Another Difficult Choice for Council

The OCP Phase 3 Engagement Summary 

Another Difficult Choice for Council 

Mayor & Council, 

   The Project Team is to be commended for a very comprehensive round up of the Phase 3 Engagement findings.  At 510 pages, over five times larger than the OCP itself, it is a daunting read.  Perhaps a longer time should have been provided for all to go through it thoroughly.  A sunny summer weekend does little to focus the mind. 

   Nevertheless, I have been able to go through the Executive Summary, RGS Alignment, Key Takeaways, Shared Values, Recommendations, and Council Correspondence but very little of the extensive underlying detail, valuable as it may be.  Nevertheless, one can still bring the important problems into focus. 

   For me, these difficulties distil down to: 

1.      A spontaneous rewrite of the Municipal Vision Statement without a mandate to do so.  Subsequent surveys indicated that the existing Vision Statement is mostly satisfactory but the Project Team did not confirm this prior to issuing a new, significantly altered version

2.      An almost obsessive focus upon urbanization.  This, in spite of:

a.       the formative Staff Report of March 2020 providing a broad and balanced range of topics to be addressed.  This helpful work plan was mysteriously replaced by some "Emerging Themes", a notion spawned by the Project Team, not the residents

b.      Phase 1 public surveys giving this urbanization imperative a very low rating (8%)

c.       North Saanich being entirely outside the Urban Containment Policy Area

3.      A consequent lack of attention to the agricultural and rural values identified by the RGS as an imperative for areas outside UCPA

4.      an unfortunate "hands off" policy by Council that saw the OCP Review trundle along with only "citizen oversight" for seven months prior to the July 12, 2021 Council meeting.  By then a myriad of problems with the process had become entrenched and attempts to remedy them were not particularly successful.

5.      an overly strenuous effort to expand the UCPA to include Areas 1 and 2, possibly even expanding Area 1

a.       in a rural municipality, this attempt to influence the residents and Council to undermine the RGS is unseemly.

b.      The Urban Containment Boundary (UCPA) is being inaccurately portrayed as an “existing land use area perimeter” rather than a planning boundary.  The rationale for the positioning of the UCPA planning boundary is as valid today as when it originated.  As development pressure increases, the respect for that boundary should be ever stronger.

c.       Earlier inappropriate land-use decisions (Canora Mews and Eaglehurst) should not be considered precedent-setting but as nonconforming anomalies within the still valid plan.  A planning boundary is positioned according to long-term planning principles, not as a transitory response to past regulatory failures.
In fact, those earlier failures only reinforce the importance of maintaining that boundary.

6.      Examination of the Key Takeaways and Council Correspondence reveals more than a little dissatisfaction by residents with the urbanization theme and the review process itself:

a.       It is clear there is little resident support for the proposed densities, which originated with the Project Team.  For policies that could substantially change the nature of the community, one would expect approval levels in excess of 85%.  In Phase 1, where residents were given an open-ended selection process, housing concerns garnered only 8% support, with environmental, climate, agricultural and marine values attracting the most support.  
It is difficult to support advancing the proposed density initiatives when they are opposed by a large percentage of the residents.

b.      The report gives some attention to Climate change considerations, but fails to acknowledge that none of the proposed densities will pass a Climate lens test.

c.       The Council Correspondence summary is worth reading.  The lack of support is substantial and the specific complaints point to major fundamental flaws.  It is difficult to reconcile some of the recommendations with the findings in this section.

7.      The Regional Growth Strategy.  In this project, the minimal RGS treatment is now recognized as a significant failure of process.  Although fundamental to every municipality within the CRD, it has received little attention until recently.  Its policies and principles define our community:

a.       North Saanich is a rural community, not sometimes, not partially and not changeable upon a whim.  We are entirely outside of the Urban Containment Policy Area

b.      as a rural community, our role in the CRD is to emphasize and safeguard rural and agricultural values, both for District residents and those throughout the CRD

c.       our role is not primarily to provide residential and commercial services

d.      in this regard, the RGS is very clear, a maximum of 5% of CRD growth is to accrue to areas such as ours that are outside the UCPA.  This is an agreed-upon policy, not something to be adopted or changed arbitrarily

e.       notwithstanding that and the fact that North Saanich contains 13.6% of the rural lands within the CRD, we have recently received 61% of the non-urban growth within the region.  It would appear that North Saanich is already doing more than its share to provide housing (some municipalities are absorbing less than the 5% "quota").  Why the push to do more?
More importantly, the CRD has given no indication or direction to North Saanich to accommodate more growth than our share of the 5%.

f.       The nature of North Saanich as a slow growth area (5%) with a non-urban focus is not an arbitrary stance by a few grumpy property owners - it is an official planning policy enshrined in a CRD bylaw.

g.      Rather than employing contradictory contortions of logic (“how [Areas 1 and 2] may play a role in meeting our housing needs while respecting the vision and land-use objectives for the region”), the Project Team should simply make every effort to ensure that North Saanich upholds its obligations within the CRD. 
The fundamental basis for the RGS policy is that rural and urban values are mostly mutually exclusive, hence the 5%/95% growth distinction.  “Changing X while respecting X,” is a nonsense statement.

h.      Other municipalities are designated primarily for urban and commercial activities.  Should North Saanich put its rural and agricultural values at risk because those municipalities that are charged with housing responsibilities are underperforming?

