooke, the fact that a significant portion of Charters Road disintegrated in the Nov. 2021 atmospheric river -- which in turn accelerated a necessary $7.5m rebuild of that road -- is as much local evidence as I need to conclude that climate impacts are real, expensive and sure to continue. (The Old Man Lake wildfire (human-caused, granted, but extended drought caused it to spread) and recent flooding along Sooke Road in last week's deluge - which, in turn, has sped this year's crop of potholes - can also be cited.)
I don't have time, energy nor interest to revisit a matter that is now accepted by the vastest of scientific majorities. Google AI: “There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. While a very small number of scientists may express doubt, their views are not representative of the broader scientific community ... A 2021 study revealed that 99 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific literature found that climate change was human-induced. That was in line with a widely read study from 2013, which found 97 per cent of peer-reviewed papers that examined the causes of climate change said it was human-caused."
Equity policies
Two speakers had issues with Community Policy 4.11, Equitable Community and its “commitment to prioritizing engagement with under-represented groups.” The policies and actions seek participation when possible with the following groups explicitly: the T’Sou-ke, people experiencing poverty, youth, elders and renters. Honorariums would be paid to help encourage applications from these groups. As we saw at the public hearing, individuals in these categories (elders aside) typically do not participate in public processes nor apply for committee positions or run for council.
The complaint lay with the OCP glossary definition (pg. 228) of "equity-seeking groups," i.e. "These are people who often face discrimination or other forms of systemic disadvantage. They include but are not necessarily limited to persons of colour, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, and women."
It was pointed out that white men and boys were not included on this list, and health stats show that both groups are suffering despite previous generations (read: human history) of institutionalized and social advantage. The "not necessarily limited to" statement in the definition would suggest that these two groups as well as climate deniers, vaccine skeptics and many other marginal groups holding fringe worldviews, would qualify as equity seeking. Certainly, Council is duty bound by legislation and routine practice to listen with open ears and minds to all who present in chambers. We are also entirely open to all applicants for committee positions.
2. Public Hearing Comments
I took extensive notes with my laptop last week. Here are excerpts of what I typed minus quotation marks since I can’t guarantee I caught the exact words as expressed by those at the mic. As at the hearing, I won't comment on any of these statements. This section is followed below by a synopsis of Mr. Riley’s public hearing summary and responses as drawn from the Dec. 8 staff report.
Likely 85% of the 55 or so speakers had issues with the OCP, many echoing the assertions of one effective influencer as was the case in 2022. A recent Simon Fraser University review of public hearings in BC notes, among much else, that “those opposing a land use decision are often highly motivated to participate. Conversely, those who may be positively impacted or even neutral are less likely to attend a public hearing.” Case in point follows.
Overall
- The legal and financial risks of this OCP are considerable
- By adopting this plan, council can ensure Sooke will grow with care and long-term attention
- A 'trust us, we know best' framing to the process
- OCP is very unclear – it is subject to a lot of interpretation
- When I look around this room, we are seniors (yet) we are planning for young people and their futures.
- Political and legal upheaval will follow if the plan is passed in its current form
- Council and the District may face lawsuits and find themselves in the witness box
- Don’t let this false, misleading document be your legacy
- We are making it too complicated to live in Sooke
- Remember the silent majority not in the room tonight
- The most outspoken opponents are here
- Council has given too much authority to staff.
DPAs
- DPA 3 needs further attention … set it aside
- Vague and overlapping
- DP requirements will slow the process for builders, developers and homeowners
- You will have to hire additional staff to deal with all the new DPAs.
- Without going into a lot of detail, they are unworkable
- These DPAs are absolutely horrific for developers – all this does is create more staffing requirements
- Beta testing needed for these DPAs
Waterfront landowners
- We are good stewards of the land, we require no further policing
- Our property rights have been eroded
- I’ve never been notified (about DPA changes)
- Impacts on our property values and marketability
- Every property is different – how can you impose a blanket DPA?
- Excessive restraint on my property rights
- Strong grandfathering needed
- A blanket 15m is rare and never done without extensive scientific backing
- Decks, gardens, outdoor spaces” all require a DPA
- 15m setback would be our living room … home has been there for 70 years
- Lack of proper notification and consultation
- This adds a huge financial burden to us
Waterfront trail and expropriation threat
- Are you going to take that land from the homeowners … I am suspicious of your intentions
- 5m path will disturb the intertidal zone, unleashed dogs and children … a barren wasteland will result
- Middens, owls nests, waterfowl disruption– complete mayhem.
Costs
- I expect it will cost 20% more in overall costs to applicants and raise cost of housing by 40%
- Lack of costing in this OCP
- OCP will lead to significant costs for many residents.
- The way the OCP stands now, there will be a huge tax increase for everyone in Sooke
- The uncertainty has impacted my waterfront property value
First Nations
- OCP is a genuine threat to individual land title. Falsehood that Sooke is on unceded territory. Entire OCP needs to be declared invalid (stated by one speaker)
Ideological Document
- OCP is ideological when it should be resolutely neutral – climate change, equity and colonialism (one speaker)
Attitudes towards the OCP
- Ominous
- Overreach
- Ramming things through
- Future staff will interpret this as they see fit – DPA interpretation is up to the “whims of staff”
- Lack of transparency … listen to the people!
- It seeks to regulate every aspect of life in Sooke
* Minuted participant names and comments from the Sept. 27, 2022 Public Hearing and the June 19, 2023 Committee of the Whole are in this blog entry
* The staff report of Dec. 8, 2025 summarizes input to the Dec. 3, 2025 Public Hearing
* To learn about common themes and the pros and cons of public hearings in BC, see this blog entry ... <clip> "Public hearings are designed for one-way communication, reducing participation to a binary of “for or against” instead of opening up a space for nuanced consideration of complex issues, and dialogue between decision-makers and the community." (Simon Fraser University's Renovate The Public Hearing final report, 2024)
3. Synopsis of Jayden Riley’s Public Hearing Report
I took Mr. Riley's words in his Dec. 8 staff report and distilled them for my own purposes while still quoting him more or less directly. He had summarized – accurately and in a neutral, professional fashion, I believe based on my own experience and recollection -- the themes heard at the Public Hearing.
“The community holds diverse and strongly held views on the OCP, particularly around environmental regulation and waterfront policy, while also demonstrating significant support for adopting a modernized OCP to guide Sooke’s growth,” he wrote. Two main threads to the night:
1. Support for the OCP’s climate, environmental, housing and growth management policies
2. Concerns related primarily to DPAs, environmental mapping, foreshore setbacks, housing density, transportation infrastructure, Indigenous acknowledgement language and implementation considerations.
Public Input Summary
Supportive Comments
- balanced, forward-looking plan that integrates multiple policy areas into a single framework as is our right under the Local Government Act
- length and transparency of the process
- the need to move beyond the current OCP
- need for clear policy direction re: Town Centre, transportation, parks and climate action
- as a living document, the OCP can be amended
- Support for Compact Growth Strategy, Town Centre focus and alignment with the District’s Housing Needs Report, our commitments under the CRD’s Regional Growth Strategy and Master Plans
Foreshore and Environmental DPAs (2, 3, 4, 5)
- DPA3 – 15m buffer (setback) from the high tide mark, defined as “arbitrary” and lacking in scientific shoreline mapping
- this raises fears about impacts on property value, rebuild rights and routine maintenance
- overlapping DPAs and potential need for multiple professional reports for small projects
- environmental mapping and technical studies should be done before adopting the new DPAs
- some calls for stronger and larger buffers – 30m
Process, Notification and Engagement
- waterfront owners did not receive direct notice of proposed Foreshore DPA and related changes
- was level of engagement during COVID sufficient … request additional consultation, direct mail-outs and roundtable-style sessions
- other submissions note that engagement was sufficient … current concerns reflect heightened attention rather than lack of process
TMP and PTMP Alignment with OCP
- perception of “circular planning”
- concerns over conceptual shoreline access or trail alignments (Cooper’s Cove, Whiffin Spit)
- request that these conceptual trails be removed from PTMP
Property Rights, Constructive Taking and Economic Impacts
- Shoreline buffers, environmental corridors or conceptual trails amount to “de facto expropriation” or unduly constrain reasonable use – Annapolis vs. Halifax decision
- Potential concerns: i) cost of professional reports; ii) effect on property values; iii) development feasibility in Sooke
Indigenous Acknowledgements
- several letters re: OCP’s reference to “unceded” lands
Growth, Housing, Infrastructure and Fiscal Concerns
- Density targets
- Transit feasibility
- Hwy 14 ability to handle growth
- Potential tax impacts and cost of implementing OCP actions re: capital projects and staffing
- Support for Compact Growth Strategy, Town Centre focus and alignment with the District’s Housing Needs Report and Master Plans
Staff Response to Key Themes
1. Foreshore & Environmental DPAs
- Environmental and Foreshore DPAs are to balance private use of waterfront property with the District’s LGA obligations to protect the natural environment and reduce hazards such as erosion, flooding and slope instability.
- 15 to 30m is a widely used planning standard in coastal communities – a trigger for professional review, not a prohibition on development or use.
- The Zoning Bylaw – 3.22 Setbacks (Water) … expressly states that “no building, recreational vehicle, sea wall of any height, any other structure, nor any part thereof shall be constructed, moved, extended or located within 15 meters of the natural boundary of the sea.”
