Alignment of the Proposed Official Community Plan with the Ministry of Highways MOU and the Historic Bypass Corridor
Mayor and Council,
I am writing to express significant concerns with the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP), particularly regarding the introduction of high-density residential designations in the sewer-serviced core—specifically the 70 units per hectare “Community Residential” designation—and its conflict with the documented commitments made between the District of Sooke and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH).
As the historical record shows, the Province and the District have maintained an understanding for more than two decades that the Grant Road corridor was to be preserved as a future Sooke Bypass Route, an essential east–west arterial intended to relieve Highway 14 congestion and support long-term growth. This commitment was formalized through the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and reaffirmed in 2013, with explicit direction that the District reflect this transportation corridor within its OCP.
The new OCP, however, removes protection for the bypass corridor while simultaneously designating the same geography for the highest residential intensification in Sooke’s history. This creates a direct contradiction between the District’s long-range land-use plans and the transportation infrastructure requirements previously agreed upon with the Province.
Conflict Between Proposed Densities and the MOU
70 units/ha overlaps the historic bypass route
The intensification area corresponds almost exactly to the Grant Rd alignment that the Ministry assembled through larger-than-standard right-of-way dedications. These lands were intended for a future arterial corridor. High-density residential use would permanently eliminate the ability to build the bypass.
Bill 44 amplifies the pressure
Province-mandated multiplexing (4–6 units per residential lot) will increase baseline density throughout Sooke. When layered on top of 70 units/ha in the core, the resulting transportation burden becomes far more severe.
The Transportation Master Plan does not provide an alternative
Without the bypass—or any equivalent new east–west arterial—the proposed density levels cannot be supported, regardless of local intersection upgrades or active transportation improvements.
The OCP contradicts the District’s commitments to the Ministry
The MOU required Sooke to protect the bypass corridor in its OCP. Removing it jeopardizes future provincial partnership opportunities and undermines the trust built through previous approvals such as Wadams Way and town centre improvements.
The Need for Immediate Re-engagement with the Ministry
Given the scale of growth contemplated under the new OCP and Bill 44, the bypass is no longer an optional long-term consideration—it is an essential component of Sooke’s transportation system. Re-establishing alignment with the Ministry is critical to ensuring:
- regional traffic mobility
- emergency response reliability
- school and commuter traffic management
- future transit viability
- economic development and goods movement
- evacuation preparedness
Without a bypass, the transportation impacts of the new OCP will be severe and long-lasting.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully submit the following:
The District should not advance the proposed OCP to Public Hearing until it has been aligned with the MOU and a clear, mutually agreed-upon transportation strategy has been re-established with the Ministry of Transportation.
This alignment should include:
- explicit protection of the bypass corridor, or;
- a jointly endorsed alternative arterial solution that provides equivalent east–west capacity.
Only after this foundational transportation issue has been addressed should the OCP proceed to the public for formal consideration.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. The community deserves a growth plan that is both responsible and coordinated with the Province, ensuring that Sooke’s transportation network can support the rapid densification now underway.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or provide supporting documentation upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
Randy Clarkston