8.      Trust remains tenuous and elusive.  Why?  Because of all of the above, plus:

a.       a persistent top-down approach to the review process - the Project Team imperatives have prevailed almost (but not quite) from the beginning

b.      recognition of, but little response to, substantial negative public sentiment

c.       until recently, almost no attempt to explain or connect the Regional Growth Strategy to the OCP.  And that recent attempt has only been to obscure the real meaning of the UCPA, the 5% growth maximum and the 61% actual growth statistic.

Thank you for persevering with my laundry list of OCP problems, I’m sure that we all wish it were smaller.  Yet again, Council is at a difficult juncture in this process. 

Staff suggest six possible options for Council.  Given the scope of the problems outlined above and generally echoed by many residents in their Phase 3 feedback and correspondence to Council, it would be unreasonable for Council to advance this project further when the next Council may well choose a different direction. 

To commit more time and money to pursue Option 1 as recommended, with no assurance that the result would endure, would not be a responsible choice. 

I urge Council to adopt Option 5, to pause the process until 2023. 

Thanks very much for your patience and deliberations . . . .  

               Spring Harrison, North Saanich                      250-655-0764

Four Urban Planners for a Rural Community?

 Posted to Next Door, 12 Aug 2022,  Rural scenes in North Saanich - Hay fields beside Willingdon Road near the airport and cows grazing in fields beside Tatlow Road. — Nextdoor 

 

Good observation. Which leads to the question, why do we have four urban planners working for a municipality that is, by definition, not urban? Perhaps a rural/agricultural community, as defined by the Regional Growth Strategy, needs an Agrologist, not urban planners. 

The RGS is clear, the Urban Containment Boundary is a line, not a zone. There is no such thing as a hybrid urban/rural entity. They are mutually exclusive as the RGS recognizes. Housing solutions are to go on the urban side, leaving the rural side intact to fill its legitimate functions.  It is disingenuous at best to state that spot increases in housing density throughout the District would not alter the rural character. The RGS says otherwise which is good enough for me. 

If there are housing problems in the area, and there certainly are, perhaps the question should be, are the urban areas within the CRD doing their best job at providing affordable housing? This is their mandate, not ours. 

Is it up to the rural communities to provide solutions where those who have that responsibility have failed? 

Our OCP Review has lost its way.  (edited)

OCP Discussion - 15 Aug 2022

 Email to NSCV Subscribers 

Re the OCP Discussion on 15 Aug 2022 

 [this is an email that was sent to NSCV subscribers on 13 Aug 2022]

Hello Folks,

With respect to the North Saanich OCP Review, there is an important Council meeting coming up on Monday, August 15, 2022.

Council will be discussing the latest OCP report, specifically the Phase 3 Engagement Summary and Recommendations Report.

The Municipality has issued a notice about this meeting; here is the link to the agenda and reports.

We urge readers to review the two reports.

The reports make 30 separate recommendations in relation to the vision, goals, six OCP themes, and the key features of the land use scenarios.

The Regional Growth Strategy, a foundational document for all municipalities in the CRD, receives a meagre single page discussion on page 153 within the 510 page Engagement Summary.  Considering that the RGS defines North Saanich as rural/rural-residential and outside the Urban Containment Boundary (where urban densities are meant to be), the strong emphasis by the Project Team on urban densification is directly contradictory to that identity.   And given the input from residents outlined in the summary, this urbanization push goes against the prevailing attitudes of the North Saanich community.

The two-page summary of Council Correspondence on page 455 (Appendix 6, page 165) of the Engagement Summary also makes for interesting reading.  Although it demonstrates a generally low level of support for both the review process itself and the push towards urbanization, the urbanization tone still prevails and residents need to let Council know their opinion regarding that sentiment.

For further background on the OCP Review, have a look at the North Saanich Community Voices website, specifically North Saanich Community Voices: NSCV on the OCP Review and North Saanich Community Voices: A Planner Speaks (nscv.ca).

The various ways to participate at this meeting are described at northsaanich.ca/council-meetings. 

Thanks for your support, your NSCV Team

RGS Purpose

 To North Saanich Mayor and Council, 

I listened with great interest to the council meeting held on July 11th, 2022, because the Staff report - Regional Growth Background Report was being discussed. 

I noted that during the discussion, Mayor Geoff Orr explained that the  RGS and the OCP interact "back and forth" between each other.  I have several years of experience in land-use planning, and the RGS would be classified in the B.C. land use planning framework as a "Higher Level Plan", because it is a "Regional" plan.  All subsequent plans at a lower level or more area specific area like the North Saanich OCP should follow and be in "compliance" with the higher level plan. 

I was quite surprised when I started getting involved with the OCP engagement process, that Areas 1 and 2; and Deep Cove concepts were being proposed without being in compliance with the RGS.  In other B.C. land use planning scenarios, this would be totally unacceptable and would not be considered or approved because of unacceptable possible impacts to the land, water, natural resources and ecology.  Compliance with higher level plans has been a crucial cornerstone of land use planning in British Columbia for several decades, but this doesn't seem to be the case in urban planning. 

To bring the OCP into compliance, Areas 1 and 2 should return to "Rural Residential" status and not be included within the Urban Containment Boundary. 