This has been the law in Sooke since Bylaw 600 was passed in 2014.
- Any home predating 2014 is automatically granted legal non-conforming status (i.e. grandfathered)
Exemptions and Homeowner Activities
- clear exemptions for routine yard and garden maintenance, vegetation management, invasive species removal, hazardous tree removal and maintenance of existing structures.
- Existing homes remain lawful and may continue to be maintained, renovated or replaced in accordance with zoning and the BC Building Code
Overlapping DPAs and Proportionality
- Only one Development Permit application form
- Proportionate approach – staff seek only the appropriate level of reporting appropriate to the scale and risk of the proposed works. Minor or low-impact projects would require minimal professional input, typically.
Conclusion: Clearer guidance than the 2010 DPAs. No substantial changes required.
2. Process, Engagement and Notification
- District met and exceeded all notification requirements under the LGA
- Expanded communication – front-cover surveys on the Sooke News Mirror to the 2025 tax insert.
- Continuous engagement since 2020
- Two public hearings
- Issues raised at the public hearing relate to the content of the OCP, not the process
Conclusion: All processes followed to reach Third Reading and Adoption
3. TMP/PTMP Alignment
- Common planning practice in BC
- Aligned with the District’s long-standing goals of compact growth, improved transportation options, expanded active transportation and trail networks.
- OCP is a single overarching framework
Conceptual nature of TMP and PTMP Maps
- high-level desired connections, road and trail alike -- not specific alignments, engineered routes nor any commitments … landowner consent, statutory rights-of-way are required … the OCP does not authorize expropriation.
Cooper’s Cove and other shoreline segments
- OCP does not mandate construction of shoreline routes and does not preclude Council from modifying or discontinuing specific concepts during future planning phases.
4. Indigenous Acknowledgement and Unceded Language
Acknowledgement
- District’s ongoing commitment to reconciliation and respectful relationships
- These statements are non-regulatory and do not alter land ownership, title, zoning or private property rights
- Indigenous acknowledgements are policy statements only, not enforceable regulations.
Douglas Treaties
- The OCP does not interpret or alter treaty rights. No new legal obligations, no diminishment of existing rights under the Douglas Treaties.
5. Property Rights, Constructive Taking and the Annapolis Decision
- DPA guidelines regulate the form, character and environmental conditions of new development or land alteration.
- They do not change zoning, remove permitted uses, prevent lawful rebuilding or grant public access across private land.
Does not create new public rights or freeze private lands
- Conceptual shoreline or trail connections are illustrative only.
- They do not establish legal rights-of-way, create obligations for landowners or restrict existing uses.
- Any future project would require separate Council decisions, technical review and, where applicable, landowner consent or acquisition.
Annapolis decision not applicable
- It does not require an interest in the land
- It does not eliminate reasonable use or development potential
- Existing homes remain lawful
6. Growth, Housing, Infrastructure Capacity & Tax Concerns
Purpose of OCP in Growth Management
- long-range policy framework, not a budgeting or capital works program
- It identifies where growth is anticipated and general form it should take
- Development is regulated through zoning, subdivision and infrastructure planning processes
Infrastructure Capacity and servicing
- OCP does not approve projects or commit the District to timelines
- Future servicing improvements will be evaluated through the Five-Year Financial Plan and annual budgeting
Housing Needs and Density Concerns
- Bill 44, Housing Needs Report (2024) and long-time vision of Sooke Smart Growth in the town centre and where existing infrastructure is available.
Tax and Financial Impacts
- No new financial obligations or tax increases
7. Suggestion to remove DPAs from the OCP
- DPAs must be designated in an OCP
- Boundaries and purposes of DPAs must be adopted in an OCP
- The guidelines that apply within these DPAs may be included in a separate development permit guidelines bylaw … but the designation itself must remain in the OCP.
- Langford designated the DP areas in its OCP but added the DP Area Guidelines as appendices to its Zoning Bylaw
Common Practice in BC
- typically DPA designations and guidelines are contained with an OCP
- DPAs integrate with mapping, growth management, hazard policies and environmental direction
- OCP is the umbrella document for land-use policy
Pros and Cons of Standalone DPA Guidelines
Pro: Flexibility to update OCP
Pro: Shorter document
Con: Another bylaw for applicants and staff to navigate
Con: Risks inconsistencies between OCP and guideline bylaw
Con: No change in concerns re: setback interpretation, exemptions, mapping) given DPA designation and purpose
Con: Would require a future OCP amendment process, public consultation and Public Hearing
- If council wishes, staff can explore refinements to format or presentation in a future OCP update
8. Document Length and Number of DPAs
- Length is a reflection of breadth – not complexity – and ensures transparency by consolidating policy in one place
New DPAS reduce ambiguity and improve consistency
- Three broad DPAs in current OCP have resulted in ambiguity, limited guidance & inconsistent interpretation
- The updated framework:
i) identifies where DPAs apply and why
ii) detailed, plain-language guidelines
iii) exemptions for routine homeowner activities
iv) allows staff to rely on professional reports and standards
v) reduces discretionary interpretation and improves fairness for applicants.
- In practice, more DPAs with clearer scope create LESS uncertainty than fewer DPAs with vague intent.
Removal weakens the OCP
- Critical tool under the LGA for environmental protection, hazard mitigation and form & character.
- Removing them would not simplify development review and would weaken the clarity and defensibility of the District’s permitting processes.
9. Other Clarifications
- Complete Streets and Conceptual Mapping: Conceptual only illustrations. Any future project would require feasibility review, engineering, environmental assessment and Council direction.
- Rebuild Rights for existing homes: Rights are determined through zoning, the BC Building Code and applicable provincial regulations, not through DPAs.
- BC Building Code concerns: DPA guidelines address matters within municipal jurisdiction, such as site design, siting, grading and environmental protection.
Implementation
Guidance for in-stream and new applications
- staff have prepared internal procedures and applicant messaging
- A consolidated FAQ
- A homeowner-oriented bulletin of DPA triggers and exemptions & other material ready for posting on the website
- Development application forms, checklists and technical bullets are being updated
- Changes to the Fees & Charges Bylaw and Development Procedures Bylaw #900 to come in the new year
- Planning staff outreach to MOTT, CRD, T’Sou-ke Nation and other development professionals, agencies and partners.
“The updated Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022 (November 2025) is the product of a comprehensive, multi-year planning and engagement process. The written and verbal submissions received through the Public Hearing process have been fully considered and do not identify issues requiring substantive amendment or a new Public Hearing. With the implementation plan underway, staff are satisfied that the new OCP provides a clear, modern, and legally defensible framework to guide Sooke’s long-term growth and development. The bylaw is now ready for Council’s consideration of Third Reading and Adoption.”
4. A Respectful Note to Waterfront Landowners
I urge you to get organized. It was only in the weeks immediately prior to the 2022 and last week’s public hearings that we heard extensively from you. It seemingly requires one single influencer to get some of you roused and ready to accuse this duly elected Council of so many things: Lack of transparency; tyrannical overreach; incompetence; and worse. Believe me, last week was tough slogging from my seat. I felt a measure of possibly imagined hostility, which you may or may not maintain towards the four of us who voted yes.
All that follows is obvious, and I’m sure individuals have done much of this themselves over the years, but if you did form some kind of a waterfront landowners association, you’d be in a position to create a steering committee and begin reviewing federal, provincial and municipal regulations that directly impact your properties. You're likely familiar with much of the following:
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada guidelines, i.e., Projects Near Water home page; Boathouses, Docks and Moorings Code of Practice (2025)
- Green Shores' Coastal Shore Jurisdiction in BC
- this 2019 BC Ministry of Environment technical study on "Water Quality Assessment and Proposed Objectives for Sooke Watersheds, Inlet, Harbour and Basin"
- Also from the Ministry in 2019, the report Water Quality Objectives for Sooke Inlet, Harbour, Basin and Tributaries
- the 1991 Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans report titled Sooke Harbour and Basin Fish Habitat Inventory
- the Province's 1993 Sooke River Floodplain Mapping Study
- reports from the Stewardship Centre for British Columbia (which tracks grant opportunities for shoreline upkeep and projects.)
More directly, you could book delegations and bring your reasoned, well-documented asks to council. You could advocate for review and update of those DPA sections you want amended. Or call for a new version of the CRD's long-outdated Sooke Harbour, Basin and Inlet Master Plan (which Mayor Tait highlighted on Monday night; the 2001 OCP called for a review of the 1997 version of this CRD document, I recently discovered, yet it seemingly has fallen off the sonar. No online copies available, but I have the 1989 edition if anyone requests it. Please do.)
I can all but guarantee you will get traction, just as typically does any community group that recognizes the system’s guardrails and operates effectively & realistically within them.
Examples (thank you Google AI) …
“These associations often focus on issues such as property rights, dock management plans, environmental stewardship, and government regulations that affect waterfront properties.
* Shuswap Waterfront Owners Association: This organization represents waterfront and semi-waterfront owners around Shuswap and Mara lakes, monitoring issues and voicing concerns related to dock ownership and regulations. Annual $25 dues.
* Christina Lake Waterfront Property Owners Society: A volunteer group that works to ensure the interests of property owners are represented in development and use of Christina Lake, focusing on water quality and environmental protection.
