Email from Jordan Milne, GMC Projects

Jeff Chow

Subject: RE: Town of View Royal - Draft Community Amenity Policy - followup

From: Jordan Milne, GMC Projects Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:36 PM To: Jeff Chow JChow@viewroyal.ca Subject: Re: Town of View Royal - Draft Community Amenity Policy - followup

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for following up. I would be pleased to provide my feedback and have done so below in blue.

Cheers,

JM

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 5:39 PM Jeff Chow JChow@viewroyal.ca wrote:

Hi Jordan:

Thanks very much for taking time to come out to yesterday’s open house for the Town’s Community Amenity Contribution Policy for residential use rezoning applications. Attached please find a copy of the draft policy and the local comparison of target rates for single detached and multifamily residential units. If there are comments you’d like to provide, they can be forwarded to the July Committee of the Whole meeting along with the draft policy if you can send them to me by Tuesday July 9.

A few things we’d be interested in hearing from you about:

1. Do you support the idea of setting a target rate?

Yes, this creates a goal for the municipality and helps create greater certainty for developers who can now factor this cost in when considering land purchases.

2. The draft policy reflects current practices to either provide an amenity or register a covenant securing the amenity at fourth reading of a rezoning bylaw. Is there any other method that could work?

A financial payment to the municipality in consideration of CAC's should not happen until building permit stage and should be paid as a requirement for building permit issuance. For non financial amenity contributions, I would see the registration of a covenant to secure such amenity being done at fourth reading as it currently is but the security deposit of 120% should again not be payable until building permit stage as a condition of permit issuance. I read it both ways for the tangible contributions so might need to clarify that with you.

3. The policy calls for a written agreement to address how to redirect a contribution if an amenity is not likely to be implemented within the proposed time frame.

Can you give me an example? Why would the proponent be involved in determining how the financial contribution is allocated or spent? Shouldn't that be at the discretion of council? They may have different needs at different times. At one time they may choose to allocate all of a projects contribution towards affordable housing, whereas at another time they may want to create a new playground or other amenity. I see the agreement between the applicant and town as being an additional administrative step and cost that may not be necessary and takes away councils ability to best direct the dollars in the community.

4. Is there anything else you’d like to see in the policy?

I would suggest a catch-all provision that provides staff and council the ability to support applications that achieve community objectives. Here is an example:

Council may consider development proposals of densities and heights greater then provided for in the Official Community Plan through a bonus density of floor area provided that the additional density results in community amenities deemed appropriate by Council for the benefit of the community such as:

• Affordable Housing
• Public Art
• Energy Efficiency above the BC Step Code
• Daycare facilities
• Special needs housing
• Enhanced green space for families
• Open space dedications
• Other provisions deemed appropriate by Council

Thanks again and If you have any further questions in the meantime, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeff Chow, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner and Deputy Approving Officer | Development Services Town of View Royal | 45 View Royal Ave. | Victoria, BC V9B 1A6 | Ph: 250-479-6800 | Fx: 250-727-9551