I hope there is a clear understanding going forward, that the draft OCP must be in compliance with the RGS. 

Sincerely, 

Terry Chow

Coles Bay, North Saanich

Areas 1 & 2 - What To Do?

 Staff: the RGS and the OCP Review 

This Would Have Been Helpful in 2020 

 [This post refers to a Staff Report being presented at a Council meeting on July 11, 2022 and is a copy of a letter sent to Mayor and Council referring to that Staff Report.]

            Ms. Rimell is to be commended for a thorough report (Regional Growth Strategy Background Report in Relation to the OCP Review, being presented to Council on July 11, 2022), which adds much needed context to the OCP discussion.  It would have been very helpful to have had this report prior to Phase 1 as the provisions of the RGS are so fundamental to our OCP.  One wonders what has prompted this late day offering? 

            Although the RGS background material is thorough and clear, problems lurk.  As we have come to expect, this report has a strong housing and growth focus despite the fact that North Saanich is, by definition, a rural community.  There is little in this report about agricultural and rural values and support for them. 

            The impetus for this focus is the long festering case of Areas 1 and 2.  These areas were, like all of North Saanich, outside the urban containment boundary.  Since bylaw 1352 was adopted in 2014 they have floated as orphans without a land management designation, neither in nor out of the UCPA.  This OCP is intended to decide their fate and give them a home.  They can reside outside the UCPA, as they previously did, or that boundary can be redrawn to include them in that urban designation. 

            What guidance are we receiving from the Project Team?  Well, given their long-standing demonstrated proclivity towards growth and development, it is no surprise that they determine that, for Area 1, "there is currently stronger policy alignment with the Urban Containment Policy Area then the Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area."  

This position is based upon the “existing land uses, lot sizes, servicing and infrastructure and development and policy context in these areas”.  Of course, none of those qualities have existed in those areas forever.  They have gradually evolved through a mix of deliberate and inadvertent land-use decisions over many years.  In other words, the rationale being used today to bring Area 1 into the UCPA rests upon its non-conformance with the UCPA! 

Area 1 includes Canora Mews and Eaglehurst, both fine examples of urban sprawl inappropriately built on the wrong side of the UCPA boundary.  (Both are on former agricultural land.)  Area 1 is in RGS-limbo today because of that.  It is not the UCPA boundary that is in the wrong place, but the projects themselves.  

Those projects sprang from ideology rather than professional land-use planning and were strongly opposed by the residents at the time.  The Councillors who championed those developments were one-term opportunists.  Not being community minded, at least in terms of housing planning, they received record low vote counts at the next municipal election.  Although trumpeted as providing affordable, workforce housing, most of the financial benefits flowed to the sellers, not the buyers. 

      So, it requires enormous logical gymnastics to use an earlier poor land-use decision to justify an expansion of that process!  In essence, this would legitimize poor land-use decisions as a valid planning tool and replaces sound planning principles with "planning by precedent." 

            A parallel situation would be to eliminate lower speed limits near schools where they were regularly being ignored.  If the game moves off the playing field, do we move the goalposts or bring the game back onto the field?  

            Further undermining this obvious tilt towards expanding urbanization is the fact that North Saanich is already supporting a disproportionately large share of growth in the rural segment of the CRD.  The RGS mandates that no more than 5% of regional growth will occur outside the UCPA.  On the basis of rural land area, North Saanich could attract 13.6% of that 5% allotment.  In 2017 North Saanich absorbed 61% of that rural growth.  

It is nothing but disingenuous to suggest that the UCPA needs to be officially expanded into North Saanich.  That has already happened without redrawing the boundary. 

            If we can learn from the above analysis, the so-called “tough decision” about Area 1 is really quite easy: 

§         Recognize the growth in that area as anomalous, not based on sound planning and not precedent-setting

§         embrace the principles of wise land-use planning as expressed in the RGS

§         leave the UCPA boundary where it was intended to be, do not introduce “boundary creep”

§         return our focus to the rural and agricultural values as directed by the RGS

The OCP - Rebuilding Trust

 

The OCP Review - A New Direction? 

How Will Trust Be Rebuilt? 

            Dear Mayor and Council, 

            Assessment of the two reports [for the 31 Jan 2022 Council meeting] has proven difficult; the Implication section in the Staff Report is particularly obtuse.  I have had considerable difficulty in aligning the wording and intent of the Council directive with the Staff Report and Attachment 1.  However, after much laborious scrutiny some findings and conclusions have appeared. 

            The recurring topics of resident discouragement and lack of trust should command significant attention in charting a forward path.  There is much work yet to be done on understanding why those topics persist in so many reports. 

            Also of great concern is the budgetary request for work that was previously mandated and funded, details are below.

Findings 

§  The topic of trust with discouraged stakeholders is mentioned several times in both reports.  It is both odd and alarming that the trust of the client should even need to be mentioned.  For any consultant or service provider of any kind, the trust of their clients should be of huge importance.
However, in this project, and in these reports, there is no evidence that the Project Team are curious as to the reasons for the discouragement and lack of trust.  Neither are they specific about how that trust will be rebuilt.  In places, dialogue is mentioned as being important, which of course it is.  Again, history does not help us here.  With both Council and the Project Team there has been communication but no dialogue; the volumes of letters and other forms of input have received little response.  The rally on 14 July did move the needle somewhat.