* Waterfront Protection Coalition (WPC): A broad collective of residents and businesses from various areas including the Sunshine Coast, Gulf Islands, and Okanagan, formed to advocate for waterfront communities potentially affected by the provincial government's proposed Dock Management Plan.
* North Saanich PROW (Property Responsibility on Waterfront) Association
5. Roll The Credits
Shout-out to the citizens who accepted the invitation to participate through multiple ways and means, including the two public hearings and two open houses ... plus importantly:
District of Sooke Staff
- Danica Rice
- Ivy Campbell
- Katherine Lesyshen
- Matthew Pawlow
- Chris Marshall
- Jayden Riley
- Christina Moog
- Raechel Gray
- and many unsung others
OCP Advisory Committee
Chair Helen Ritts
Councillor Al Beddows
Norm Amirault
Terry Cristall
Steve Grundy
Ellen Lewers
Linda MacMillan
Siomonn Pulla
Consultants
Jennifer Fix - Project Lead
Lucas Ozols-Mongeau - Project Manager
Emily Rennalis - Urban Planner
James Godwin - Urban Designer
Watt Consulting Group - Transportation
Colliers International - Land Economics and Development
Licker Geospatial Consulting - GIS Analysis and Mapping
Sustainable Solutions Group - Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Urban Systems (2025)
And not to forget ...
Sooke Council 2014-18: Tait, Berger, Kasper, Logins, Parkinson, Pearson, Reay
Sooke Council 2018-22: Tait, Bateman, Beddows, Lajeunesse, Logins, McMath, Parkinson, St-Pierre
Sooke Council 2022-26: Tait, Bateman, Beddows, Haldane, Lajeunesse, McMath, Pearson, St-Pierre
Live long and prosper! (source: Spock/Horgan)
With amendments as needed over time.
Countdown clock now on to the next legislated OCP review in 2030.
Certainly the three in opposition did not openly discuss or share concerns in these areas. Their input and questions focused on the DPAs. So I’m confident a larger majority of us agree with the community vision, policies and recommended actions. [If not Cllr. Haldane, who in the 2022 public hearing minutes is recorded to have called the previous draft "idealistic and radical, and will create divisiveness."]
The split vote was a largely predictable outcome based on earlier comments. It provides one of other meaty campaign issues as the stage is set for the 2026 municipal election 10 short months from now (Oct. 15).
Cllr. Pearson tried to amend the bylaw by moving that the set of three Development Permit Areas from the 2010 OCP be re-instated in lieu of the new guidelines. This amendment was defeated 5-2 (with our two former mayoral candidates, Haldane and Pearson, in favour.) My arguments against focused on the fact that this OCP's fundamental raison d'etre was to deliver clarity and certainty with a new and improved set of DPA guidelines (not hard-and-fast requirements, it must again be stated) that, among much else, encourage best practices for environmental protection -- the #1 expressed community priority in all three of our OCPs over 25 years. [I'm surprised an attempt wasn't made to separate the DPA guidelines for future review and leave instead the DPA designations as required by the Local Government Act.]
Amendments to this new OCP will logically and inevitably follow. (Our two previous plans were tweaked more than two dozen times in total.) This is why I lead the following with a statement about process and the importance of trusting in it. This and future councils can schedule public hearings and make revisions/amendments to Bylaw #800 as they see fit. Viva democracy, still entirely functional and effective even in these hugely (sadly and disturbingly, you surely agree?) polarized times.
I'm reminded of the 2011 election campaign. The 2010 OCP was adopted in the first quarter of that year. Mayor Evans stepped down after three terms, and a new fiscally conservative council led by Mayor Milne was elected. Significant DPA amendments followed in September, 2012. The changes were introduced with all due legislative exactitude and were the right of any Mayor and council making transparent decision to benefit the community.
I know, as do we all, that we live in the age of social media one-liner cut and thrust, where context and the facts are distractions that derail agenda-driven narratives and undercut emotional outrage of the kind we all need to express in one way or another now that punching a pillow isn't sufficient. Flat-out stupidity, misinformation and malevolence is also in the mix too.
This is why i no longer surf Sooke's social media channels, a loss for me since I can’t better track all the good in this community yet still a necessary mental health preservation strategy as I tune out the white noise and stay focused on the rigors of this job.
[Example: Once the OCP was adopted on Monday night, we moved immediately on to a Sooke RCMP presentation that revealed calls for service are up 22% this year – a shocking, sobering number that Council needs to seriously explore, question and address as budget discussions begin next month. The likely 7% or more tax hike question: Does Sooke want a minimal tax increase or sufficient boots-on-ground to ensure community safety? The 2025 budget survey (received Oct. 20, agenda pg. 151-152) revealed that while many in Sooke still feel safe and secure (less so at night), a fifth of respondents are concerned about impacts of crime, drugs and homelessness. Survey data showed that "Fire Rescue, Policing and Emergency Planning received strong support for maintaining readiness as the community grows." We've opted for what we believe are good-parent decisions to date ... and yet (speaking of pre-election strategies) the context-free criticism of our decisions to fund police, fire and asset management continues without reference to any of those needs, just the percentage increase.]
How much easier it is to say, without any document references, that this OCP will be a "nightmare" for Sooke, that "no one is listening" at the District, that the sky will fall and the seventh seal will open for apocalypse now in this community we all love.
That's not my style, however, as I hope I've proven by now. And so onwards with these rather laboured notes i prepared ahead of Monday night. I was trying to craft an overarching statement. Inevitably for me, it became too long and windy in keeping with the gusts blowing in from the Juan de Fuca. As it turned out, I only voiced a few parts of it, reading aloud some sections and ad-libbing others when opportunities arose during council’s two hours of questions and comment. You're welcome to watch the real-time video replay here.
As addendums, I'm attaching the drafts I prepared in response to various continuous issues raised at last week's lively Public Hearing, which consistently echoed what we heard in 2022 (despite all the tweaks, additions and changes in the document this year). I’m also sharing largely direct comments heard at the Public Hearing as I typed them on the night. And, as a reference for what I'm sure will be a continuing debate about the perceived merits and shortfalls of this OCP into 2026, I've added my synopsis of Mr. Riley's staff report, which you'll find in full on pp. 15-29 of Monday's agenda.
All this is too much of a muchness, I know, but I reserve the right to do what I will with this ever-unrolling blog. Wherever you fall on the continuum between happy and not regarding this OCP, I do hope you will continue to do your homework, read the document itself and ask questions (via email to [email protected] with a cc to [email protected]) as informed, engaged, free-thinking and empowered citizens. We need more of you.
Best way to do so is by routinely visiting the archive on the District's Let's Talk, OCP page and by following along with the OCP's implementation, to be guided by council, staff and perhaps also a newly created OCP Monitoring and Implementation Committee as recommended on page 111 of my dog-eared 2010 OCP, bless it and all who cared enough to dedicate immense effort to its creation and execution.
You'll also want to read the District's adoption press release and especially the myth-busting FAQ within it.
Feel free to revisit my own WWF tangles with the OCP these last five years:
* OCP - Picture Sooke: The Final (?) Frame (Oct. 27, 2025)
* 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)
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Notes for an OCP statement - Monday, Dec. 8
Over these last seven years, I have heard repeatedly a singular piece of wisdom about surviving and thriving as an elected official. This has been repeated by workshop speakers at conferences, local government experts hired to lead council workshops and fellow electeds from multiple BC communities. The wisdom, equally applicable to all aspects of this finite human life, is this: Trust the process.
I’m proud to have been part of this necessarily long, legislatively rigorous, unexpectedly bumpy, COVID-impacted and Provincially-elongated (thank you, Bill 44) process that has brought us to tonight. And I confidently trust that it will serve us well for the next five years until the Provincially required review of the document in 2030.
The best intentions for this particular Official Community Plan – the third since incorporation – began almost exactly a decade ago at the council meeting of Dec. 14, 2015 when the first council led by Mayor Tait prioritized a new OCP in the Strategic Plan it introduced that night.
Since then there have been no less than 38 distinct council meetings and Committees of the Whole at which the OCP was an agenda item for three successive councils. Atop this, you can factor in a baker's dozen of OCP Advisory Committee meetings, two open houses and numerous public input opportunities.
It was a wholly transparent, rigorous and (and frankly exhausting) process … extensively publicized and with significant, formally documented council and public participation in 2017, again in 2020/21/22, renewed in spring/summer 2023 (until Bill 44 demanded attention) and finally here in 2025.
Throughout our per-capita participation rate has been (my rough calculation) in the 6 to 7% range … above the average for OCPs in this province. This is direct evidence of the creative and multiple engagement efforts during COVID and its aftermath. All credit to citizen participants responding to the District’s communications out-reach online, via email, print format (wrapped around the front of the Sooke News Mirror) and roadside electronic signage.
If, as some have said, you were unaware all this was going on, well, look in the mirror and be reassured that you’re not alone. Citizen awareness about technical documents like community plans is generally low to moderate -- lower even than municipal voter turnout rates (woe democracy when fewer than four in 10 registered voters, at best and often worse, turn out to elect their municipal governing bodies, but that's the reality of it).
