Prince George city council took almost three hours to discuss and move forward several potential amendments to the Official Community Plan at its Monday, July 14 meeting.
With several amendments to the OCP agreed to, another public hearing on the plan will likely be held in September.
Ahead of the meeting, city staff wrote a 39-page document providing their opinion on 33 potential alterations to the OCP raised by council back in April.
All local governments in British Columbia — which includes both municipalities and regional districts — are required by the provincial government to update their Official Community Plans by the end of 2025 and again by the end of 2026.
The documents lay out long-term planning and land-use goals for their community.
Earlier this year, city council held a public hearing that extended over two nights on March 19 and April 9.
During those hearings, the most commonly voiced concerns included a perceived lack of protections for Ginter’s Green and Moore’s Meadow as well as developers saying they weren’t consulted about changes to the urban containment boundary that affect their properties.
Additionally, the Prince George Airport Authority said it was concerned that language acknowledging its role in land-use decisions near the airport had been removed from the previous edition of the plan.
Other topics that came up included fire resiliency, food security and deficiencies in the consultation process that developed the new OCP.
On the second night of the public hearing and at a special council meeting on April 16, council passed the 33 motions asking administration to investigate the potential impacts of amending the OCP.
If the OCP is amended, council is legally required to hold another public hearing before the bylaw authorizing the new plan can have its final reading.
Of the 33 resolutions passed by council, staff’s report said that six fall outside the scope of the OCP and would need to be pursued separately.
That included three elements relating to Ginter’s Green and Moore’s Meadow.
Resolutions had asked about rezoning the 4.4-hectare city-owned property north of Moore’s Meadow from AF: Agriculture to P1: Parks and Recreation. Staff warned in their report that “this action would impact the potential developable land for future phases of the Heritage area.”
At the July 14 meeting, Coun. Brian Skakun thanked the Ginter’s Green Forever group for bringing some of these concerns to council’s attention.
Council voted to direct administration to submit a rezoning application for that property to come back at a later date. It passed unanimously.
Skakun had also asked about removing the right-of-way between 18th and 22nd avenues as well as between Massey Drive and Ferry Avenue, which makes up part of Ginter’s Green, and redesignating it under the OCP to park and open space. The next resolution also asked about rezoning that same area.
Administration said that the land is technically a road designation and does not have a description, property title, OCP designation or zone. Removing a road designation would involve several steps, including a formal road closure process and well as surveying, subdivision and registration with the Land Titles Office.
Director of planning and development Deanna Wasnik explained at the meeting that if that process was followed, the land would take on the zoning of the properties adjacent to it.
She also clarified that there is no plan or intent to develop the city-owned properties in the area.
Skakun put forward a motion for the city to submit a road closure application for the area in question, arguing that such a move would have economic benefits. He later put forward another motion calling for administration to redesignate the area under the OCP and parks and open space.
Coun. Cori Ramsay asked what the cost of this process would be. Wasnik said she didn’t have a solid figure but pointed to the report’s note that “costs will include legal fees, surveying, and administrative work, as well as staff time to manage the process and update relevant planning documents.”
Both motions passed unanimously.
The fourth resolution asked about removing two properties adjacent to Ginter’s Green from the Urban Containment Boundary.
Public hearings are needed to develop on properties outside the boundary. Wasnik clarified that it wouldn’t prohibit development from occurring on them.
Council took no action on this resolution.
The fifth resolution dealt with removing several properties along Tyner Boulevard and University Way near UNBC from the Urban Containment Boundary.
Staff’s report said again that this would not prevent future development, but it would create some inconsistencies with the OCP’s growth management map.
Again, no action was taken.
The next resolution asked about the feasibility of returning the Urban Containment Boundary limits to how they were in the 2011 edition of the OCP.
The report from administration said that several areas in the Blackburn, Giscome, Blueberry Hill and industrial areas were removed for the 2025 revision of the OCP and shrank the boundary overall.
Reverting to the old boundary would mean policies are in place to support sprawl in areas that aren’t ready to receive infrastructure, where there is little development, there is limited access to necessities and there is little access to transportation, the report argued.
Coun. Trudy Klassen argued in favour of the reversion and put a motion on the table that would enact it.
Coun. Ron Polillo said it would encourage sprawl and said he wouldn’t support it.
Ramsay said it was something the city could keep an eye on for the 2028 review of the OCP. She also said it could have unforeseen consequences relating to the provincial government’s small-scale multi-unit housing legislation and the cost of extending infrastructure to new developments.
Klassen asked whether there was a risk of “starving out” support for areas that have already started to develop under the old version of the boundary. Wasnik said, for example, if a development wanted to build in Blackburn, they would seek an OCP amendment and it would help guide administration’s advice on whether to support or oppose the project.