§  Similarly, the topic of discontent and discouragement surfaces several times.  The PT anticipates difficult conversations, divergent viewpoints, disengagement from the process and discouragement.  Again, has there been any investigation of the reasons for this?  Could it be that the PT is not understanding the concerns of the residents?  Or making any attempt to address them?
A useful clue here might be the 5% approval rating calculated by the Project Team in assessing hundreds of written comments about the process.  This shocking number has never been investigated.

§  The Project Team mentions the importance of a holistic approach to an OCP Review and stresses the importance of the inter-linkages among the themes and that they should not be addressed in isolation.  This is all true and should be one of the bedrock foundations of this OCP Review.  However, the project team has never taken their own advice, instead focusing intently upon only one of the six themes from the get go.  Moreover, this contradicts the guidance provided in the formative Staff Report of March 2020 and the resulting guidance supplied by Council based on that document.  At that time, Council endorsed all 20 topics presented in the report.  Why has Council not queried this glaring departure from their intentions?

§  In the report several comments relate to the focus of the work to date.  On page 7 of the Staff Report is the amazing statement that Phase 2 engagement activities focused on all six OCP themes!  And that the intense focus on urbanization was merely a perception!  These statements lack credibility and are only one of the reasons why the residents are discouraged and have little trust in the process and the project team.
The staff report observes on page 8 that there is a “risk that some members of the community will become increasingly frustrated that the focus of engagement is housing and that this may detract from the intention of creating productive dialogue.”  This is but one item of evidence that the Project Team is not in touch with the residents and their sentiments.  Do they not recall the July 14 rally?  There is no longer a risk of increasing frustration, that state has been realized many months ago.  Furthermore, the likelihood of this group suddenly "creating productive dialogue" is thin based on the history in this area so far.

§  These reports introduce a new budget, the existing allotment of $350,000 having been whittled down to $41K.  To continue on, a further $116,000 is requested. 
It is worthwhile to reflect upon what this funding is for.  It is to address the five themes which have been all but invisible in the engagement activity so far and to engage even more extensively, if that is possible, into the issues of housing and affordability.  We must bear in mind that all of this work scope was made plain in the initial plan of March 2020 and did not change in the distillation of that plan down to six themes from the initial 20 topics.  The Project Team, with little intervention from Mayor and Council, established their own priorities and chose to spend all their time and 87.4% of our allotted funds on only one of the themes, housing and affordability. 
Also important to note is that North Saanich lies outside the Urban Containment Boundary, already has an existing supply of housing stock to satisfy the 5% RGS growth guideline and that housing affordability is now, more than ever, a matter for nonmarket intervention.  I don't believe the OCP Review has explored any nonmarket housing potential.
All of which points to the fact that this so-called five theme new initiative is not new at all.  This work plan was clear from the outset and funded accordingly.  Residents can rightfully expect that the Project Team, overseen by Mayor and Council, should diligently apportion their time and budgeted funds to all of the project targets equitably.  Why was this not done?

Conclusions 

§  Trust has indeed been badly eroded but there seems to be little interest in discovering the reasons for this or making any serious efforts to win that trust back

§  While acknowledging that there is discontent among the residents is encouraging, it similarly requires serious investigation and a perceptible change in philosophy before it will have any real meaning

§  It is very concerning that the Project Team could extol the virtues of a holistic approach to OCP planning while abandoning that philosophy in the actual execution of their work.  This clear contradiction goes a long way to explaining the previous two conclusions and why there may be great difficulty overcoming those problems

§  The work plan being proposed at this juncture does not constitute a change in scope from that plan which was originally proposed and endorsed by Council in March 2020.  Similarly, the budget of the day and the subsequent change orders, were intended to underwrite work on all of the project components.  No directives to the contrary have ever been issued.
No further funding should be authorized and Mayor and Council must insist upon a detailed accounting of the funds already allocated. 

Assessing these two reports and making reasonable decisions will definitely be challenging for Mayor and Council.  However, in reviewing the points made above, none of them have arisen recently.  Residents have been concerned about these problems for many months and articulating them very well in many forms.  If harsh measures are now required, it is only because milder remedies were not applied earlier. 

Thank you for putting your best efforts to this situation.

 

Sincerely, Spring Harrison, North Saanich

The OCP - A Tough Decision

 The OCP Review - Another Turning Point 

A Tough Decision but Easier Than It Looks! 

            I believe, as do many in the Municipality, that the OCP Review has developed into a series of disappointments.  The upshot of these has been an unfortunate but progressive erosion of trust by the residents in the management and prosecution of this Review. 

            These disappointments have arisen in spite of a very auspicious beginning with the Staff Report of 2 March 2020.  This substantial and excellent report by Carly Rimell, entitled The Official Community Plan Review - Scope and Proposed Approach, was enthusiastically received by Mayor and Council on 9 March 2020.  The report, which was adopted without modification, was very comprehensive and listed 20 Topics/Issues to be considered in the Review.  Within these were 47 sub-topics.  So far, 42 of these remain unaddressed, while two of them have consumed most of the Project budget and effort to date (report available). 

            Flowing from this Staff Report was the consultant RFP, the consultant selection and the High-Level Work Plan Engagement Strategy report of 14 September 2020.  References to the Topic/Issues are found in the first two documents, are slightly referenced in the third then all but disappear as the Project moves along.  

