This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Committee of the Whole/Documents/COUNCIL OCP WORKSHOP 2 WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
Appendix

COUNCIL OCP WORKSHOP 2 WHAT WE HEARD REPORT

February 10, 2026Pages 46–485 sections

Summary of discussion from the second OCP workshop, focusing on principles, objectives, and top-of-mind issues for the review.

6.1.b Official Community Plan Project Update
July 17, 2023Discussion of density, corridor focus, and infrastructure impacts

COUNCIL OCP WORKSHOP 2: WHAT WE HEARD REPORT - 07/17/2023

Page 46–48

1. Any reflections on Workshop 1?

  • Focus on corridors – density too much (2021 OCP process)
  • Do not want to start with documents like Housing Study and Land Economic study setting targets
  • Don’t presuppose solutions or studies – we are telling people what we want instead of them telling us
  • Need updated plans in some cases, including transportation master plan. We also need a good analysis of the urban growth boundary, what is buildable, need better tools to predict density and the estimated persons per sq.km
  • Understanding density/growth in future OCP
  • Want engagement with willingness to adapt plan – presenting a 50% OCP to the public is appropriate if there is an engagement strategy. 2021 OCP update did not show how plan was altered after input or why changes were made. Did not do a good job of last engagement process as it was not approved by or vetted by Council, and did not do a good service to staff by not having an engagement plan
  • Council oversight of engagement plan will strengthen process and support staff
  • Good session. Full Council engagement in session
  • Robust public engagement is necessary for success
  • We are built to borders – how can we make a better View Royal by building on what we have without losing its charm
  • Last workshop was a good meeting – agreement on need for robust engagement
  • Like that we shared Workshop #1 with public so they can see what we discussed
  • Need to attract more people, more voices, need to reach the silent majority, meetings have the same people, talking on the street is the best way
Page 46–48

2. Are there any further principles or objectives that might inform the public consultation strategy?

  • When you go out and do public consultation, how do you deal with self-interest that seems out of left field. How do you handle it? [consultant response: Council has a responsibility to listen. People will join the conversation with varying levels of information and interest and at times their information may be outdated or incorrect or it may just be their opinion regardless of the information available. Council’s role is to consider all of it on balance to inform decisions.]
  • Might not agree with all feedback but invited and encouraged feedback
  • We have talked about responsibility and commitment to do the right thing. We have also talked about the financial commitments and challenges
  • IAP2 is very thorough
  • Emphasis on humanity. We are talking about people. This is not about floor space ratio or bike lanes. Make it engaging for people
  • Like four-phased approach to engagement – how to start visioning when have a plan
  • Ask the public “What is their vision?”
  • Provide input from all phases to help with decision-making.
  • IAP2 spectrum in public participation – invest in whatever it takes to get engagement right. People that go to public meetings and Town Hall are left upset and frustrated. How did people know about tonight’s meeting?
  • Ask the public what you like about the 2011 OCP and what can be improved
  • Surveys – no pre-conceived responses
  • Inform the public on different options (i.e., reducing parking for multi-family residential developments – what are the consequences?)
  • It’s hard to get input if people aren’t informed
  • Information on who is providing input (demographic info) to put weight on comments (i.e., youth providing comments on parks; owner vs renter; resident vs non-resident)
  • How do we make a better place to live
  • How to balance not one group dominating in the engagement
  • Provide quality and correct information - there is also lots of academic information and perhaps that should be provided to help inform people in an easy-to-understand manner
  • Identify who participates, how people participated and who said what
  • See raw data turned into themes and outcomes
  • [consultant response: It is okay to say we had familiar faces in what we heard reports, and it is okay to note that there were new participants in the process. Quantitative questions can assist in gauging whether people have participated before. Tracking the raw data and understanding each comment can sometimes be difficult, but we can identify trends and themes from what was heard. It is okay to say we did anything an issue and explain why.]
Page 46–48

3. What are top-of-mind issues that you would like to see addressed in an OCP review?

  • Mobility (traffic, exit/egress), physical accessibility, livability (parks and recreation)
  • Inclusivity, land use, transportation, parks and recreation
  • People spaces – accessible and vibrant - hubs to recreate, and access to services that you might need in enjoyable environments like a doctor, groceries and coffee shop.
  • Communal space (e.g., indoor and outdoor), access to services – do we know what people need
  • More commercial businesses – have a lot of residential
  • Focus on the urban tree canopy
  • Highway noise and traffic
  • Inclusivity and accessibility
  • Lessons learned from the 2011 OCP – how effective were the Land Use Designations? how did it develop? did it develop the way we want it to develop? what’s missing? what did we do right, what needs some work? what are things that we planned for that did occur and what were the things we didn’t plan for that didn’t occur/occurred?
  • How do taxpayers of today and the future pay for those housing needs?
  • Active Transportation Plan found bike/bus/sidewalks are fractured.
  • The elephant in the room is the province and the requirement to provide four dwelling units on a property.
  • How do we handle traffic gridlocks, safety, and GHG reduction targets. Do we need to change DCC rates to construct infrastructure to make it safe.
  • What are the service needs; how do we balance ambience with development
  • Cost of traffic and servicing of development (e.g., police, fire, etc.)
  • In 2011 OCP, had four-storey limit, but six-storey buildings were approved (i.e., Erskine lane – we failed to provide park and recreation amenities they called for and we dismissed it. A lesson learned and must not fall down that road again)
  • Housing needs report is a big impact on OCP. Report was not what it was intended to be and don’t want to see it guiding our future
  • We have a lot of housing, but little affordable and accessible housing. Inclusionary housing needs to be incorporated into new developments.
  • The Town is missing gathering spaces for the public. Development at Helmcken/Island Hwy permitted to have more density because of public space as an amenity for the community. We need more of these spaces.
  • There are many smaller apartment buildings with no amenity space.
  • Should not densify if destroying the character of adjacent areas. If increasing population, where is the additional park space going to be? Park space should consider population projections
  • We should look at ways to build in things we really want (e.g. medical offices)
  • Interested to hear thoughts on commercial and services
  • Recreation facilities that need a building or site are missing in the Town, such as curling club, rowing club, hotel spas
  • Question is not just what needs improvements, but what the public likes. Ask for people to provide real-life examples from other communities that can be duplicated in the Town.
Page 46–48

4. What do you feel you need to hear from the community to inform the OCP?

  • Strengths and deficiencies - What do you like? What do you want to remain? What change would you like? If adding population, where? Are you okay to add 12-storeys on Colwood Crawl? Density on Admirals? Provide open-ended questions and don’t offer answers
  • What you like about View Royal
  • What changes you like to see
  • Information is complete, up-to-date and trusted
  • Determine what information is missing in the previous draft OCP process in 2022
  • Ask people how they would like to be engaged and involved in the OCP process; subscribe or in-person workshops
  • What recent changes did you like/not like. Pose questions about next steps in OCP path (inclusive and echo Council’s comments)
  • Blue sky questions – based on your experience, what would you do if you were to plan an ideal View Royal? Ask people how they feel about density on Six Mile Road, or entertainment district.
  • Need to hear likes and dislikes on broad topics
  • Not supportive of prescriptive questions and asking how much density is good here. Open-ended questions, such as what does View Royal look like in 5 years?
  • Clear communication and easy to understand – use plain language
  • The more people we hear from the better.
  • Ask concise and short questions
  • Surveys need to be well-advertised; and gather public feedback online, mailouts, and in-person
Page 46–48
Extracted from: 2026 02 10 Committee of the Whole Meeting - Agenda - Pdf