Minutes of the Council meeting held April 15, 2025
Detailed record of the regular council meeting discussions and motions from April 15.
The 2025 OCP Public Consultations – Déjà vu all over again. March 18, 2025
Sadly, I’m writing to council today with some comments about an OCP consultation process from 2022. I urge all members of council to look at the letters in the February 7, 2023 council meeting agenda and then play the video of that meeting. Look at the staff presentation from that meeting – the presentation that focused on the inaccurate map blobs that damaged public trust in the consultations. Also, go back to the summary of the Council OCP Workshop in the July 17, 2023 agenda.
I found the following in that 2023 material:
- Vague map blobs are the wrong tool for public consultation. The public lost faith in the 2022 OCP because real maps were never used and the actual intention was obscured from public view.
- In the survey for the 2023 Council OCP Workshop “focusing too much on density and height, losing sight of the broader community vision” was a barrier to a meaningful and effective OCP process.
- Consultation to support a preconceived outcome was unwelcome. The public objected.
- The council worried about loss of public trust and engagement. Consultation without information was a barrier to public trust.
So here we are in 2025. The workshops, open houses, and the growth survey are focused on the same map blobs. We are asked if the Lakeview and Burnside centres should be bigger/denser but they are recently built-out, an OCP success story. The actual OCP Land Use Designation map is not used in the consultations. So, once again, we look at maps with inaccurate blobs and ponder their future. Déjà vu.
The 2011 OCP Land Use Designations are based on maps in the previous OCPs. The genesis of some of the growth areas are accurately mapped for the public to see as far back as the 1990 OCP. The 2011 map blobs provide a (poor) small-scale representation on 6x6 inch maps in a printable OCP document; they are not a useful large-scale mapping tool and they obscure the intention of the consultation.
As a result of the 2022 OCP engagement issues View Royal council decided that future engagement would follow the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) method. The IAP2 method literally promises that the public will not be consulted before they have been adequately informed. I fully support the method but I’m not seeing it in practice.
The stated objectives of the current consultation phase are:
- Review and update the community profile (census data), vision and guiding principles
- Review and update land use designations, special planning areas and housing policies
- Ensure that the OCP reflects the 20-year anticipated housing need calculated in the interim Housing Need Report.
What has the 2021 census data revealed? How are we supposed to review and update Land Use Designations if the actual map is not used? How can the public comment on 20-year OCP capacity when View Royal has not assessed what the current capacity is? Where is the inform-before-consult?
The March 8 and 13 workshops were well run, participants had some good discussions. But poor mapping and a focus on identifying areas for increased density without any current density information did not allow informed participation. At the March 8 workshop I asked if the OCP Land Use Designation map could be projected on the big screen. Unfortunately, it could not be provided and it remains missing in action with not a single appearance in the consultation process so far. Just more blobs.
In late 2023, provincial legislation was passed that requires all OCP’s to be renewed every 5 years and to ensure that the OCP always has enough development capacity identified for the following 20 years. The amount of 20-year capacity is determined in a Housing Needs Report.
In the current View Royal consultations, the only capacity data point the public is given is that the updated OCP must demonstrate enough 20-year development capacity for 2,889 more dwellings. With this number in mind, the public are then asked to identify if and where they would like to see additional density and height, again, using the vague map blobs as a reference.
Here’s the problem. View Royal has not investigated the existing capacity in the 2011 OCP and cannot tell the public if the OCP does, or does not, have the capacity for 2,889 more dwellings unless that analysis is done. At the same time the current consultations ask the public to identify where the capacity is, or could be created, to support 2,889 more dwellings.
The Community Growth Survey has a map of some 2011-2025 developments, but no mention of how many units or what the densities are (FSR or Units/ha). There is also a map of the SSMUH and TOA bylaw lands but no information on the associated massive increase in the current OCP development capacity.
Ten storey buildings in the TOA adjacent to the hospital offer much greater density than the 150units/ha Erskine Lane developments on adjacent properties. With developments on Island Highway such as The Royal at 297units/ha, Skyeview at 199units/ha, Grand and Fir at 216units/ha or the proposed Eltham townhouse development at 80 units/ha it becomes apparent that the land area for redevelopment in the OCP already affords a great deal of capacity for growth. Real maps would make this visible.
The question we actually need to ask is not where do we add more density it is are we doing our best with the existing development capacity. It’s urgent to bring this focus to the OCP project.
The IAP2 methodology needs to be followed; consultation that is created without knowing the facts and then asking the public about increasing areas and height for additional density is counterproductive. Time to stop “focusing too much on density and height, losing sight of the broader community vision”.
There has been a great deal of development in View Royal since 2011. The town has changed. SSMUH has established increased density capacity throughout the town. Rapid development has brought a more balanced mix of housing types. Eagle Creek became the Town Centre for some of the town precincts.
Other changes include adding more development staff, engagement staff and GIS staff. But we seem to be getting a repeat of the focus on density and height, consultation information issues, and map blobs.
The requirement to renew the OCP every 5 years is a big opportunity to change the way our OCP is created and updated. It requires a process change. Leveraging GIS capabilities to understand the development capacity within the OCP is essential. Following the IAP2 engagement method is essential. Turning the focus away from density-only and toward well-informed neighbourhood-level public consultation is essential.
Doug Wilson View Royal
NOTICE OF MOTION
PURPOSE: For the Town of View Royal to work with the South Island Division of Family Practice to increase the availability of General Practice physicians in the Town of View Royal
WHEREAS Council of the Town of View Royal (COUNCIL), expressed an interest in supporting initiatives to increase the number of Family Practice physicians available in the town (by supporting a motion to provide funds the South Island Division of Practice to recruit Family physicians);
WHEREAS COUNCIL has endorsed a motion to amend the Town’s Zoning Bylaw to require that all new buildings with more than four stories dedicate the entire first floor to commercial or public-use space (which would include physician offices);
WHEREAS the South Island Division of Family Practice has advised it “would be keen to help out any way we can to secure clinic space to attract (Family Practitioners) to View Royal to help with patient attachment and access to clinical services.”
WHEREAS The South Island Division of Family Practice has reviewed the space requirements for a small family practice (1 to 2 physicians) would require 1,200 to 1,500 square feet of clinic space while a larger family practice clinic (4 to 5 physicians and allied health care providers) would require 3,000 to 5,000 square feet of clinic space.
WHEREAS a Family Practice can establish a ‘catchment area’ for its clinic that is within the Town of View Royal’s boundaries and can attach patients from its catchment area – View Royal residents.
WHEREAS each family physician can attach 800 to 1,250 patients, a small family practice could realistically attach 800 to 2,500 View Royal residents who currently do not have a family physician, while a larger clinic could attach 3,000 to 5,000 View Royal residents who currently do not have a family physician.
WHEREAS the Town of View Royal can encourage developers to ‘gift’ the required space to the town through the use of options such as: the Town’s zoning bylaw; forgiving of amenity contributions; providing additional density; relaxation of the Town’s parking requirements; a one-time tax receipt for the ‘gift’ of the space to the Town; and an agreement by the clinic to offer the buildings’ residents an opportunity to register with the clinic.
WHEREAS the Division of Family Practice would help establish a Non-Profit Society that would be responsible for the tenant improvements to complete the clinic, recruit family physicians, and manage the Family Practice Clinic.
WHEREAS Town of View Royal would own the clinic space and lease it to the Non-Profit Society.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of View Royal work with the South Island Division of Family Practice to secure the clinic space necessary to attract (Family Practitioners) to View Royal to help with patient attachment and access to clinical services.