Updated September 2026: The following three writings by long-time North Saanich resident Alan Osborne are from a few years ago, during the early stages of the latest OCP Review. A longish read, but well worth it and still relevant today.
All you need to know about the Regional Growth Strategy, the OCP and why they matter to residents. Unfortunately, the message needed to be repeated a year later.
1. Let's elect a Council that pays attention to professional planning advice!
Letter to Council – Alan Osborne
July 7, 2021
OCP Review.
Dear Mayor and Council
This is regarding the OCP Review, on your July 12th agenda. I’d like to provide some comments both on the OCP review itself and on some of the documents included in that agenda package.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
I want to start by saying that any local politician who doesn’t look for ways to meet the housing needs in their community shouldn’t be in office. I worked on affordable housing issues for provincial and local governments, and I appreciate how challenging this can be. A key thing that I learned, however, is that at the end of the day the market determines housing prices, regardless of what the municipality plans. You only have to look at recent “small lot” developments that developers promised would be affordable. Canora Mews and Eaglehurst, are two examples. Houses in both developments ended up selling for much more than what the developers said they would. I don’t blame the developers, as they will always sell at the market price. However, anybody who tells you that the OCP can achieve affordable housing in expensive neighbourhoods is either misleading you or doesn’t understand land economics. The real estate market has determined that North Saanich is a very desirable place to live and that means it is and will be an expensive place to buy or rent. The residents I’ve spoken with understand this and that is why they are objecting, not to the need for “affordable housing”, but rather, to the reality that it can’t be built in these expensive neighbourhoods. They understand that what is being proposed will make their neighbourhood less attractive without even accomplishing the social goal of more affordable housing.
There’s good reason why the CRD Regional Growth Strategy (2018) requires at least 95% of new housing be built inside the urban containment area. It’s because those areas have the land, transit, water, sewer and other services to accommodate new development and can do so in a way that both provides more affordable housing and at the same time meets environmental goals (e.g. contains urban sprawl). And there’s good reason why North Saanich is NOT in the urban containment area, because it was recognized that this municipality does not have land prices or servicing which will allow affordable housing to be built, nor is it the best place to build it because of the lack of transit.
As I mentioned in an earlier letter to Council, transportation costs are typically 20% or more of the family budget, so it makes no sense for Council to allow yet more housing where families cannot use transit and are required to have two or more vehicles. Council shouldn’t ignore the need for affordable housing, but it needs to be realistic about how and where it can happen. One example of a real contribution was when Council secured land for 10 Habitat for Humanity houses off Lochside Drive. Such opportunities provide actual affordable housing and should continue to be sought out where they can, provided they are in the right locations (i.e. close to good transit).
DEEP COVE SMALL LOT AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING (Good development + wrong location = bad planning)
On July 7th on CBC Radio Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps was interviewed about the concept of giving families more affordable housing options by allowing more small lot housing and townhouse developments in some Victoria neighbourhoods. She emphasized that this was the only way to address affordable housing without adding more housing in the suburbs. She said that more housing in outlying areas would prevent us from meeting our goals for reducing GHGs because the residents in those houses would be car-dependent. She understands that while affordable housing is needed it needs to be provided where people don’t have to be dependent on cars to shop, go to work etc.
There are three major problems with the OCP “concept” of adding small lot housing and townhouses in Deep Cove. (1) These houses would not be affordable. Ask any realtor; any new house constructed on any size lot in Deep Cove will sell far above any “affordable” housing threshold. (2) Adding more housing to Deep Cove, Ardmore, Lands End, or any rural residential area means adding more cars on the roads when the municipality is trying to reduce GHG emissions. Council cannot expect households to reduce their emissions while at the same time approving more car-dependent housing in rural areas. (3) Small lot and townhouse developments would be completely out of character with that neighbourhood. It is not “sensitive infill”, it is urban sprawl. Deep Cove residents are opposed because they know that once the precedent is set for “suburban” density in Deep Cove it will make it much harder for future Councils to say “ No” to yet more of such development. It’s the “slippery slope”.
The planning consultants took a concept that may work in Victoria or North Vancouver and proposed it in a rural area. To put this in a simple mathematical formula: Good development + wrong location = bad planning.