Personally, I'll acknowledge, I don’t believe I ever cracked an OCP in any community I lived in over my first 50+ years while nonetheless appreciating all the basic essentials these plans and the municipal governments that they guided delivered to we fortunate citizens.
First Contact
My first direct experience with the OCP as an elected representative was on Dec. 16, 2019 when then-Manager of Planning Ivy Campbell brought a backgrounder report to council. It addressed issues within the 2010 plan that have “either hindered or made difficult its implementation.” She noted that updates were needed to capture changes in the Local Government Act and to keep pace with the rapid growth of the community overall. First and foremost was the need for Development Permit Areas for environmentally sensitive lands (riparian/foreshore); hazard lands (fire/steep slope/flood); and intensive residential development as well as design guides for areas not included in DPA 1 - Town Centre.
Campbell added that a legal review of the plan was conducted by Lidstone and Company in 2016. She wrote that it confirmed the plan fell short in areas such as the Regional Context Statement, Development Permit Areas and the organization of policies throughout the document. Overall, the needs were ...
* Effective and consistent communication
* An OCP that provides clear & consistent guidance and direction for Council, staff and the development community
* A user-friendly OCP easily understood by the public, applicants, decision makers and staff
I do recall that Councillors in the period 2011-18 were routinely saying that the document was contradictory in its policies and actions, and left too many gray areas open to interpretation (especially in the DPAs).
The Consultants
Council and its new CAO Norm McInnis (who began work in July, 2019) focused on completion of the Transportation and Parks & Trail Master Plans in 2019 so as to follow through on decisions made and processes initiated by the previous council in May 2018 (based on recommendations from a Land Use Committee led by Cllr. Berger and including members Haldane and Clarkston). Staff were also authorized to produce a Sooke Economic Analysis and the provincially mandated Housing Needs Assessment that same year.
Nine BC consultancy firms (none from Sooke) responded to the Request for Proposals to develop this new OCP. In June, 2020, we approved the staff recommendation of DIALOG … a respected, highly professional, "multi-disciplinary" firm with offices in Vancouver and Victoria. It had completed numerous OCPs and other community planning documents – Campbell River, Ladysmith, White Rock, North Cowichan, Tofino and Abbotsford included. Senior Planner Katherine Lesyshen had recently worked on the Colwood OCP with the project lead and others on a diverse team of specialists – the transportation planner and the GIS (Geographic Information Specialist) expert included. Council agreed it was a good fit and awarded the $200k project budget to DIALOG.
Council Engagement
Those (as Cllr. Haldane contended the other night) who state that this and the last council have not had a direct hand in shaping this document are simply wrong. In fact, we were involved from the get-go, i.e. our first meeting with DIALOG staff, in the open at a Committee of the Whole workshop on July 28, 2020. Each of us on council were presented with a series of pre-prepared questions circulated beforehand, and each replied in turn in conversation with project lead Jennifer Fix. [My comments, expressed through an ill-fitting mask, are reproduced in the latter half of this Aug. 5, 2020 blog entry.]
A week later we selected the OCP Advisory Committee and appointed Councillor Beddows as our council liaison. Thereafter at public meetings we received a series of substantial engagement summaries, backgrounders and technical reports (all available at the Let’s Talk, OCP website) and Advisory Committee meeting minutes. Each time we had the opportunity to provide constructive input and various of us took it up to varying degrees. [Dates: Sept. 28, 2020; May 10, July 12 and Dec. 13, 2021; March 20, March 28, April 11, May 16, June 15, June 27 and July 19, 2022; April 11, June 19 and July 10, 2023; Oct. 14, Oct. 27, Nov. 6 and Nov. 10, 2025.]
More to the point, we as a council recognized that this Community Plan is not nor should be our creation but rather a product of the community, or more precisely that part of it that was paying attention and chose to accept one or more of invitations across multiple channels to participate (often virtually given COVID restrictions, an unanticipated reality met with creativity and persistence). This input from all ages (spanning John Muir Elementary to Ayre Manor) was crunched in Zoom meetings by the OCP Advisory Committee, staff and the consultants, then melded with local government best practices in BC. [Phrase du jour then as less-so now: "You're muted"]
Importantly, the resultant drafts of the emergent plan also captured and maintained the themes of the current OCP, the 2001 version and CRD area plans before them -- environmental stewardship, Sooke Smart Growth town planning, T'Sou-ke reconciliation and complete-community live/work/play aspirations included.
Public Participation
As the Phase 1, Phase 2 and 2025 reports demonstrate along with the thick correspondence packages, an active minority – with views and options both pro and con and all points in between -- did participate. As noted, OCPs are infamous for drawing modest citizen involvement. Just 0.3% of the City of Vancouver’s population contributed to its latest Official Development Plan, for instance. Approx. 1,500 from the City of Langford’s 58k population took part in its latest OCP; its OCP open house in fall 2004 drew 85 attendees. Ours this last September attracted 103. Langford’s population is 3x our size.
Some have rose-coloured memories of an eager community coming out in force and shaping earlier plans. Interesting to read the 2001 OCP, however, and learn that 160 people in total attended two related open houses and two workshops. Our population at the time was 8,735, so that’s a participation rate of about 2 percent. A three-times higher rate this time is proof that hiring the District’s first communications coordinator in 2020 was a significant plus for local democratic engagement. [Context: According to an Ipsos poll cited in this University of Calgary School of Public Policy report, just one in five Canadians have ever participated in a community engagement opportunity.]
Broad Community Input
We hear repeatedly that this OCP involved “2,000 touchpoints,” i.e. distinct individual participants. Yet the consultation was more than a numbers game, it involved direct involvement with the following groups and organizations (partial list; a broad range of Sooke groups were invited, not all participated) either one-on-one (T'Sou-ke, SD #62) or in workshop sessions.
- T’Sou-ke Nation
- SD #62
- Capital Regional District
- BC Transit
* Chamber of Commerce
* Rotary Club
- Sooke development community
* Victoria Residential Builders Association
* Ayre Manor
* Island Health
* Sooke Elderly Citizens Society
* Sooke Fine Arts Society
* Sooke Region Communities Health Network
* Transition Sooke
* Sooke Region Museum
* Sooke Shelter Society
* Edward Milne Community School
* Sooke Garden Club
* Juan de Fuca Community Trails Society
* Sooke Bike Club
Quoting from the Phase 2 Engagement Report on the March 21, 2021 meeting with the T'Sou-ke: "The discussions included feedback from the First Nation advocating for environmental protections and food sovereignty and security by protecting our shared resources, including the harbour and all waterways, respect for wildlife, and through protection of forestlands. Specific concern was shared regarding continued shoreline development with proliferation of docks and marinas. There was strong support for sewer expansion into the Kaltasin neighbourhood, with preference for Growth Scenario C, citing both harbour health and economic co-benefits for T’Sou-ke and the District. In creating stronger relationships with the District, T’Sou-ke would like to be involved with acknowledging the shared territory through education and signage, and also indicated the importance of reconciliation being acknowledged as part of this community plan."
And, in that same report, from the Development Community workshop attended by 17 builder/developers that same spring: "The development community described challenges with the existing OCP, including challenges with implementation and misalignment with the Zoning Bylaw 600. They felt that the development process is unclear, and should be clarified. Although some wished that timelines could be faster, participants acknowledged the challenges of the District staff’s high workload and limited personnel and the need for a comprehensive review of application materials. Additionally, participants expressed that their goal is to develop properties and housing that people enjoy, with consideration given to the environment. Some noted that the OCP should not respond to current housing preferences, but should consider future needs. Developers noted that there is sometimes misalignment between policy, their design, and community preferences."
OCP Advisory Committee
There were 13 OCP Advisory Committee Meetings between Sept. 2020 and Nov. 2021. I’d like to formally again thank the participants for their service: Chair Helen Ritts, Councillor Al Beddows, Norm Amirault, Terry Cristall, Steve Grundy, Ellen Lewers, Linda MacMillan and Siomonn Pulla.
These people are not lightweights. They are respected members of this community for various good reasons. Each brought a wealth of diverse experience and expertise. Council selected them from a stack of applications based on requirements of the OCP Terms of Reference.
When it came time to approve the document, they voted 6 to 1 to move it forward to council … the one vote against registered by Mrs. Lewers – and so be it, that’s the wonder and joy of democracy. Everyone can do their best to work towards a consensus decision and yet the system has been custom-made to allow dissent without throwing critical community documents and decisions like the OCP off the rails.
I’d like to again quote the six recurring themes the OCP Advisory Committee heard from the public …
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 themes are a framework over the short and longer terms. The same six remain at the forefront today, and all require patient action and advocacy as we responsibly navigate the economic cycles, the recessions and future good times, which in turn will again evolve ever onwards. This imperfect (as they always are) OCP provides essential foundational guidance for the community no matter its flaws (which, in my opinion, are minor and amendable).
Closing Statements
To quote the staff report, the 2025 OCP is a substantially updated and modernized plan. It has been revised significantly in response to public and stakeholder input since 2022 and is now ready for primetime (IMO).
I will argue that Council made a wise and prudent unanimous decision not to approve a rather more imperfect document in 2022. We knew it was, at best, 90% of the way there. We’d heard at the public hearing that September that the DPAs were causing confusion and anger despite the best intentions. It used too much prescriptive, “thou shalt” language. It lacked clarity and required refinement. And so we left it to the next council to move forward with the plan as they (largely we, as it turned out) determined.
