Special Council

Good evening. Welcome to the special council meeting for Tuesday, February 24th, 2026.

The council meeting is called to order, and we recognize the Lekwungen speaking people known today as the Squimalt Nation or Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation and the question period portion of the agenda.

Public participation is limited to questions specifically about the Western Gateway Plan for the official community plan.

A reminder that the council chambers is a safe, respectable, and inclusive space.

All members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping, cheering, or openly expressing your opposing uh opinions when others are speaking or when they've done speaking.

If you wish to provide comments during the public participation period or ask questions during the question period, please begin by indicating your name and street name for the record, and then you may give us the benefit of your views.

To provide comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during the question period, you can scan the QR code or use the link on the live webcast stream screen or town's website under live webcast.

Again, we ask you to provide your name and your street name to begin your comments.

Your comment will be read out loud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to the only item on the agenda, which is the Western Gateway.

Question period can be open to any question.

Um you are free to ask, and it's limited to two minutes for each speaker.

You will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

You are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Um can I get an approval of the agenda with the following change?

If it pleases council, uh I move to um uh move the public participation period to just before the staff reports and everything else.

Moved and seconded.

All those in favor.

And uh Elna, you'll keep an eye on Councillor Rogers if his hands comes up.

Okay, thank you.

Uh uh all those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Um yeah, I do have a bit of a report that I just want to set the groundwork for us uh this evening, and um I'd rather uh write down my thoughts, which I've done so uh I don't ramble.

Uh colleagues, members of the public, tonight's discussion is not an easy one.

We are being asked to make a consequential decision uh in an environment defined by uncertainty, uncertainty and growth patterns, uncertainty in infrastructure costs, and an uncertainty in how our transportation network will perform under continued regional pressure.

View Royal has experienced historic growth over the past number of years, but we need to be clear and honest about what we are now seeing in our data.

New development has not merely slowed, in many cases, it is stopped.

That shift matters, it matters uh for our financial planning, for our infrastructure timing, and for the assumptions embedded in the official community plan.

Growth carries real costs, it always has, but the financial equation has changed.

Infrastructure costs, both renewal and expansion, have escalated sharply.

At the same time, operational pressure continued to mount.

Protective services remains the single largest operating pressure on this municipality.

Under our current policing model, for every uh approximately 850 residents we add, we trigger the need for an additional police officer.

And given the number of police officers, that may include a municipal employee to support them.

The financial impact of that change is significant.

On the order of roughly a 2% tax increase for each increment of 850 people, and that would be an ongoing cost.

That reality forces us to confront a difficult truth.

The long-held assumption that growth pays for growth is increasingly strained.

And in some cases, that no longer holds.

So the central question before us is not whether growth will occur, it will.

The real question is how do we grow at the right rate?

How do we sequence land use infrastructure and uh and service responsibility when the future is less predictable than it once was?

The area we are examining tonight is the Western Gateway.

It sits at the very heart of what residents know all too well is the Colwood Crawl.

This is not a static transportation environment.

Pressures from our west shore neighbors and from Up Island continue to compound.

Even with major interventions, whether that be the future in light rail, bridge replacements, expanding bus on the shoulder treatments through View Royal, regional modeling indicates we should expect traffic volumes to meaning to not meaningfully decline.

At best, we may manage a rate of deterioration that is the planning context we must work in.

Callwood, for instance, had a local area plan for what's known as Four Corners.

It had significant massing and towers and density.

They have downscaled that now just because of the Colwood Crawl.

I want to acknowledge something important about decision making in moments like this.

Each of us around the table and in the community carries assumptions.

We bring perspectives, biases, individual goals, and aspirations of what view royal should become.

Some of us have grown up here, some of us have recently moved here.

And our differences are natural and in many ways healthy in a democratic process.

In my assessment, success tonight is not measured by unanimity of opinion at every step.

Success is measured on how well we work together to translate those different perspectives into coherent, durable plan that serves the long-term public interest.

The risk and the opposite of success is that we allow our differences to fragment the conversation, resulting in a stalemate or a plan weakened by unresolved division.

That is the outcome we must consciously work hard to avoid.

Recognizing the complexity of this file, council asked staff to bring forward a comprehensive plan for the Western Gateway, and they have delivered through much hard work on really, really hard timelines.

Thank you, Sterling.

We also asked for a facilitated workshop to allow council to examine the trade-offs in a structured way.

Tonight is that workshop.

We further invited public input.

While we always value the voices of those who participate, I think it's fair to say that the volume of feedback has been somewhat underwhelming relative to the importance of the decisions we have before us.

And that's no fault of staff.

That doesn't lessen our responsibility.

I think in fact it heightens it.

Ultimately, our task is to advance the broader goals of the new official community plan.

This step, however technical it may seem, is part of that longer journey.

And we should keep our time horizon in perspective.

This planning is not for tomorrow.