Council chose not to create any opportunities for review or revision of the Review process until 12 July 2021.  By then the guidance offered in the March 2020 report was all but abandoned in favour of the obsessive focus on the Six Big Concepts.

            As early as the fall of 2020, residents became concerned about the project direction.  These concerns became ever stronger but were all deflected until the post-rally meeting in July 2021. 

            My disappointment stems mainly from two concerns: 

1. That the Council directive of 9 March 2020 to proceed with the RFP and other initiatives "based upon the content of the [Staff] report" was not followed.  The Project Team chose to ignore a specific Council resolution to follow a different path.  This noncompliance was never questioned.
2. That the concerns of the residents were routinely forwarded to the Project Team and lay dormant until 12 July 2021.  Citizen concerns may have been “listened to” but rarely received a response. 
   
   We are all clients of the Project Team who are working for us at our expense.  Mayor and Council are their direct supervisors and are the agents of the residents in directing the work of the Project Team.  As such, the Mayor and Council should have received, assessed and responded to our concerns as they arose, rather than allowing the PT to assess their own work often months after the fact. 

I don't believe that the Project Team has followed the initial conceptual and specific directions "based upon the content of the [Staff] report” of March 2020 that was endorsed by Council.  

Furthermore, the course that has been chosen, i.e., selective urbanization to the almost complete exclusion of other OCP Review priorities, has increasingly angered many residents.  There has only been slight recognition of this by Mayor and Council. 

It is worth repeating yet again that in an early Urgent Priorities survey by the Project Team, only 8% of the respondents consider housing to be an urgent priority but they rated four other topics more highly, 63% in aggregate.  Recently, a PT summary of correspondence revealed that only 5% of those respondents were in favour of the Review process to that point.  Yes, 5%!  These remarkable statistics have been all but ignored by the PT and our representatives. 

Another major turning point in this Project will be encountered on 22 November 2021. 

In the Council meeting of 18 October 2021, it was established that the remaining term of the current Council is not sufficient to complete the OCP Review as planned.  It was suggested that work continue until a draft OCP is complete.  This would then be held in abeyance for action by the next Council. 

For a variety of reasons, I do not feel that this course is supportable: 

1. After over a year this Project is so far removed from the aspirations and specific directions given by Council in March 2020 that continuation could be considered reckless:
1. only 8% considered the chosen priority to be important; only 5% are content with the work to date
2. 42 of 47 initial OCP Review targets remain substantially unaddressed after over one year of work
3. there is considerable uncertainty as to the basis for the intense urbanization focus (actual housing needs vs. existing supply, RGS/RCS considerations, UC Boundary, role of the District within the CRD, inappropriate use of the Complete Community concept, etc.)
2. Given that there is insufficient time remaining to complete this Review, continuation could again be considered reckless:
1. this Council should not in good faith commit further funds, resources, staff and community time to a project that they know will be completed by others, perhaps with different priorities
2. this Council cannot presuppose how the next Council will consider a draft OCP which they had no hand in preparing; the next Council could well decide to reject all or part of the work and the costs associated with it
3. if this Council cannot complete this project in the time available, then they cannot create obligations for a future Council

Thus, the situation as outlined above leaves Council with only one viable choice on 22 November 2021, but not entirely a bad one: 

1.       Receive the OCP Review Staff Reports as planned but “for information only”

2.       terminate further work on the OCP Review but to be resumed by the next Council

3.       file, safeguard and store the data and reports generated to date 

This choice has the advantages of :

§  regaining the trust and support of the community

§  avoiding the further entrenchment of a flawed process

§  eliminating further costs of uncertain value

§  reducing the stress and anxiety for all parties involved

§  not creating, at substantial cost, unreasonable obligations for the next Council

 

I hope this perspective is helpful in your deliberations.

Spring Harrison, North Saanich

The OCP - A Different Drummer

 The OCP Review - A Mid-Term Scorecard 

Suddenly There's a Different Drummer

Introduction 

            The North Saanich OCP Review began in March of 2020 with a formative Staff Report outlining the Scope and Proposed Approach.  It was well-written and well received and was soon followed by a Request for Proposals.  In July 2020 the consultant, Modus Planning was contracted to undertake the OCP Review and in September 2020 the first planning document was presented to Council by Modus. 

            As the project progressed through Phases 1 and 2 in the hands of Modus and Staff, public sentiment towards the project grew ever more negative, culminating in a large rally at the Municipal Hall on 12 July 2021. 

            A review of that history provides considerable insight into the cause of the public dissatisfaction and decreasing trust.

History 

            At the 9 March 2020 Council meeting, a Staff Report dated 2 Mar 2020 was presented to kick off the North Saanich OCP Review.  It was entitled the Official Community Plan Review -- Scope and Proposed Approach.  Well-written and well received it provided a comprehensive OCP background, the list of Topics/Issues to be considered, a proposal for a review plan and other details.  Council discussed and endorsed the report enthusiastically then directed Staff “…to develop a Request for Proposals based on the content of the report.” 

            The intent of that plan carried over to the Request for Proposals in May of 2020 and there was some evidence of it in the Evaluation of Proposals in July of 2020.  Related details can be found in the Appendix, page 7. 