I’ve known all along that the DPAs would be the primary sticking point. For a while earlier this year I believed it would be logical to remove them from the main document and revisit after adoption. And yet I had several Damascus moments this year as I read the staff revisions and rationales for their changes to Part 7 (DPAs).
1. The first and second red-line edits done by the District’s planning staff in response to the feedback in 2022/23 and this year; and 2. Especially the exchange, focused largely on the DPAs, between the Sooke Builders Association and Mr. Riley captured in the What We Heard report presented to council on Oct. 14.
I’ve asked repeatedly that those providing feedback and critiques do so with exact page and paragraph references. Instead, there has been, up to and including last week’s Public Hearing, an immense amount of generalized feedback that captured the emotional tone of people’s beliefs, but not the black-and-white content of the OCP itself.
The SBA, which represents a significant share of the building/development sector locally, heeded the call with a detailed critique It itemized its long-standing gripes with chapter-and-verse references to the draft OCP. Mr. Riley responded with precise, clearly communicated responses that expressed a willingness to modify the plan accordingly and as possible.
As a result of this exchange and other input, the Development Permit Area guidelines have been carefully revised in delivering “clarity, usability and legal defensibility” as per the staff report of Oct. 27 (see agenda, pp. 497-506). This report provides a thorough look at all changes to the OCP, the lion’s share of them focused on the DPAs.
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.
The DPAs provide, to quote the staff report, “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.”
What's needed next as the document is road tested ...
Regular updates, monitoring and continued public participation are essential to ensure the OCP remains relevant and effective for Sooke’s residents. We absolutely need an OCP Implementation and Monitoring Committee, a recommendation in the 2010 plan (pg. 111) never enacted (though council and various committees, Land Use and Development in particular, did do this monitoring and made amendments as deemed necessary).
My crystal ball tells me this and future councils will want to consider ...
- Prioritization of short-term action items listed in Part 6 - Implementation Plan
- Amendments in response to gaps and problem areas discovered during application of the DPAs
- Closer look at further clarifications to DPA #3 - Foreshore Area
- Creating Major and Minor Developments Permit distinctions as is done in Sidney and elsewhere
- Complete the inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
- Address claims that the DPAs have created a de facto tree bylaw
- Consider the establishment of Special Study Area for the agricultural land west of Gatewood
- Master Plan updates to align with the OCP – this includes eliminating the aspirational dotted-line trail around the harbour and zooming in on the town centre section where an offshore boardwalk extension is entirely possible; it is indicated in red on Map 2, pg. 19 of the Parks & Trails Master Plan. The disclaimer on this page reads: "This map is for illustrative purposes only. The District of Sooke does not condone the use of trails on private property. Future trails shown on current private land will be planned as and when development occurs."
- At the same time, continue the policy of acquiring, through fair negotiation, 5m rights of way when possible during rezoning of future major (not single family) waterfront projects.
If you don’t like this Plan or its impacts, then there are remedies …
1. As the 2024 Development Procedures Bylaw #900 states clearly (pg. 16), if an applicant doesn’t agree with a staff decision on a DP application or any other matter, they are welcome to file notice within 30 days and ask that Council weigh in directly at an open meeting.
2. Per the Local Government Act, section 584, take your complaints to a higher authority: Ministerial override orders in the public interest. <clip> “If the Minister considers that all or part of the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of British Columbia, then he/she/they can order alterations ,,, this applies to OCPs, zoning bylaw, Development Approval Information Requirements, Development Permits, Temporary Use Permits, etc."
3. The 2026 municipal election will soon be upon us (Oct. 15). Vote for candidates with a worldview that reflects and supports your own. With majority will, they can amend this OCP as legislation allows.
(Interestingly, as I said earlier, a new council and Mayor came to power in 2011, a year after adoption of the current OCP. Sure enough, on Oct. 12, 2012, the same night Council ordered a new Zoning Bylaw, significant OCP text amendments were introduced via Bylaw #548 re: DPA exemptions for townhouses and cluster units in lands zoned Multi-Family Residential, Comprehensive Development, Mixed Use and Town Centre Commercial. As far as I can tell, this opened the door for local housing development without strong municipal oversight.)
All this said ...
As difficult and extended as its birth has been, I think this document does accurately and largely reflect this community’s goals and aspirations. Its themes and overall direction are entirely consistent with the previous two OCPs and Area Plans before them. The DPAs alone have been the quicksand trap where lack of information (and clarity in the 2022 language) has generated fears. But overall, to quote the vision statement on pg. 40: “We are a caring community where people and the environment are treated with dignity and respect.” That is still a commonly held belief for all of #Sooke, I hope/trust/know.
I thought I might grow tired of the pithy “Small Town With A Big Heart” vision statement, but no, I have not. We remain a small town with a big heart entirely as it should be for a bona fide Compassionate Community. It’s evident in the work of so many volunteers and community organizations who've done the heavy lifting week in/out for many years. What a great t-shirt slogan and rallying cry to affirm the values of long-time residents and by which to welcome newcomers and greet the intended growing number of tourists.
We are privileged to live in one of the most desirable, beautiful and remarkable places on the earth. So I count my blessings, recognize that nothing is ever perfect, and likely unsurprising by now, vote for adoption.
Addendum
1. Other Issues Raised In OCP Feedback
Procedural Fairness
Mr. Clarkston produced a series of submissions this year as in 2022. One claim, taken up and repeated by others, is that waterfront landowners were not given fair notice. With all due respect, this group is one of many in our town of 17,128 (summer 2025 estimate) residents. Starting in 2020, the District has necessarily sent notifications to the entire community that the OCP review was underway. These were circulated via all available mediums, and, in turn, triggered word-of-mouth sharing (via chain emails to some degree) as is the norm in all communities. Among recent District efforts, one page of the four-page flyer included with all tax notifications sent in May focused on the 2025 restart of the OCP. There is a point where citizens must be proactive and many have been.
The DPA waterfront issues raised this year were also heard in 2022 (thanks again to the widely distributed emails of Mr. Clarkston, acting independently and rightfully exercising his own democratic rights). He's not alone in asking questions about fairness in public engagement. It's raised frequently enough across the province, in fact, that the BC Ombudsperson released the Fairness In Practice guide for local governments in 2023.
Public participation rights are explored on pp. 15-16. By this measure, I believe the District has followed best practices throughout.
<clip> "A fair process is one where reasonable notice of the decision being made is provided, along with sufficient time for the person to gather information and evidence and prepare a response. Decision makers should also consider whether there are any circumstances or factors that could affect a person’s ability to make a submission or provide a response. In these circumstances, decision makers should make appropriate allowances – for example, provide an extension, where appropriate .... [yes, to say the least, we have given this process time for reflection and further rounds of input, entirely appropriately given the hiccups caused by COVID and Bill 44] ... Persons must have a fair opportunity to present their case, to challenge or correct the facts that the decision maker is relying on, and to provide alternative or contrary information in support of their position. A person affected by a decision should have an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way before a final decision is made."
Density
The draft OCP allows a maximum of 70 units/ha. throughout the Community Residential (sewer-serviced) land use designation. All single lots within this area are restricted to an optional maximum of four units per lot as per the Province’s Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing guidelines. The OCP states this explicitly on page 63. The current zoning as quoted a few paragraphs below allows up to 90 units/hectare in the town centre and varying significant maximum numbers in other zones.
To be clear: The market does not determine density, the District does through its zoning bylaws, the next of which is to be undertaken in 2026. Future pre-zoning, if this is determined by council to be the way forward, will allow the District to identify where these relatively rare 70 unit/maximums would be allowed, certainly only at strategic and logical spots along major corridors.
Current Zoning Bylaw #600 allows ...
- Six storeys – RM5 - Town Centre Apartment Zone
- Four storeys – RM6 – Town Centre Townhouse Zone
- Principal Buildings: Three storeys up to a maximum height of 10 m except for properties fronting Lincroft Road, Goodmere Road, Otter Point Road and Church Road, where the height may be increased to four storeys up to a maximum height of 13 m.
Maximum densities allowed under the current Zoning Bylaw #600 (2013) ...
- Low Density Multi-Family RM1 allows a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/ha;
- Medium Density Multi-Family RM2 – 50 units/ha;
- High Density Multi-Family (town centre) RM3 – 70 units/ha;
- High Density Multi-Family (town centre) RM4 – 90 units/ha.
Land Use Designations in new OCP dictate …
- Community Residential (i.e. sewer zone) – 3 storeys (max. 70 units per hectare)
- Gateway Residential – 3 storeys (quarter hectare minimum lot size)
- Rural Residential – 3 storeys (4-hectare minimum lot size)
- Town Centre Core – up to 6 storeys (Maximum 2.5 FAR density)
- Town Centre Waterfront – up to 4 storeys east of Ed Mac, 3 storeys west of it, 6 storeys on Brownsey Blvd. (Maximum 2.0 FAR)
- Transitional Residential – 3-4 storeys (2.0 FAR)
- Employment Lands
- Agriculture
- Park
- Comprehensive Development (flexible, innovative development options)
If I have done my math correctly, there are 6,164 housing lots in the District as of 2024 ...