McTAVISH AREA DEVELOPMENT
This one is challenging because while it is outside the urban containment area it does have “reasonable" transit and some services and it is the only portion of North Saanich that could allow significant housing without the new residents being car-dependent. It is also the only area of North Saanich where BC Transit has indicated there could be significant service expansion. So, it has potential, but a lot of work needs to be done, particularly with the residents in that neighbourhood, to work through the issues and options. Given how little work and consultation has been done and could be done before the OCP review is completed, it would be premature to designate this area for redevelopment in the new OCP. Rather, I think it would be wise for Council to indicate that this is an area that needs further study and consultation, and post-COVID undertake extensive consultation about the future of the area. This would also allow Council to talk to people like Mayor Helps and and others in the region, to ensure that they are all on the same page about where new and affordable housing needs to occur in the region, and more specifically whether it would be a good idea to expand the regional urban growth boundary to include this portion of North Saanich. I suspect the answer is “no”.
DON’T ASSUME ALL ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT OCP ARE WIDELY SUPPORTED OR APPROPRIATE
I’ve heard Council members refer to the fact that some of the proposals that people are objecting to now are already allowed under the current OCP (2007). The implication is that whatever is in the current OCP is good policy and is well-supported by the community. That would be a mistake. I was around during the previous OCP review and it was also heavily criticized. As is the case today, much of the controversy surrounded the housing policies, and the proposal to allow significant "infill housing” (the current euphemism is “sensitive infill”!). I hope we have learned since the current OCP was developed. We should have learned that affordable housing is not as simple as increasing density in various neighbourhoods and “infill development” doesn’t occur without significant loss of trees.
Secondly, as the municipality’s Select Committee on Climate Change pointed out, the current OCP was not developed with a “climate lens” and the new OCP needs such a lens. In simple terms, this means reviewing each policy in the OCP and asking questions such as “How will this policy help us meet our climate goals?” and “Will this policy get more cars off the roads or add more cars to the roads?” The current OCP is outdated and residents are understandably questioning some of the current policies.
In the past few years Council has received significant negative feedback about some of the “infill” housing that is allowed under the current zoning and OCP, and there are many more lots that can still be developed, and many more suites still to be built. I doubt most residents appreciate how many additional houses and suites could still be built, and how many more trees will have to be removed, without any further changes to the OCP. This is a good example of where the OCP process is lacking. It’s all about opinions, with little or no data. Council should give the community clear information on how much development they can already expect to see under the current OCP over the next 5,10 and 20 years, and the impacts they can expect to see, in terms of tree removal, cars on the road, etc. and then how much more above that would occur if the proposed “concepts” were approved.
THE EFFECT OF THE OCP ON RESIDENTS
I have a couple of comments regarding the “Responses to Misconceptions” document While this document is apparently intended to clear up “misconceptions”, there are some parts that I find misleading and I think need to be addressed.
While it’s true that the OCP doesn’t “automatically rezone all properties” it's far from a benign document It sends a very clear signal to those wishing to develop; that Council will approve their application to rezone if they apply for what is in the OCP. When an OCP signals which properties can be redeveloped, the value of those properties increases. Property is assessed on the principle of “highest and best use” (confirmed by the selling price of similar properties). So, for example, if the OCP shows that a 2 acre parcel could at some point be rezoned to allow 20 small lot houses or 30-40 townhouses then the assessed value of that parcel should increase to reflect that increased development potential. Certainly some developers will be willing to pay significantly more for that parcel of land because they have good reason to assume that the rezoning will be approved. So let’s be clear, changes to an OCP certainly will increase property assessments and therefore also increase property taxes. And of course higher property taxes will be a financial strain for some owners and make it more likely they will either need to, or want to, sell their land to one of these developers. So it’s misleading to reassure people that “nothing will change” because of the OCP. Let’s be clear that a change to the OCP will change property values and will increase development pressure on those properties.
YOU CAN’T PLAN IN ISOLATION: PLAN IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT
The second issue I need to address in the “misconceptions” report deals with the regional growth strategy and the suggestion that it provides room for significant additional housing in rural residential areas and other areas outside of the urban containment area. I was indirectly involved when the CRD Regional Growth Strategy was initially developed. The Strategy states “Even modest population growth would undermine the regional vision if it were accommodated, as it has been since the 1950s, through further expansion into farms, forests and the countryside”. It was obvious to those involved that some continued development in rural residential areas was inevitable simply because there were still thousands of vacant lots in the various municipalities that would eventually have houses built on them. So the regional strategy couldn’t state that 100% of all new housing needed to be within the urban containment area. To allow for existing lots to be built upon the RGS states that at least 95% of new housing needed to be in the urban growth area. This wasn’t, as the “misconceptions” document suggests, a licence for North Saanich to rezone even more rural land for housing. It was a clear message to not allow further development in the “countryside”.