            A key element in the March 2020 Staff Report was a list of 20 “Topics/lssues to be considered through OCP Review.”  It is a broad and inclusive list.  A full listing of the Topic/Issues and the sub-topics can be found in Table 2 of the Appendix on page 7. 

Topics/Issues “to be considered through OCP Review”

1.       Agriculture and Food Systems

2.       Residential/Housing

3.       Light Industry

4.       Commercial

5.       Marine

6.       Environmentally Sensitive Areas

7.       Roads and Transportation

8.       Community Amenities and Green Spaces

9.       Servicing

10.    Heritage and Archaeology

11.    Airport

12.    Special Development Areas

13.    Development Permit Areas

14.    Regional Context Statement

15.    Climate Action

16.    Community and Social Wellness

17.    Local Neighbourhood Planning Policies

18.    Economic Development

19.    Temporary Use Permits

20.    Shoal Harbor and Tsehum Harbour 

Within those 20 categories are contained 47 sub-topics that are also wide-ranging.  The scope of these two lists, and the report in general, is a credit to the author and provides a comprehensive blueprint to guide the OCP Review.  At that point in the history of the OCP Review, there was every expectation that it would be thorough and deal equitably with the broad range of issues listed. 

Sub-topics.  These are drawn from Table 2 and are necessarily brief.

1.       DNS as a food shed

2.       implications of ALC changes re Agriculture

3.       definition of rural character re Agriculture

4.       agribusiness and agri-tourism guidelines and policies

5.       Farm Protection DPA

6.       clearer boundaries re ALR, Rural, Agricultural

7.       Housing needs assessment report

8.       Area 1 and 2 boundaries

9.       guest cottages

10.    vacation rentals

11.    appropriate infill housing and locations

12.    revisiting multi-family affordable housing policies

13.    Review policies and DPA re Light Industry

14.    Review Marine base policies re Commercial

15.    review land based policies re Commercial

16.    Marine planning based on recent SLR reports

17.    policies for marine and shoreline development

18.    Marine task force recommendations

19.    review of Marina structures

20.    Policies and DPAs relating to new species at risk re ESAs

21.    Review of Schedule D

22.    reconsider Littlewood Road extension

23.    EV infrastructure

24.    prioritization of transit and active modes of transport facilities design

25.    Review and expand the Community Amenities section of the OCP

26.    review and update Schedule C

27.    Assess the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Asset Renewal Master Plan And Water System Master Plan with reference to capacity and phasing in relation to any proposed land-use scenarios

28.    review and update Schedule E and the RCS Map with respect to the NSSA boundaries

29.    Review and update Schedule F

30.    consider broadening this section re Heritage and Archaeology

31.    engage with First Nations re Heritage and Archaeology

32.    Review the airport land-use policies to further develop policy alignment

33.    Review the remaining areas and assess their alignment with the community's vision re SDAs

34.    Review the guidelines and mapping re DPAs

35.    consider additional DPAs regarding sea level rise and wildfire

36.    consider an Energy Efficiency DPA

37.    consider a Farm Protection DPA

38.    Review six topics to confirm alignment of the OCP with the RGS

39.    Review the boundaries of Areas 1 and 2 re the RGS

40.    update the RCS

41.    Create a new climate action section within the OCP

42.    explore new policies regarding the district's role in this area re Community and Social Wellness

43.    "Depending on the OCP plan development…” re Local Neighbourhood Planning Policies

44.    Consideration for "inclusion of a few high-level policies which can guide the long-term vision  … of these general areas" re Local Neighbourhood Planning Policies

45.    Explore further insight into the desired minimum jobs/population ratio target of the RGS

46.    Consider designating TUPs through the OCP as opposed to the Zoning Bylaw

47.    Consider a special DPA for this area re Shoal Harbour and Tsehum Harbour 

Although during the Council meeting of 9 March 2020, the Topic/Issues and the contained 47 sub-topics were not discussed in detail, none were modified or rejected.  As noted above, Staff were directed to develop an RFP “based upon the content of the report."

            In due course Modus the consultant was appointed and Phases 1 and 2 rolled out.  The opinion sampling process of Phase 1 yielded very useful results, among them the Urgent Priorities survey reproduced in the graphic t

o the right.  It clearly shows that housing concerns ranked fifth (8%) behind four other environmentally oriented categories totalling 63% in combination. 

            Based upon this ranking of priorities by the residents, which aligns well with the Vision Statements of the existing and previous OCPs, and the all-inclusive Topic/Issue list, one would expect that the Review process would have similar priorities and a similarly wide range of issues being explored. 

            However, a review of the early OCP Review project documents reveals a marked change in direction and emphasis from the initial plan in March 2020 and the Request for Proposals of May 2020. 

            In the High Level Work Plan Engagement Strategy report of 14th of September 2020 a distinct change of direction was evident with the arrival of the Emerging Concepts focus.  Although this report did tentatively ("It is anticipated that participants will be engaged on the following topics:…") propose a list similar to the Topics/Issues list of the initial report, that was the last visible reference to most topics other than urbanization. This report was the first by Modus since their appointment in July 2020 and marked an ever-increasing focus on urbanization themes to the exclusion of other Topics having a higher priority.

It foretold the all but complete abandonment of most of the proposed OCP Review topics of the March 2020 initial report.  Added to which, is the almost complete disconnection from the public opinion findings of Phase 1, shown above. 