- 3,274 of them are exempt from SSMUH regulations – 55% of them
- 2,890 do meet these regulations in the sewer-specified zone and can add up to 4 units
- 650 homes in Sunriver do not qualify for SSMUH
- therefore 2,241 lots in Sooke can optionally host 4 units … or about 30 percent of all lots
SSMUH legislation allows:
1. The main dwelling
2. Secondary Suite
3. Accessory Dwelling Unit – Small Suite
4. Extra building
There is no obligation to build a multi-unit home on a single-family lot where water and sewage is available. This remains a choice of the homeowner or developer responding to market needs. All zones in Sooke permit a secondary suite and/or accessory dwelling less than 90m squared (968 sq. feet). Key regulations:
* Maximum Size: An ADU is typically limited to a maximum floor space of 90 m² (968 sq. ft.).
* Percentage of Principal Dwelling: The ADU's floor area often cannot exceed 40% of the habitable floor space of the main house, whichever is less.
* Type of ADU: The rules can vary slightly between a secondary suite (located within the main dwelling) and a detached suite/carriage house.
* One Per Lot: Only one ADU (either a secondary suite or a detached suite) is generally permitted per legal lot with a single-family dwelling.
FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
Professional developers and planning departments understand this zoning tool as it is commonly used in many municipalities and urban centres.
Explainer here. Example: "Maximum 2.0 Floor Area Ratio" (FAR) is a zoning regulation that limits the total floor area a building can have to be no more than two times the area of the land (plot) it is built on. This regulation provides flexibility in how the building is designed vertically and horizontally, as long as the total floor area limit is not exceeded.
For a 10,000 sq ft lot with a 2.0 FAR, you could build:
* A two-story building that covers the entire 10,000 sq ft footprint of the lot (10,000 sq ft/floor x 2 floors = 20,000 sq ft total).
* A four-story building that covers only 5,000 sq ft of the lot's footprint (5,000 sq ft/floor x 4 floors = 20,000 sq ft total).
* Any other combination that results in a total of 20,000 square feet of floor space or less.
The final building size is also typically shaped by other zoning rules, such as maximum height limits, setbacks, and lot coverage requirements, which dictate how much of the actual ground the building can cover."
District Sewer Capacity
The wastewater treatment plant expansion was completed in May, 2024. It adds 50% additional daily capacity (from 3k to 4.5k cubic meters); the plant is designed for a future additional expansion of 1.5k cubic meters.
Transportation System and Alternate Route to #14
A borrowing referendum is on track for Oct. 15, 2026 to potentially fund the eastern half of the
Grant/Throup/Phillips connector route. (Full details to follow in 2026 well ahead of voting day.) The District continues to work closely with MOTT on Highway 14 improvements.
The OCP necessarily focuses on transportation infrastructure over which the District has direct responsibility.
Action 7 (pg. 157) states: “Update the existing MOU with the Ministry of Transportation to realized shared multi-modal objectives for Highway 14, the Grant Road Connector and associated municipal streets.” [In answer to my question the other week, staff noted that the current MOU provides a framework for the ongoing relationship with MOTT and that an amendment is planned for 2026/27.]
This council has advocated strongly for phased improvements to Hwy 14 in light of MOTI’s dismissal of alternate routes in its various corridor studies on the grounds of cost and watershed impacts. The Idlemore and Charters road intersections are next on MOTT's work list along with planning for right-turn lanes at Phillips, Charters and Church and sidewalk extension along the West Coast Road to Whiffin Spit Rd.
As the TMP states (pg. 44), “the planned improvements identified in the TMP align with and would not preclude the long-term pursuit of a secondary access and alternative to Highway 14.” At the moment, Sooke is dealing with internal and incoming (PM rush) traffic issues. Signalization at Idlemore and Charters is to be expected in the next two years. We also can anticipate $50m action on one-half-of-a-bypass if the community so votes with a suitable majority.
First Nations Territorial Acknowledgement
One speaker raised fears about potential legal implications of territorial land acknowledgements in the wake of the Cowichan Tribes decision (about which I have compiled links in my 2025 BC legislation tracker.) In brief: The BC government and others are appealing on the grounds that private property ownership is sacrosanct. The resultant legal process will take many years. Private property rights remain entirely valid under the BC Land Titles Act. No question this is a complicated matter that will take time to resolve. In the meantime, current fears are stoked by the fringe One BC party and its vocal supporters.
As commonly understood, territorial acknowledgements are ceremonial, non-binding statements of respect. The land acknowledgement in the OCP (pg. 3) reads: "The District of Sooke makes this land acknowledgment to raise awareness of ongoing Indigenous presence and land rights in the territory that includes and encompasses Sooke. It invites us, a local government, to reflect on how colonial processes are ongoing – and from which we have benefited – as well as the changes we must make to honour the Indigenous peoples and their lands that we inhabit.”
The OCP references the Te’mexw Treaty Association, a non-profit society formed of five Coast Salish Nations - Beecher Bay (Sc’ianew), Malahat, Snaw-Naw-As, Songhees and T’Sou-ke. They are collaborating to negotiate five Nation-specific modern treaties with the federal and provincial governments. See pg. 15 of this public report released last year for T'Sou-ke proposed treaty lands, namely parcels at Sooke Mountain Provincial Park and Broom Hill crown lands along with small tracts in Otter Point and at French Beach. No privately held or District-owned land in Sooke is involved.
Te’mexw Nations explain their relationship to the Douglas Treaties here. ("James Douglas had the leaders sign blank papers and had the text of the Treaties written in after the fact ... he provided a few material goods (mostly cash, clothing and blankets.") It has been repeatedly argued over the years that the Douglas Treaty area is indeed unceded territory (or land that has never been surrendered historically.) The District of Sooke and the Sooke School District acknowledge this. Perspective from the BC Treaty Commission here.
Richmond, Port Coquitlam and Surrey councils do not offer territorial acknowledges due to ongoing treaty land disputes (see Richmond example.) West Vancouver opted in 2022 to print the acknowledgement on all public meeting documents rather than voice it aloud.
United Nations Agenda 2030
One speaker stated, in as many words, that the OCP is in thrall to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Enacted unanimously by all 193 member nations in 2015, it is the source of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ~ a set of 169 targets that are the core of the agenda, covering social, economic, and environmental dimensions of development. The SDGs are utilized as a benchmark checklist in many contexts, including as a framework for the Victoria Foundation’s annual Vital Signs surveys. Canada's federal government tracks its commitments here (latest update, Oct. 2025). Google AI tells me that the SDGs are embedded in local government planning documents in Winnipeg, Kitchener, Kelowna, Fort St. John, Victoria, London, Peterborough and Quebec City.
The Sustainable Development Goals are not referenced in the Sooke OCP. (The word "sustainable" is cited 22 times in the document. "Development" is mentioned 411 times and "goals" 68 times.)
The UN 2030 conspiracy theory identifies a plot to establish a single world government, abolish private property, depopulate the planet, implement mass surveillance and destroy traditional western family values through woke ideology. You'll have seen reference to it on the Barry Marine sign. In a quaint and old-fashioned word when blunter terms are appropriate: Poppycock.
Climate Change
I reject climate arguments made at the public hearing (by one speaker) out of hand, especially given the reference to recent data from a US Environmental Protection Agency stripped bare of climate science by the rogue Trump administration, i.e. all EPA statements that climate change is directly impacted by human activity have been removed.
Here in Sooke, the fact that a significant portion of Charters Road disintegrated in the Nov. 2021 atmospheric river -- which in turn accelerated a necessary $7.5m rebuild of that road -- is as much local evidence as I need to conclude that climate impacts are real, expensive and sure to continue. (The Old Man Lake wildfire (human-caused, granted, but extended drought caused it to spread) and recent flooding along Sooke Road in last week's deluge - which, in turn, has sped this year's crop of potholes - can also be cited.)
I don't have time, energy nor interest to revisit a matter that is now accepted by the vastest of scientific majorities. Google AI: “There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. While a very small number of scientists may express doubt, their views are not representative of the broader scientific community ... A 2021 study revealed that 99 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific literature found that climate change was human-induced. That was in line with a widely read study from 2013, which found 97 per cent of peer-reviewed papers that examined the causes of climate change said it was human-caused."
Equity policies
Two speakers had issues with Community Policy 4.11, Equitable Community and its “commitment to prioritizing engagement with under-represented groups.” The policies and actions seek participation when possible with the following groups explicitly: the T’Sou-ke, people experiencing poverty, youth, elders and renters. Honorariums would be paid to help encourage applications from these groups. As we saw at the public hearing, individuals in these categories (elders aside) typically do not participate in public processes nor apply for committee positions or run for council.
The complaint lay with the OCP glossary definition (pg. 228) of "equity-seeking groups," i.e. "These are people who often face discrimination or other forms of systemic disadvantage. They include but are not necessarily limited to persons of colour, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, and women."
It was pointed out that white men and boys were not included on this list, and health stats show that both groups are suffering despite previous generations (read: human history) of institutionalized and social advantage. The "not necessarily limited to" statement in the definition would suggest that these two groups as well as climate deniers, vaccine skeptics and many other marginal groups holding fringe worldviews, would qualify as equity seeking. Certainly, Council is duty bound by legislation and routine practice to listen with open ears and minds to all who present in chambers. We are also entirely open to all applicants for committee positions.