However, even if it went against policies in the OCP, it might not prevent administration from deciding that the project makes sense.
The motion was defeated with a majority of councillors voting against.
The seventh resolution asked about the consequences of bringing back language from the 2012 OCP recognizing the importance of the federal Aeronautics Act and endeavouring to advise land use applications of recommendations from the airport master plan.
Administration agreed that this addition was a good idea and said it would add the policy to the 2025 OCP.
Resolution 8 directed administration to report on the consequences of adding the Cowart-Malaspina road extension in College Heights to the OCP. Currently, Malaspina Avenue stops in a housing development along the Fraser River benchlands, but could eventually be pushed through northwards to meet Cowart Road, near College Heights Elementary.
Administration responded that it was already included in the OCP’s future plans in the 10-to-20-year time frame.
Skakun put forward a motion calling on administration to prepare traffic counts for the area to see if this extension would be worth putting into the five-year capital plan.
Yu said that with Bill 44, there’s great potential for housing development in College Heights. As density increases, he said it could cause problems at the intersection of Highway 16 and Cowart Road, where there have been fatal collisions in the past.
The motion passed unanimously.
Resolution 10 directed administration to look into additional consultation with five properties where the owners had expressed they weren’t talked to about their properties being removed from the Urban Containment Boundary.
They included 505 Fourth Ave., 2913 Silvercrest Road, 2000 Central St., a property on Cranbrook Hill Road and 4739 Shamrock Rd.
Staff’s report stated that they were confident that the owners of these properties were properly notified during the development of the OCP and were responded to when feedback was provided.
Klassen moved a motion calling for staff to gather additional input from the owners of these properties and for this work to be funded.
Skakun said from what he’d heard at the public hearings, one developer had gotten advice that some of the other had not. He said he didn’t think more consultation would work at this point, but that council needed to make sure this discrepancy was addressed for future OCP revisions.
The motion was defeated.
Resolution 11 asked about changing Prince George’s description as a winter city in the OCP to a year-round destination.
Coun. Kyle Sampson moved a motion calling for that change to be made.
Coun. Tim Bennett said the move makes sense with some of the upgrades being made to places like Carrie Jane Gray Park, Prince George hosting the 2025 Special Olympics BC Summer Games and looking to host the 2030 Special Olympics Canada Summer Games.
Coun. Garth Frizzell asked how much time it would take for staff to revise the OCP because of the motion. Wasnik said she didn’t think it would be a major undertaking, but some other wording in the plan would need to be adjusted.
Klassen said she thought the city might lose something by not designating itself as a winter city. Ramsay said she doesn’t object to the city billing itself as a premier winter destination, but it would be in the city’s favour to not limit itself to that.
The motion passed with only Klassen and Yu voting against.
Resolution 14 asked administration to look into adding policies regarding food security and vegetable harvesting into the OCP.
While staff said that there were several sections that supported agricultural initiatives in the draft OCP, it would reword two policies to emphasize the need for food security and discouraging the growth of fruit-bearing trees and vegetables where there is no intent to harvest them as well as bringing back some policies from the 2011 OCP.
Council unanimously approved a motion relating to resolution 16 changing language in section 15.1.3 from “climate change mitigation measures reduce greenhouse gas emissions” to “climate change adaptation and mitigation minimizes negative climate-related impacts on human safety, health and well-being.”
Resolution 17 asked about the consequences of removing the entirety of Moore’s Meadow from the Urban Containment Boundary.
Staff recommended it remain in the boundary, saying that removing it would “create an isolated area within the surrounding urban area.”
“This change would introduce inconsistencies in how the Growth Priority policies are applied to other parks and open spaces throughout the community,” the report said. “This may lead to conflicting policy interpretations when referencing other OCP policies and schedules intended to guide growth and development.”
Klassen moved for the meadow to be removed from the boundary.
Skakun said he respected where Klassen was coming from, he thought it was redundant, saying that if this council or any other decided to rezone the park to allow for development, it would be political suicide.
Ramsay said there’s a lot of greenspace in the city used as park land that isn’t necessarily designated as such, but doesn’t reduce their value.
The motion failed, with only Yu and Klassen voting in favour.
Many of the responses to council’s other resolutions either saw administration agree to act on council’s wishes or state that they felt that the items were already addressed in the plan as written.
At the end of the discussion, the mayor congratulated and thanked Wasnik and her team for their work looking into council’s resolutions.
Skakun said it was one of the most detailed reviews he’s gone through in his time on council, thanking residents for their input on the plan.
Wasnik told council that a revised “red line” draft of the OCP will be worked on and returned to them for review by August and the public hearing will likely be held in September.
With the new version of the OCP due by the end of the year, Wasnik said there might not be time to pursue any further changes after that point.
