Item added to February 03 agenda about the proposed OCP review

In the Council meeting of February 03, I asked that Council reconsider the cost, timing and other procedural issues around the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) review. This is the on table item I added to the agenda on February 03. The Zoom connection was lost and this item was discussed when those who had been logged in were no longer online.

COUNCIL REPORT: RECONSIDERATION OF ITEM 10.1.1 FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2026

BACKGROUND

The motion relating to an RFP for a consultant to perform an OCP and Zoning Bylaw update was passed as follows:

Last week (4 days later) an RFP for consultant services for this scope of work was issued on the Village website and BC Bid.

DISCUSSION

Although the minutes are not yet available, the video recording can be reviewed. That the resolution was approved as originally submitted is not in dispute. However, several of the discussion points in the meeting that seemed to have been agreed by consensus have not been followed as can be seen by what has happened since:

1.      Budget: the CAO committed in discussion to bring back to Council the expected costs which were forecast to be significantly less than the available grant. However, the RFP includes a statement that the available budget is $155,000 effectively setting the price at the maximum amount available with no contingency.

2.      It was agreed public participation and Council direction would be sought throughout the process. However, there are several statements in the RFP that are leading and/or imply that a desired outcome is preordained. With regards to the statement: “Ensure sufficient land use policy direction to address 20-year housing needs as identified in the 2025 Housing Needs Report”, Council is reminded that we have never passed a resolution to receive the Housing Needs Report as is required by the Local Government Act.

3.      Yesterday there was a late addition to the agenda titled “Planning Issues Facing Lions Bay” dated 2026-01-26, the day before Council decided to move ahead with a new OCP. This document is described as “an “exploratory” planning document” but again also prescribes the solution prior to any consultation.

4.      The proposed Resident Satisfaction Survey has several overlapping questions that are premature if we will be consulting residents as part of the OCP review. This survey also has questions that are based on assumptions that must first be validated by the community. This survey also needs to allow for wider free form answers to ensure residents have every opportunity to accurately voice their opinions.

During the last meeting, Councillor Cunliffe referred to a land use Town Hall that went badly. I think she was referring to a design charrette held at Gleneagles golf club. The suggestion that we follow that path again is ill advised.

These documents and the haste to complete them will once again be seen by residents as someone trying to push for something that has been decided in advance. Consulting residents after a desired outcome has already been documented is not consulting in good faith. An OCP review requires that we first listen to what residents have to say, not dictate a preferred outcome in line with the 7 Core Values of Public Participation.

Finally, reports based on generic statements are not helpful. We need to ensure our thoughts are representative of Lions Bay residents. For example, to suggest that seniors in Lions Bay are “passive recipients of services” and not “active contributors to social, cultural, and civic life” is way off the mark.

RECOMMENDED OPTION

Option 1 – direct Staff to take a step back and,

o   Withdraw the RFP and bring a report to Council outlining the cost of a consultant in keeping with the reduced budget discussed in the SCM as agreed,

o   Thereafter, draft a revised RFP and come back with a report to allow Council input prior to re-issue.

o   Remove overlapping questions from Resident Satisfaction Survey.

o   Include free form fields in the Resident Satisfaction Survey.

o   Council do not receive the planning issues report in its present form and ensure future correspondence of this nature reflects the community.

Option 2 - do nothing. Council will maintain the vote as happened at the SCM and continue on the path described in the RFP with a budget of $155,000.

Option 3 – adjust the recommendations in option 1 at Council’s direction.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Opportunity to set a reduced budget for the RFP which allows some contingency and the flexibility to add additional scope if it arises and/or allocate the (remaining) funding to other eligible initiatives.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are none.

MOTION

·         THAT Council add this report “Reconsideration of Item 10.1.1 from Special Council Meeting of January 26, 2026 to the Agenda, and

·         THAT the Chair call the question of Item 10.1.1 from Special Council Meeting of January 26, 2026 again for reconsideration,