2. Public Hearing Comments
I took extensive notes with my laptop last week. Here are excerpts of what I typed minus quotation marks since I can’t guarantee I caught the exact words as expressed by those at the mic. As at the hearing, I won't comment on any of these statements. This section is followed below by a synopsis of Mr. Riley’s public hearing summary and responses as drawn from the Dec. 8 staff report.
Likely 85% of the 55 or so speakers had issues with the OCP, many echoing the assertions of one effective influencer as was the case in 2022. A recent Simon Fraser University review of public hearings in BC notes, among much else, that “those opposing a land use decision are often highly motivated to participate. Conversely, those who may be positively impacted or even neutral are less likely to attend a public hearing.” Case in point follows.
Overall
- The legal and financial risks of this OCP are considerable
- By adopting this plan, council can ensure Sooke will grow with care and long-term attention
- A 'trust us, we know best' framing to the process
- OCP is very unclear – it is subject to a lot of interpretation
- When I look around this room, we are seniors (yet) we are planning for young people and their futures.
- Political and legal upheaval will follow if the plan is passed in its current form
- Council and the District may face lawsuits and find themselves in the witness box
- Don’t let this false, misleading document be your legacy
- We are making it too complicated to live in Sooke
- Remember the silent majority not in the room tonight
- The most outspoken opponents are here
- Council has given too much authority to staff.
DPAs
- DPA 3 needs further attention … set it aside
- Vague and overlapping
- DP requirements will slow the process for builders, developers and homeowners
- You will have to hire additional staff to deal with all the new DPAs.
- Without going into a lot of detail, they are unworkable
- These DPAs are absolutely horrific for developers – all this does is create more staffing requirements
- Beta testing needed for these DPAs
Waterfront landowners
- We are good stewards of the land, we require no further policing
- Our property rights have been eroded
- I’ve never been notified (about DPA changes)
- Impacts on our property values and marketability
- Every property is different – how can you impose a blanket DPA?
- Excessive restraint on my property rights
- Strong grandfathering needed
- A blanket 15m is rare and never done without extensive scientific backing
- Decks, gardens, outdoor spaces” all require a DPA
- 15m setback would be our living room … home has been there for 70 years
- Lack of proper notification and consultation
- This adds a huge financial burden to us
Waterfront trail and expropriation threat
- Are you going to take that land from the homeowners … I am suspicious of your intentions
- 5m path will disturb the intertidal zone, unleashed dogs and children … a barren wasteland will result
- Middens, owls nests, waterfowl disruption– complete mayhem.
Costs
- I expect it will cost 20% more in overall costs to applicants and raise cost of housing by 40%
- Lack of costing in this OCP
- OCP will lead to significant costs for many residents.
- The way the OCP stands now, there will be a huge tax increase for everyone in Sooke
- The uncertainty has impacted my waterfront property value
First Nations
- OCP is a genuine threat to individual land title. Falsehood that Sooke is on unceded territory. Entire OCP needs to be declared invalid (stated by one speaker)
Ideological Document
- OCP is ideological when it should be resolutely neutral – climate change, equity and colonialism (one speaker)
Attitudes towards the OCP
- Ominous
- Overreach
- Ramming things through
- Future staff will interpret this as they see fit – DPA interpretation is up to the “whims of staff”
- Lack of transparency … listen to the people!
- It seeks to regulate every aspect of life in Sooke
* Minuted participant names and comments from the Sept. 27, 2022 Public Hearing and the June 19, 2023 Committee of the Whole are in this blog entry
* The staff report of Dec. 8, 2025 summarizes input to the Dec. 3, 2025 Public Hearing
* To learn about common themes and the pros and cons of public hearings in BC, see this blog entry ... <clip> "Public hearings are designed for one-way communication, reducing participation to a binary of “for or against” instead of opening up a space for nuanced consideration of complex issues, and dialogue between decision-makers and the community." (Simon Fraser University's Renovate The Public Hearing final report, 2024)
3. Synopsis of Jayden Riley’s Public Hearing Report
I took Mr. Riley's words in his Dec. 8 staff report and distilled them for my own purposes while still quoting him more or less directly. He had summarized – accurately and in a neutral, professional fashion, I believe based on my own experience and recollection -- the themes heard at the Public Hearing.
“The community holds diverse and strongly held views on the OCP, particularly around environmental regulation and waterfront policy, while also demonstrating significant support for adopting a modernized OCP to guide Sooke’s growth,” he wrote. Two main threads to the night:
1. Support for the OCP’s climate, environmental, housing and growth management policies
2. Concerns related primarily to DPAs, environmental mapping, foreshore setbacks, housing density, transportation infrastructure, Indigenous acknowledgement language and implementation considerations.
Public Input Summary
Supportive Comments
- balanced, forward-looking plan that integrates multiple policy areas into a single framework as is our right under the Local Government Act
- length and transparency of the process
- the need to move beyond the current OCP
- need for clear policy direction re: Town Centre, transportation, parks and climate action
- as a living document, the OCP can be amended
- Support for Compact Growth Strategy, Town Centre focus and alignment with the District’s Housing Needs Report, our commitments under the CRD’s Regional Growth Strategy and Master Plans
Foreshore and Environmental DPAs (2, 3, 4, 5)
- DPA3 – 15m buffer (setback) from the high tide mark, defined as “arbitrary” and lacking in scientific shoreline mapping
- this raises fears about impacts on property value, rebuild rights and routine maintenance
- overlapping DPAs and potential need for multiple professional reports for small projects
- environmental mapping and technical studies should be done before adopting the new DPAs
- some calls for stronger and larger buffers – 30m
Process, Notification and Engagement
- waterfront owners did not receive direct notice of proposed Foreshore DPA and related changes
- was level of engagement during COVID sufficient … request additional consultation, direct mail-outs and roundtable-style sessions
- other submissions note that engagement was sufficient … current concerns reflect heightened attention rather than lack of process
TMP and PTMP Alignment with OCP
- perception of “circular planning”
- concerns over conceptual shoreline access or trail alignments (Cooper’s Cove, Whiffin Spit)
- request that these conceptual trails be removed from PTMP
Property Rights, Constructive Taking and Economic Impacts
- Shoreline buffers, environmental corridors or conceptual trails amount to “de facto expropriation” or unduly constrain reasonable use – Annapolis vs. Halifax decision
- Potential concerns: i) cost of professional reports; ii) effect on property values; iii) development feasibility in Sooke
Indigenous Acknowledgements
- several letters re: OCP’s reference to “unceded” lands
Growth, Housing, Infrastructure and Fiscal Concerns
- Density targets
- Transit feasibility
- Hwy 14 ability to handle growth
- Potential tax impacts and cost of implementing OCP actions re: capital projects and staffing
- Support for Compact Growth Strategy, Town Centre focus and alignment with the District’s Housing Needs Report and Master Plans
Staff Response to Key Themes
1. Foreshore & Environmental DPAs
- Environmental and Foreshore DPAs are to balance private use of waterfront property with the District’s LGA obligations to protect the natural environment and reduce hazards such as erosion, flooding and slope instability.
- 15 to 30m is a widely used planning standard in coastal communities – a trigger for professional review, not a prohibition on development or use.
- The Zoning Bylaw – 3.22 Setbacks (Water) … expressly states that “no building, recreational vehicle, sea wall of any height, any other structure, nor any part thereof shall be constructed, moved, extended or located within 15 meters of the natural boundary of the sea.”
This has been the law in Sooke since Bylaw 600 was passed in 2014.
- Any home predating 2014 is automatically granted legal non-conforming status (i.e. grandfathered)
Exemptions and Homeowner Activities
- clear exemptions for routine yard and garden maintenance, vegetation management, invasive species removal, hazardous tree removal and maintenance of existing structures.
- Existing homes remain lawful and may continue to be maintained, renovated or replaced in accordance with zoning and the BC Building Code
Overlapping DPAs and Proportionality
- Only one Development Permit application form
- Proportionate approach – staff seek only the appropriate level of reporting appropriate to the scale and risk of the proposed works. Minor or low-impact projects would require minimal professional input, typically.
Conclusion: Clearer guidance than the 2010 DPAs. No substantial changes required.
2. Process, Engagement and Notification
- District met and exceeded all notification requirements under the LGA
- Expanded communication – front-cover surveys on the Sooke News Mirror to the 2025 tax insert.
- Continuous engagement since 2020
- Two public hearings
- Issues raised at the public hearing relate to the content of the OCP, not the process
Conclusion: All processes followed to reach Third Reading and Adoption
3. TMP/PTMP Alignment
- Common planning practice in BC
- Aligned with the District’s long-standing goals of compact growth, improved transportation options, expanded active transportation and trail networks.
- OCP is a single overarching framework
Conceptual nature of TMP and PTMP Maps
- high-level desired connections, road and trail alike -- not specific alignments, engineered routes nor any commitments … landowner consent, statutory rights-of-way are required … the OCP does not authorize expropriation.
Cooper’s Cove and other shoreline segments
- OCP does not mandate construction of shoreline routes and does not preclude Council from modifying or discontinuing specific concepts during future planning phases.
