OCP STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL WORKSHOP - WHAT WE HEARD REPORT

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Council DATE: July 6, 2023 FROM: Leanne Taylor, RPP MCIP, Director of Development Services MEETING DATE: July 17, 2023

OCP STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL WORKSHOP - WHAT WE HEARD REPORT

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the July 6, 2023 report from the Director of Development Services titled “OCP Strategic Planning Council Workshop – What We Heard Report” be received for information.

AND THAT Council “rise and report” at the Special Meeting of Council on July 17, 2023.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to present Council with a summary of “What We Heard” from the first OCP Strategic Planning Council Workshop held on June 28, 2023.

TIME CRITICAL:

This report informs next steps for the second Council workshop to be held on July 17, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

At the February 21, 2023, Council meeting, Council passed a motion to not proceed with the draft Official Community Plan completed in June 2022 and instead organize facilitated Council workshops to discuss the OCP process moving forward. Prior to the first workshop, a pre-workshop survey was completed by Council to gather feedback and establish a workshop outline. The results of this survey are attached to this report.

The first Council workshop was held on June 28, 2023, and this report is a summary of the feedback provided at this meeting. The second Council workshop will be held on July 17, 2023, to further discuss an engagement strategy and next steps to restart the OCP review process.

DISCUSSION:

In the first Council workshop, Council discussed lessons learned from the most recent OCP process and aspects related to and examples of a meaningful public engagement process for an OCP review. A comprehensive summary of the responses and feedback received to help inform the second Council workshop is provided below.

Question 1: Where have we been – lessons learned from the first OCP process (2022)?

i. What went well?

• Decisive decisions in a timely manner and stayed on schedule.
• It was an update and not a wholesale rewrite.
• Walkabouts were well attended, but often the same people.
• The OCP addressed the apparent need for housing, especially for people moving to the Town.
• Well-written sections on climate action, walkability and the environment. There are good policies in the 2022 draft OCP.
• The addition of greenhouse emission targets in the OCP
• Good public awareness of surveys and use of social media.
• 2011 OCP was well-written to the lay person.

ii. What didn’t work well?

• People either did not know about the 2022 OCP review update or did not like it.
• There was an expectation that the public knew what was happening and lack of clarification and explanations.
• Lack of authentic engagement. It appears that a small group of people are influencing the OCP and affecting the entire community.
• Concern with survey format that required people to select specific answers.
• As a council, appeasing particular groups in OCP review
• Difficult to get people to come to events.
• Pandemic got into the way of consultation and as a result, not enough engagement.
• Online workshops were too short and focussed. There was not time to talk about other issues or opportunities to hear from each other.
• The walkabouts were scheduled during the day, which resulted in low turnouts.
• Limited indigenous engagement with the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.
• The draft 2022 OCP focussing mainly on housing, which caused concerns for people.
• Lack of visioning that was carried out in the 2011 OCP even though referred to as an “update.”
• The process resulted in a loss of trust and people felt that they were unable to provide input and were not listened to.
• The public not understanding some technical information, such as floor space ratio (FSR).
• The draft 2022 OCP “fell down” on density and densifying cores.
• The two advisory committees didn’t work because they had to be experts in everything (i.e., land use, transportation, etc.)
• Densification along corridors and not listening to the community.
• Focussed on housing without considering impacts on infrastructure.

iii. What can be improved in the future?

• Encourage people to participate, provide incentives and hold events at places like the Scottish Cultural Centre, casino, schools, and pop ups in neighbourhoods (go to where the people are).
• Need early engagement with the local nations and ask them if and how they would like to be engaged.
• Future generations and future residents were also identified as a potential audience.
• Need more citizen representation. Ask the public “what do they want their neighbourhoods to look like and what is missing in their neighbourhoods.” There are no boundaries, people experience the whole town (i.e., live, work, shop and play).
• Need to ask the question what level of density is envisioned for in the community as there are infrastructure implications. Need to ask the question of how soon we want to reach a population of 15,000 people.
• Establishing credibility and public trust is important for an OCP review.
• Need a wide and authentic lens, but this will take time and money.
• Always the same people that come out to engagement activities and meetings and need to reach out to young people and seniors and tap into the greater community.
• Develop and communicate an engagement plan for the OCP process.
• Before coming up with an engagement plan, need to ask the public the question “what do you want to see.”
• Need to incorporate more graphics to illustrate technical details, such as density.
• Establish an engagement advisory committee for OCP review.
• Build on the strengths of the 2011 OCP process, which reached out to a variety of stakeholder groups. This will require time and money.
• There needs to be a comprehensive review of the OCP.
• Organize post-OCP walkabouts to get a sense of density and infrastructure implications on taxes and roads, and the improvements to be required.
• OCP should be a selling feature and used as a communication tool to promote the Town.

2. What does meaningful public engagement process in an OCP process look or feel like to you?

• There needs to be quality information, minimize jargon to ensure public understands the OCP document, broaden engagement and enhance citizen participation.
• Identify stakeholders early in the process (i.e., Songhees and Esquimalt nations, neighbouring municipalities (similar to the Colwood Town Centre visioning meetings), Capital Regional District, School District 61, Department of National Defence, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit, South Island Prosperity Project, Westshore Chamber of Commerce, large employers, local businesses, hospital employees, young families, renters, seniors, students, youth, etc.). May need to tailor engagement opportunities for different stakeholder groups.
• When engaging with the community, people who live in View Royal should decide what the Town should look like.
• Take the 2011 OCP as a foundation and the public can tell us what needs to be fixed (what is working well and not working well).
• Undergoing a comprehensive review of the OCP was also suggested.
• Apply International Association for Public Consultation (IAP2) principles as the foundation for public engagement to ensure people feel heard and represented in the OCP review.
• Meaningful public engagement process is about using plain language and applying a variety of engagement tools that are accessible to everyone. True engagement must strive for diversity and inclusion.
• Create, agree, and adhere to a structured engagement strategy and stick to it.
• Need to ensure the final OCP is an accessible document and ensure there are a lot of sketches and photos to illustrate the policies and design guidelines.