PLEASE GET THIS PROCESS BACK ON TRACK
My final comment is that it's disheartening to see how this OCP process has unfolded. To be blunt, there has been unnecessary stress on all parties, and much time wasted on “red flags” instead of real priorities. Watching Council’s discussions I also appreciate your frustrations as well. Council is inundated with concerns from people reacting to “concepts” that were apparently developed without Council input. Residents either don’t understand how that can be or don’t trust that it is the case. It’s clear that Council should have given direction to the “project team” before any “concepts” were developed.
I had hoped that the community’s and Council’s time and energies would be spent addressing the most pressing issues North Saanich, changes we need to make to address climate change, to improve food security and to protect our natural environment. These are the community’s priorities. It’s not too late to get this process back on track and ensure that the new OCP reflects the community’s priorities.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate all that you do for North Saanich.
Alan Osborne
North Saanich (since 1987)
2. This excellent item appeared in September 2022 on the North Saanich Facebook page.
See the original article and any comments here: (20+) Alan Osborne | Facebook.
3. SNS Dialogue Session with the OCP Project Team
Originally published July 2022
Alan Osborne
I’ve heard lots of confusion and concern about the review of the Official Community Plan (OCP). As a retired community planner and long time North Saanich resident I think I can “cut through the noise” and identify what’s at the root of many of the concerns.
In this article I won’t deal with the consultation process, but rather focus on the actual proposals and why they are problematic.
I want to thank the Save North Saanich organizers for inviting me to a couple of meetings back in May. The first meeting involved a group of residents who had concerns with the OCP review and the second was when this group met with the “planning team” (the planning consultants and North Saanich planning staff). In listening to the group I found that we shared many of the same concerns, so much so that they asked me to make the lead-off presentation at the meeting with the planning team.
I’ve worked as a planner for some BC municipalities, a regional district and the Islands Trust, and I’ve been involved with many OCP reviews. I also worked in the provincial government, in the ministry responsible for local government. In my time there I was Director of Local Government Policy and Legislation for quite a few years and oversaw the development of much of BC’s current planning legislation. Before retiring I was Executive Director of Planning and Intergovernmental Relations, and helped municipal and regional governments across the province tackle issues such as urban development, affordable housing and climate change. Locally, I’ve served a few terms on the North Saanich Advisory Panning Commission, the Parks Commission and last year I was appointed to the North Saanich Select Committee on Climate Change.
The issues with the OCP proposals fall Into three themes: vision, context and climate. Basically, the planning team is heading in the wrong direction by: (1)proposing to change the long-standing vision of North Saanich, to make it more a more urban place; (2) ignoring the regional plan, which is aimed at stopping urban sprawl and keeping new housing within the “urban containment area” (which doesn’t include North Saanich); and (3) proposing significantly more housing were the residents will have no choice but to rely on personal vehicles. Putting housing in locations where residents need to rely on cars not only puts strain on family budgets, it also puts hundreds of more vehicles on our roads and makes it difficult to reduce emissions and achieve our climate change goals.
Now if you can bear with me a bit longer, I’ll explain these issues in a bit more detail.
VISION
I’ve lived in North Saanich for 35 years and I’ve been involved with numerous committees and commissions since Day One. Literally on the day we moved in, as I was unloading boxes from a U-Haul truck, someone walked up the driveway and asked me to attend an Advisory Planning Commission meeting that was scheduled for the following day. I went.
I’ve watched North Saanich evolve. On the face of it the community has changed a fair bit over the years, but one thing has remained steady; the community vision, captured by the OCP.
Residents have always valued:
- Our role in providing green and blue spaces (some planning jargon that means our forests, farms and foreshore).
- Our role as a major food supplier, with the potential to dramatically increase food production if needed in the future…and with climate change that time may be sooner that we thought.
- Our rural landscapes, and the ecological value of our forests and hedgerows.
- Our responsibility as a regional transportation hub.
The vision has been a touchstone and has served the community well.
The vision that the planning team put out for public comment includes a significant shift from our long-standing vision of the community. I doubt that many people appreciate what looks like subtle changes in the wording. And what frustrates those who do notice the changes is that there’s never been an explicit discussion on why the current vision needs to change.
The planning team will say that they asked for input on the revised vision, but it’s very difficult for the average resident to cut through the warm fuzzy wording and appreciate the implications. Ask the average resident to comment on a vision that adds terms like “diverse neighbourhoods” and their eyes glaze over. They don’t understand the implications of those words. I assured the planning team that if they explained that “diverse neighbourhoods” means adding townhouses and 4 story condos to what are now low-density rural neighbourhoods they would get much more reliable feedback on the vision!