4. Indigenous Acknowledgement and Unceded Language
Acknowledgement
- District’s ongoing commitment to reconciliation and respectful relationships
- These statements are non-regulatory and do not alter land ownership, title, zoning or private property rights
- Indigenous acknowledgements are policy statements only, not enforceable regulations.
Douglas Treaties
- The OCP does not interpret or alter treaty rights. No new legal obligations, no diminishment of existing rights under the Douglas Treaties.
5. Property Rights, Constructive Taking and the Annapolis Decision
- DPA guidelines regulate the form, character and environmental conditions of new development or land alteration.
- They do not change zoning, remove permitted uses, prevent lawful rebuilding or grant public access across private land.
Does not create new public rights or freeze private lands
- Conceptual shoreline or trail connections are illustrative only.
- They do not establish legal rights-of-way, create obligations for landowners or restrict existing uses.
- Any future project would require separate Council decisions, technical review and, where applicable, landowner consent or acquisition.
Annapolis decision not applicable
- It does not require an interest in the land
- It does not eliminate reasonable use or development potential
- Existing homes remain lawful
6. Growth, Housing, Infrastructure Capacity & Tax Concerns
Purpose of OCP in Growth Management
- long-range policy framework, not a budgeting or capital works program
- It identifies where growth is anticipated and general form it should take
- Development is regulated through zoning, subdivision and infrastructure planning processes
Infrastructure Capacity and servicing
- OCP does not approve projects or commit the District to timelines
- Future servicing improvements will be evaluated through the Five-Year Financial Plan and annual budgeting
Housing Needs and Density Concerns
- Bill 44, Housing Needs Report (2024) and long-time vision of Sooke Smart Growth in the town centre and where existing infrastructure is available.
Tax and Financial Impacts
- No new financial obligations or tax increases
7. Suggestion to remove DPAs from the OCP
- DPAs must be designated in an OCP
- Boundaries and purposes of DPAs must be adopted in an OCP
- The guidelines that apply within these DPAs may be included in a separate development permit guidelines bylaw … but the designation itself must remain in the OCP.
- Langford designated the DP areas in its OCP but added the DP Area Guidelines as appendices to its Zoning Bylaw
Common Practice in BC
- typically DPA designations and guidelines are contained with an OCP
- DPAs integrate with mapping, growth management, hazard policies and environmental direction
- OCP is the umbrella document for land-use policy
Pros and Cons of Standalone DPA Guidelines
Pro: Flexibility to update OCP
Pro: Shorter document
Con: Another bylaw for applicants and staff to navigate
Con: Risks inconsistencies between OCP and guideline bylaw
Con: No change in concerns re: setback interpretation, exemptions, mapping) given DPA designation and purpose
Con: Would require a future OCP amendment process, public consultation and Public Hearing
- If council wishes, staff can explore refinements to format or presentation in a future OCP update
8. Document Length and Number of DPAs
- Length is a reflection of breadth – not complexity – and ensures transparency by consolidating policy in one place
New DPAS reduce ambiguity and improve consistency
- Three broad DPAs in current OCP have resulted in ambiguity, limited guidance & inconsistent interpretation
- The updated framework:
i) identifies where DPAs apply and why
ii) detailed, plain-language guidelines
iii) exemptions for routine homeowner activities
iv) allows staff to rely on professional reports and standards
v) reduces discretionary interpretation and improves fairness for applicants.
- In practice, more DPAs with clearer scope create LESS uncertainty than fewer DPAs with vague intent.
Removal weakens the OCP
- Critical tool under the LGA for environmental protection, hazard mitigation and form & character.
- Removing them would not simplify development review and would weaken the clarity and defensibility of the District’s permitting processes.
9. Other Clarifications
- Complete Streets and Conceptual Mapping: Conceptual only illustrations. Any future project would require feasibility review, engineering, environmental assessment and Council direction.
- Rebuild Rights for existing homes: Rights are determined through zoning, the BC Building Code and applicable provincial regulations, not through DPAs.
- BC Building Code concerns: DPA guidelines address matters within municipal jurisdiction, such as site design, siting, grading and environmental protection.
Implementation
Guidance for in-stream and new applications
- staff have prepared internal procedures and applicant messaging
- A consolidated FAQ
- A homeowner-oriented bulletin of DPA triggers and exemptions & other material ready for posting on the website
- Development application forms, checklists and technical bullets are being updated
- Changes to the Fees & Charges Bylaw and Development Procedures Bylaw #900 to come in the new year
- Planning staff outreach to MOTT, CRD, T’Sou-ke Nation and other development professionals, agencies and partners.
“The updated Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 800, 2022 (November 2025) is the product of a comprehensive, multi-year planning and engagement process. The written and verbal submissions received through the Public Hearing process have been fully considered and do not identify issues requiring substantive amendment or a new Public Hearing. With the implementation plan underway, staff are satisfied that the new OCP provides a clear, modern, and legally defensible framework to guide Sooke’s long-term growth and development. The bylaw is now ready for Council’s consideration of Third Reading and Adoption.”
4. A Respectful Note to Waterfront Landowners
I urge you to get organized. It was only in the weeks immediately prior to the 2022 and last week’s public hearings that we heard extensively from you. It seemingly requires one single influencer to get some of you roused and ready to accuse this duly elected Council of so many things: Lack of transparency; tyrannical overreach; incompetence; and worse. Believe me, last week was tough slogging from my seat. I felt a measure of possibly imagined hostility, which you may or may not maintain towards the four of us who voted yes.
All that follows is obvious, and I’m sure individuals have done much of this themselves over the years, but if you did form some kind of a waterfront landowners association, you’d be in a position to create a steering committee and begin reviewing federal, provincial and municipal regulations that directly impact your properties. You're likely familiar with much of the following:
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada guidelines, i.e., Projects Near Water home page; Boathouses, Docks and Moorings Code of Practice (2025)
- Green Shores' Coastal Shore Jurisdiction in BC
- this 2019 BC Ministry of Environment technical study on "Water Quality Assessment and Proposed Objectives for Sooke Watersheds, Inlet, Harbour and Basin"
- Also from the Ministry in 2019, the report Water Quality Objectives for Sooke Inlet, Harbour, Basin and Tributaries
- the 1991 Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans report titled Sooke Harbour and Basin Fish Habitat Inventory
- the Province's 1993 Sooke River Floodplain Mapping Study
- reports from the Stewardship Centre for British Columbia (which tracks grant opportunities for shoreline upkeep and projects.)
More directly, you could book delegations and bring your reasoned, well-documented asks to council. You could advocate for review and update of those DPA sections you want amended. Or call for a new version of the CRD's long-outdated Sooke Harbour, Basin and Inlet Master Plan (which Mayor Tait highlighted on Monday night; the 2001 OCP called for a review of the 1997 version of this CRD document, I recently discovered, yet it seemingly has fallen off the sonar. No online copies available, but I have the 1989 edition if anyone requests it. Please do.)
I can all but guarantee you will get traction, just as typically does any community group that recognizes the system’s guardrails and operates effectively & realistically within them.
Examples (thank you Google AI) …
“These associations often focus on issues such as property rights, dock management plans, environmental stewardship, and government regulations that affect waterfront properties.
* Shuswap Waterfront Owners Association: This organization represents waterfront and semi-waterfront owners around Shuswap and Mara lakes, monitoring issues and voicing concerns related to dock ownership and regulations. Annual $25 dues.
* Christina Lake Waterfront Property Owners Society: A volunteer group that works to ensure the interests of property owners are represented in development and use of Christina Lake, focusing on water quality and environmental protection.
* Waterfront Protection Coalition (WPC): A broad collective of residents and businesses from various areas including the Sunshine Coast, Gulf Islands, and Okanagan, formed to advocate for waterfront communities potentially affected by the provincial government's proposed Dock Management Plan.
* North Saanich PROW (Property Responsibility on Waterfront) Association
5. Roll The Credits
Shout-out to the citizens who accepted the invitation to participate through multiple ways and means, including the two public hearings and two open houses ... plus importantly:
District of Sooke Staff
- Danica Rice
- Ivy Campbell
- Katherine Lesyshen
- Matthew Pawlow
- Chris Marshall
- Jayden Riley
- Christina Moog
- Raechel Gray
- and many unsung others
OCP Advisory Committee
Chair Helen Ritts
Councillor Al Beddows
Norm Amirault
Terry Cristall
Steve Grundy
Ellen Lewers
Linda MacMillan
Siomonn Pulla
Consultants
Jennifer Fix - Project Lead
Lucas Ozols-Mongeau - Project Manager
Emily Rennalis - Urban Planner
James Godwin - Urban Designer
Watt Consulting Group - Transportation
Colliers International - Land Economics and Development
Licker Geospatial Consulting - GIS Analysis and Mapping
Sustainable Solutions Group - Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Urban Systems (2025)
And not to forget ...
Sooke Council 2014-18: Tait, Berger, Kasper, Logins, Parkinson, Pearson, Reay
Sooke Council 2018-22: Tait, Bateman, Beddows, Lajeunesse, Logins, McMath, Parkinson, St-Pierre
Sooke Council 2022-26: Tait, Bateman, Beddows, Haldane, Lajeunesse, McMath, Pearson, St-Pierre
Live long and prosper! (source: Spock/Horgan)
With amendments as needed over time.
Countdown clock now on to the next legislated OCP review in 2030.
RSS Feed