The Western Gateway, once fully realized, will be judged by someone being in born in View Royal today, 50 years from now, who will live with the consequences of our decisions that we make in this room today.

Our responsibility tonight is to proceed thoughtfully, transparently, and with clear understanding about the risks and the long-term public interest.

It's a great opportunity for us to ask questions of staff.

It's a great opportunity to enjoy the benefits of having a facilitator.

That's not part of our normal process, which perhaps should be, but uh I think it's an opportunity to look forward to.

Scott wanted us to remind ourselves we are passing an OCP, which is a bylaw.

And the strength of that bylaw, I think depends on the strength of the questions we ask and some of the mitigations we put forward.

So enough of me talking.

Um, I would like to invite with our change, the public participation period.

So if you're a member of the public, want to inform council on anything related to the Western Gateway, I would invite you to make your comments known and just start with your name and the street that you live on.

Uh and uh and provide us the benefit of your views.

And yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Rachel Sansome.

I'm at 1498 White Pine Terrace.

I did used to live on Atkins Road at one point.

But tonight I'm here representing the owners of a 1720 Wilfert Road.

We do have a few comments regarding this proposed Western Corridor local area plan, and I apologize that we have not actually been involved in this to date.

Umly recently learned of this process, so we're excited to be able to participate now.

We recognize that this corridor is an important economic driver of the community given the large volume of drive-by traffic, transportation options, and nearby services.

But we also feel that each property in this area needs to be analyzed for its highest and best use.

The Mill Stream Creek Riparian area at 1720 Wilfert Road takes up over 50% of that property, so it's already protected under provincial regulation as well as your own DP areas.

So that'll be protected in perpetuity no matter what the final use of this property might be, but it also doesn't leave much room for much else.

We're currently working with a daycare operator under the current zoning and current OCP.

On the southern portion of that, it's kind of a funny bow tie-shaped parcel.

So they're on the part just on nearest the park on the Calwick border.

So we're excited to bring that here.

It's going to be a large daycare with it accommodate over 150 children.

It's a great location for it with the access, transit for their staff, drop-off is safe for kids.

So we think that's gonna be a wonderful community asset.

But designating this area's strictly commercial use, which we see on the plan in bright red, without the flexibility of explore other uses, including some residential, is kind of a hardship to the owner.

We have no commercial interest in this property.

The owner's had it for quite some time.

He's in the audience with us this evening, and it's just not the right shape, place or configuration for that.

It's not great exposure hidden by the casino and the Jeneece Place in front of it.

And it's a little awkward to get in and out of.

So commercial's not really suitable.

Again, we haven't had any interest in that regard.

And we have explored the idea of hotel.

That's been brought to us several times as a potential use.

Again, not a really enough room.

This the site does uh fall away from the road, so it would have to have underground parking, and that's not ideal for hotels due to the cost, and they do prefer to have surface parking.

Again, not a great exposure for hotels either.

But it is an excellent location for potential residential apartments or seniors living with easy access to transit and services with Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre right there, plus you get the benefit of the views of Millstream Creek through that protected zone.

This would contribute to your housing obligations in this lovely park-like setting.

And again, we think that would be wasted on a commercial use.

Who would really appreciate being there in a front-facing commercial building?

We think that perhaps scenario three, which continues to show the mixed use that's currently in the OCP, would be appropriate because we could explore both.

We could have a mix.

It would continue to be again a tricky site to work with due to the topography, the existence of the creek next door, and the access, but we think we could probably end up with something really special for VR Royal there.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much for your comment. Um, anybody else that want to please them in.

Uh Karim Tarak, um Azurite Crescent.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I speak on behalf of Muslims' families here in View Ruil and the wider Muslim community in the West Shore.

Our initiative is simple.

We are a volunteer-led nonprofit working to establish a small community center.

The space would serve local residents with youth mentorship, educational activities, family support, newcomer orientations, seniors' gatherings, and community meetings.

It would operate mainly on evenings and weekends and would not be commercial operation.

For two years now, we have been looking for the right property.

Every time you find one, we face the same barrier.

Rezoning takes too long with no guaranteed outcome, and property owners sell to other owners who do not need zone rezoning.

The problem is not finding land.

The problem is that the current official community plan does not clearly anticipate where this type of use can go.

Our request is about the official community plan.

We ask that OCP allow community-serving institutional uses within the Western Gateway area.

We are not asking for approval for of a specific property tonight.

We are not asking for any exceptions from normal processes.

We are simply asking that this type of use be anticipated in the plan so that organ so that organizations like ours know where to look.

We believe that the Western Gateway is the right location for three reasons.

One, gateway corridors serve the whole municipality, not just one street.

So uh so a community facility there reduces pressure on residential neighborhoods.

Second, community spaces are low impact and predictable, mostly active on evenings and weekends, which fits well in a mixed area, in a mixed use area.

Third, families choose to stay in communities where social spaces exist alongside housing and jobs.