So that’s the first fundamental problem with this OCP review; nobody asked residents whether the long-standing vision for the community still reflected what we valued. Instead, a new vision with some warm, fuzzy words was thrown out there for comment and residents need a translator to appreciate that this new vision would make North Saanich a much more urban place.
CONTEXT
This leads us to the second theme, the lack of context. For any planning process - forest planning, social planning, financial planning - it’s critical to start with the context.
We have 13 municipalities in the Capital Regional District (CRD) and all of their OCPs need to fit into a regional context. The CRD Regional Growth Strategy is very clear on the role that North Saanich plays in the region. And that role is very much aligned with the vision in the existing OCP. The RGS does not see North Saanich being a major source of new housing. Quite the contrary, it was agreed that no part of North Saanich would be in what’s called the “urban containment area”.
Millions of dollars and years of work were spent developing the original RGS and the update done just a few years ago. A central pillar of the RGS is the need for an urban containment boundary, to prevent further urban sprawl, to protect rural areas, protect our farms, to protect the environment and reduce emissions.
Housing demand and affordability were a big part of the RGS analysis. The urban containment area was determined to be the most appropriate place for new housing in the region. It has the required services and within the urban containment areas there’s real potential to achieve what’s called “active transportation neighbourhoods”. That’s more planning jargon, which means residents should be able to walk, cycle and use transit for most of their daily trips.
Allowing more housing in neighbourhoods where people must rely on personal vehicles for most of their daily trips is not only bad for the environment but it also puts pressure on an already strained family budget. Most studies show that Canadians spend about 20% of their income on transportation, and that owning a vehicle costs about $15,000 per year. With mortgage rates, rents, food and gas prices all increasing it’s more important than ever to focus new housing where people have options to reduce what they spend on transportation, by taking public transit, walking or cycling. Containing urban sprawl is a win/win situation. Families save money on vehicles and gas and at the same time it reduces emissions and helps the region to meet our climate goals.
The RGS says that we need to focus 95% of new housing within the urban containment area. It goes further and stresses the need to ensure that new housing is in those “active transportation neighbourhoods” so that residents aren’t car dependent. So how are we as a region? The most recent RGS Annual Progress Report says that only 39% of new housing is being built in these “active transportation neighbourhoods”. In other words, 61% of new housing is still being built in areas where residents, by necessity, will need to rely on cars to get around. Municipalities like North Saanich need to get more serious about containing urban sprawl.
Under the RGS, North Saanich is not within the urban containment area and is not seen as an appropriate place for significant new housing. This is no surprise, given that we have few bus routes and infrequent service.
Has the CRD told North Saanich that it wants to expand the urban containment area to include portions of our municipality? No it hasn’t, nor should it, because it’s already struggling to contain urban sprawl. Then how is it that the only land use scenarios that have been put out for public review all call for significant amounts of housing outside of the urban containment area? Why aren’t residents asked to consider land use scenarios that are consistent with the RGS and don’t expand the urban containment area?
If residents are expected to give input on lands scenarios they need context. The land use scenarios sent out for public comment don’t provide any explanation as to why there is an urban containment area in the RGS, what it’s intended to achieve and what progress is being made (or in this case, not being made) to contain urban sprawl. By being silent on the context, this suggests that there are no negative impacts to any of the scenarios; that they are all good planning options.
Some years back I was in a meeting where then-Premier Gordon Campbell called the mayors from our major urban areas into the Cabinet Chambers to tell them that they had to get serious about climate change. He asked them, “How many of you ran for office on a platform to create more urban sprawl?” (No one raised their hand.) “And yet that is exactly what you’re doing. You may think that you’re approving reasonable developments but when you stand back and look at the cumulative results, you’re still creating urban sprawl.”
I will continue to be critical of the current OCP review until someone makes a very clear and convincing case that the urban containment area needs to be expanded into North Saanich. Further, they need to make a convincing case that an urban village in the McTavish neighbourhood is the best option to meet our region’s housing and environmental goals. If we were in Ontario, or any other jurisdictions where they have a planning review board, there would have to be detailed studies, presenting data and analysis, before any expansion would even be considered. Yet here it’s being assumed that parts of North Saanich should be in the urban containment area, and the only question being asked of residents is “how much”?
And while the McTavish urban village attracts a lot of attention, the planning team’s proposals also call for a lot of new housing be added in other areas of North Saanich as well. And again, with no rationale, no context and no sense of the implications.
I appreciate why some residents will be in favour of more housing. Some people will want to add a secondary suite or guest cottage to supplement their income. Some would love to subdivide their property, make some money, and build a smaller home for themselves. Other people will see a need to help tenant farmers and farm entrepreneurs live on-site, etc.