The Workshop of 22 September 2021 provided confirming evidence that the original March 2020 plan had been abandoned.  In the agenda, one of the listed purposes of the workshop is, "Revalidate our shared understanding of project principles and baseline information feeding into the OCP update process."  There is no mention of re-examining the project principles, only revalidating them.  The bulk of the agenda for that 7.5 hour meeting was almost exclusively housing related, much of it in great detail. 

            The OCP Review has been very badly received by the residents, their discontent stemming primarily from the lack of attention to the Urgent Priority items identified in the Project Team's own survey and the intense focus on urbanization and densification.

Findings 

To provide more detail on the guidance provided by the initial Staff Report of March 2020, a "scorecard" table has been compiled to assess the progress of the various Topics/Issues.  Each of the 47 sub-topics are listed within their parent category and rated as to their completion status.  The full table of results is given in Table 2 in the Appendix, page 7. 

To complete the assessment, each Topic/Issue was reviewed and items definitely described as OCP Review targets were selected as sub-topics.  Each of these was then assessed as: 

0  No Visible Activity

1  Started Or Partially Complete

2  Advanced

3  Completed 

Sub-topics falling within the four highest Urgent Priorities levels were also noted. 

            In addition, a table of Missing but Significant Items or those not included in the main Topics/Issues table has been compiled as Table 1, also in the Appendix.  This Table is not yet complete. 

            The results of Table 2 are summarized as follows: 

Metric	Code	Count	Notes
Topics		20
Sub-topics		47
No Visible Activity	0	42	Some might be, verification needed
Partial completion	1	3	2. Residential/Housing
Well advanced	2	2	17. Local Neighbourhood Planning Policies
Completed	3	0	After over 1 year, this seems low
Urgent Priority		16	All are tagged as No Visible Activity

 

            It is surprising to note that of the 47 sub-topics, 42 are flagged as having No Visible Activity.  After over a year of Review activity, this is a very concerning statistic.

Discussion 

            Although probably not intended as such, this has all the earmarks of a "bait and switch" process.  Irrespective of the intention, the effect has been to completely restructure the content and direction of the OCP Review from the initial March 2020 report.  Of the initial 47 subtopics listed in the initial planning report of March 2020, fully 42 of them show No Visible Activity.  Those five that have absorbed almost the full time and financial budget of the project so far are all strictly housing and urbanization. 

            This reveals a glaring imbalance in the prosecution of the original OCP Review topics.  It also indicates that the initial direction to Staff by Council has not been followed.

Conclusions 

            This progress assessment or scorecard is challenging to interpret.  Essentially, two sub-topics out of 47 have consumed almost the entire time and financial budget to date.  This is very difficult to comprehend but perhaps there is an explanation:  

1. The initial list of 20 topics and 47 sub-topics was prepared in error
2. The list was not intended to be followed or completed as given
3. 91.5% of the planned work will still be completed in the time remaining and within the expected budget
4. The consultant and/or Staff decided to create and work from a different list using different priorities that were not “based on the content of the [9 Mar 2020 Staff] report.”

These points are entirely speculative as no explanation for the great disparity has ever been sought or given. 

So, we must assume that the original list was genuine and was produced and accepted with sincere good intentions all around.  That the actual outcome to date bears almost no resemblance to the initial plan raises some serious concerns: 

1. Was the initial plan not intended to be followed?
2. Why was the initial plan almost completely rewritten?
3. Who devised the highly modified plan?
4. Who authorized the highly modified plan?
5. Why was Council not advised of this complete change of direction?
6. Why did Council not question this complete change of direction?
7. If the initial list is indeed valid, when and how will the remaining 91.5% of the intended sub-topics be completed?
8. Given that the project is approximately 50% complete, what impact will this situation have upon the budget?  And timeline?
9. 16 sub-topics are flagged as having a high priority on the Urgent Priorities survey in 2020.  There is No Visible Activity for any of them.  When and how will they be completed? 

The history of this project has been one of unmet expectations and steadily diminishing contentment and trust on the part of the citizens of North Saanich.  

This scorecard, if accurate, only erodes that trust further.  

Recommendations 

            It is difficult to picture this situation as anything but a grave departure from a clear Council directive to Staff.  Why this happened is probably no longer relevant.  But it is important, even at this late date, to bring the OCP Review back into alignment with the original list of Topics/Issues. 

            There is no obvious reason why this departure should have taken place and no obvious reason to not correct it. 

            Accordingly, would be helpful for: 

1. Council to assess the current status of the OCP Review vs. the intended program offered, accepted and mandated in the original Staff Report of March 2020.
2. Council to devise a process to reconnect to those original OCP Review Topics/Issues "based upon the content of the [March 2020 Staff ] report” in accordance with the original Council motion.

Appendix – Supporting Information 

RFP language regarding the Review content and scope 

            The language in the Request for Proposals document is quite clear as to the scope of the OCP Review: 

“…the consultant will be the team member that is principally responsible for leading all aspects of the official community plan project from start to finish, including by:

…

(c) providing recommendations and analysis regarding the manner by which the issues referred to in the Staff Report are best addressed in the official community plan, …”  [Emphasis added] 

            In the evaluation of proposals, Modus indicated an awareness of, and an intention, to comply with the prescriptions of the formative Staff Report: 

“Demonstrated understanding of the District’s project objectives and approach

…

- Outlined how the team would address each topic/issue as outlined within the RFP” 

Table 1.  Items Missing or not in the Topics/Issues List.   This table is not complete.

 

#	Topic	Sub-topic	Status	Comment
1.	Vision Statements or Objectives	1.        Vision 2.        Goals	1.        Draft 2.        Draft	·   Generic ·   Better to update the existing
2.	Agriculture	3.        Underutilized farmland 4.        Land access for young farmers 5.        Other	3.        Not planned 4.        Not planned 5.	·   When will these be addressed? ·   Should be supported by an integrated and diverse local food system
3.	?	6.        Blue-Green Networks	6.        Dormant	·   Origin not clear ·   Purpose not clear
4.	?	7.        Food hubs	7.        Dormant	·   Origin not clear

  

Table 2.  Topics/Issues to be considered through the OCP Review.  

            Under “Status”, the following codes are used: 

0  No Visible Activity

1  Started Or Partially Complete

2  Advanced

3  Completed

 

#	Topic	Sub-topic	Status	Comment
1.	Agriculture and Food Systems	1.      DNS as a food shed 2.      implications of ALC changes re Agriculture 3.      definition of rural character re Agriculture 4.      agribusiness and agri-tourism guidelines and policies 5.      Farm Protection DPA 6.      clearer boundaries re ALR, Rural, Agricultural	1.      0 2.      0 3.      0 4.      0 5.      0 6.      0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating ·   How do the Blue/Green and Food Hubs fit in here?
2.	Residential/Housing	7.      Housing needs assessment report 8.      Area 1 and 2 boundaries 9.      guest cottages 10.  vacation rentals 11.  appropriate infill housing and locations 12.  revisiting multi-family affordable housing policies	7.      presented, 1 8.      0 9.      0 10.  0 11.  incomplete, 1 12.  0	·   HNAR not reconciled with supply ·   Infill proposed then, partly withdrawn
3.	Light Industry	13.  Review policies and DPA re Light Industry	13.  0	·
4.	Commercial	14.  Review Marine base policies re Commercial 15.  review land based policies re Commercial	14.  0 15.  0	·
5.	Marine	16.  Marine planning based on recent SLR reports 17.  policies for marine and shoreline development 18.  Marine task force recommendations 19.  review of Marina structures	16.  0 17.  0 18.  0 19.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating
6.	Environmentally Sensitive Areas	20.  Policies and DPAs relating to new species at risk re ESAs	20.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating
7.	Roads and Transportation	21.  Review of Schedule D 22.  reconsider Littlewood Road extension 23.  EV infrastructure 24.  prioritization of transit and active modes of transport facilities design	21.  0 22.  0 23.  0 24.  0	·
8.	Community Amenities and Green Spaces	25.  Review and expand the Community Amenities section of the OCP 26.  review and update Schedule C	25.  0 26.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating
9.	Servicing	27.  Assess the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Asset Renewal Master Plan And Water System Master Plan with reference to capacity and phasing in relation to any proposed land-use scenarios 28.  review and update Schedule E and the RCS Map with respect to the NSSA boundaries	27.  0 28.  0	·   required prior to housing proposals ·   housing proposals are being developed anyway
10.	Heritage and Archaeology	29.  Review and update Schedule F 30.  consider broadening this section re Heritage and Archaeology 31.  engage with First Nations re Heritage and Archaeology	29.  0 30.  0 31.  Started, 1	·
11.	Airport	32.  Review the airport land-use policies to further develop policy alignment	32.  0	·
12.	Special Development Areas	33.  Review the remaining areas and assess their alignment with the community's vision re SDAs	33.  0	·
13.	Development Permit Areas	34.  Review the guidelines and mapping re DPAs 35.  consider additional DPAs regarding sea level rise and wildfire 36.  consider an Energy Efficiency DPA 37.  consider a Farm Protection DPA	34.  0 35.  0 36.  0 37.  0	·
14.	Regional Context Statement	38.  Review six topics to confirm alignment of the OCP with the RGS 39.  Review the boundaries of Areas 1 and 2 re the RGS 40.  update the RCS	38.  0 39.  0 40.  0	·   required prior to housing proposals? ·   housing proposals are being developed anyway
15.	Climate Action	41.  Create a new climate action section within the OCP	41.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating
16.	Community and Social Wellness	42.  explore new policies regarding the district's role in this area	42.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating?
17.	Local Neighbourhood Planning Policies	43.  "Depending on the OCP plan development…” 44.  Consideration for "inclusion of a few high-level policies which can guide the long-term vision  … of these general areas"	43.  6 Big Concepts presented and advanced at every opportunity, 2 44.  no policies to create a demand/supply plan, 2	·   intensively pursued despite low priority ·   well advanced ·   strong community objection ·   accounts for most of the time and budget
18.	Economic Development	45.  Explore further insight into the desired minimum jobs/population ratio target of the RGS	45.  0	·
19.	Temporary Use Permits	46.  Consider designating TUPs through the OCP as opposed to the Zoning Bylaw	46.  0	·
20.	Shoal Harbor and Tsehum Harbour	47.  Consider a special DPA for this area	47.  0	·   Urgent Priorities survey high rating