This OCP review should be a forum where such issues can be examined and discussed. To help the discussion the planning team should have presented the context, the challenges, identified the tough choices that need to be made and provided the implications of each option. With such information residents would be in a realistic position to provide informed input.
So that’s the second fundamental problem, residents haven’t been given any context. It’s almost as if the regional plan doesn’t exist and we’re planning in isolation and with no information about the impacts of the various proposals.
CLIMATE
This brings me to the third issue, the impacts of the proposals on climate change.
The most recent CRD Greenhouse Gas Inventory showed that the region is falling far behind where it needs to be in reducing GHG emissions. The goal was to reduce emissions by 33% between 2007 and 2020. The study shows that emissions fell by only 10%. Per capita emissions did fall quite a bit in some municipalities, particularly in Victoria. Which municipalities are doing the worst? No surprise, it’s those like North Saanich that continue to allow development in rural areas.
When North Saanich Council declared a climate emergency the community was told that the OCP would be where they would see details on many of the bold actions that will be required. Council also agreed to implement a recommendation of the municipality’s Select Committee on Climate Change that a “climate lens” be applied to Council reports and decisions.
The planning team documents mention climate, and mention the need for “strong actions”, but then there’s a huge disconnect between those nice words and the actual proposals. The concepts put out for public input recommend significant amounts of new housing where residents will have no choice but to use personal vehicles for most of their daily trips. How is that bold action on climate?
The planning team seems to have made the assumption that denser housing means the residents will use transit, regardless of where that density is. Take the Deep Cove proposal for mixed use and an undefined amount of new housing, for example. It’s presented as a “climate-friendly” option. I can only assume the planning team hasn’t studied the bus schedule. For those of us who live there, we know that the level of bus service is nowhere near that required for residents to forgo the use of a car. On weekdays the bus comes every 2 or 3 hours. On weekends the bus comes only 3 times a day. So if you miss your bus you have a 6 hour wait. BC Transit tells us there are no plans in the foreseeable future to improve bus frequency in Deep Cove, so it’s pretty obvious that any new housing there will be auto-dependent….more vehicles on the road, more emissions. If a climate lens was applied I guarantee you this proposal would fail.
The same issue applies to the Benchlands (Terraces). I know there are some residents there who want to subdivide or put in guest cottages. Maybe there are some portions of the Benchlands where pedestrian pathways could be added so that the residents could have short walk up to East Saanich Rd., and have access to bus service. And maybe bus service could be increased to the level that people could forgo private vehicles for many of their daily trips. The proposal thrown out for input shows significant infill housing in that whole area, without any analysis of the impacts. The reality is that most of it will likely be auto-dependent development and will hurt our ability to reduce emissions.
If Gordon Campbell were here he would say, however well-intentioned, at the end of the day, if it’s car dependent it’s sprawl, and we can’t afford more of it if we’re serious about climate change.
IN CLOSING
It would be a mistake to dismiss residents opposed to the OCP proposals as simply “anti-development”. I’ve found that my neighbours understand why North Saanich is such a special place and why allowing more urban sprawl is the wrong thing do. They also understand the challenges of housing affordability, and they are sceptical that any new housing built in expensive rural neighbourhoods will somehow be affordable. They want solutions to the housing crisis that also meet our other objectives, such as doing our part to address climate change. They connect the dots between more development, more cars on our roads, and more emissions. They were looking to the municipality to show some leadership in reducing emissions and addressing climate change and they expected the OCP review to be an opportunity to showcase and discuss some of those ideas. Like many North Saanich residents, I completed the recent OCP on-line survey. I found it very frustrating; the way the change in the overall vision was downplayed, the lack of regional context, the limited options presented and the failure to address climate change.
It made me think about the fact that we’re only a few months from the next election and that I should have my own questions ready for the candidates. I’ve still got time to work on them but they’ll probably be something like this:
- Do you agree that the long-standing vision of North Saanich is still valid? Or do you think that it needs to change to incorporate more dense, urban development?
- Do you support the RGS goal to limit urban sprawl and focus new housing within the current urban containment boundary? Or do you believe we should ignore the RGS and allow significantly more housing throughout North Saanich?
- Do you believe that strong actions are needed to address climate change and reduce emissions? If so, do you agree that we need to apply a climate lens to all development proposals, to ensure that we aren’t approving more development where residents must rely on cars for most of their daily trips?
I’m hopeful that the local election in November will be a good opportunity to finally discuss our vision for North Saanich.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments and contributions are welcome, but must remain within the bounds of good taste. Vulgarity, abusive comments, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. The NSCV reserves the right to moderate inappropriate comments.