Planning for gathering spaces helps a community grow in a balanced way.

Our community already contributes through volunteer work, youth mentorship, and charitable support for neighbors in need.

A dedicated space would help us do more and work more closely with municipal programs.

We look forward to working respectfully with staff and council so that future growth includes not only buildings and businesses, but also the space that helps residents connect and belong.

Thank you.

Thank you. Awesome. Yes, please.

There we go. I pressed it too many times.

Uh, your worship, mayor and counsel, thank you very much.

My name is Ryan Painter, one to Zoe Court.

Very, very happy to be here tonight.

Um I was not planning on speaking this evening, so what I'll do is I'll keep this relatively short, but uh I have similar thoughts around the development of the Western Gateway Corridor, primarily looking at scenarios one and two.

For me, these seem to be the most forward-looking, the most uh conceptually sound for a community that is gonna struggle very much to grow in places where there are not many opportunities to continue to seek growth.

We think along the Island Highway Corridor, which we know is exceedingly challenging.

We have new developments around Helmcken, we have uh the Maya London and uh places now where we had BC Hydro backing up traffic for the last few days, which fortunately now they it seems that they are not doing that for the foreseeable future.

But looking at the Western Gateway Corridor as it's laid out looks at various opportunities.

For one, I was lucky to be at the Wanda Fuca Performing Arts Center Society AGM the other day, and hearing about their plans and opportunities for performing arts center in the West Shore looks to me as something that this corridor could accommodate.

Not saying that we have to, but it looks like an opportunity that we could, especially under the neighborhood village concept area.

I look at the fact that View Royal as a community is separated into seven or eight different communities throughout, and there really is not a central hub, a central neighborhood area where people can really come together and be community-minded and facilitated in their joining and gathering.

I think this provides us an opportunity to do just that.

And I know that there have been conversations around the Fort Victoria RV park in that area becoming what could be considered a community center.

The challenge with that is that that is some of the most affordable housing that we have on the South Island.

And any thoughts of potentially evicting or moving people out of what is the current Fort Victoria RV Park will be exceedingly challenging.

I note that there is a great deal of consideration here for neighborhood mixed use and intensive mixed use.

I appreciate that.

And I hear the concerns for the commercial at the end of Wilfort.

And I think those should very much be considered, especially when you look at the sensitive ecosystems and the riparian areas connected to it.

I think there's very rational and reasonable concerns there.

My friends and colleagues from the Muslim community are looking for some mixed use opportunities.

I absolutely think that looking at scenario one and two provide them opportunities to bring in some important cultural and community volunteer-led opportunities into the community.

I think this is a fantastic use of this kind of planning.

So for me, someone who lives very close to this and traverses in this area daily, I see scenario one and two looking as the most forward probable opportunities that allow for growth, managed, respectful, but also developing a strong sense of community for Vie Royal for the next 10, 15, and possibly even 20 years, and hopefully beyond.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ryan.

Appreciate it. Anybody else in the room like to address?

Council? Going once, twice, three times, no takers.

We'll go to online comments, which I believe there is one, perhaps.

Carl.

Mayor Tobias, we have a message from Kathy Blanchard, uh, street name Island Highway.

Their comments are my observation as I volunteer with a few Royal Call of the Emergency Support Services, providing shelter to those who have been evacuated due to a disaster.

We are in need of additional lodging like a hotel.

It is not uncommon for me to not be able to find a room for one family without sending the family to Senich or Langford.

That takes the family out of their neighborhood.

What if there was a disaster of greater magnitude?

And I'm just going to check if there's any other messages that have come in since then.

Thanks, Carl.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, just to frame things, uh we've got Katie Hamilton with us tonight that's facilitated some OCP workshops way back when we started the process about three years ago.

Um and uh she's gonna lead us through uh some uh some opportunities to uh provide input.

So just to repeat myself so I remember, um uh we'll go through a series of questions, then we'll go to um comments before we go to any resolutions.

Just hold those to the end or motions.

We'll get an opportunity for the OCP committee to come up and ask any questions, provide comments, um, and then we'll get into motions.

Is that uh fine with everybody?

Uh Katie, I'll hand the floor over to you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you for having me.

Katie Hamilton, Meadow Park Lane.

Um very grateful to be able to work in my own community tonight.

Um, I don't get that option all the time.

So uh thank you for having me.

Um the last time I was here, it was about three years ago, and you've come a long way since that moment in time.

You were sort of resetting on what engagement would look like for the official community plan process.

And fast forward to tonight, you're now narrowing and in the home stretch to the July sort of milestone of having a draft.

And so congratulations on that.

Next slide, please.

I thought I'd just orient folks in the room to sort of how we got to tonight.

And I'm gonna just do a little bit of front-end framing before we hand it over to staff to provide an overview of the scenario itself.

So if just a few weeks ago, um at the committee of the whole council asked that this uh uh session be put together as a special council meeting and that the OCP advisory committee members be invited to attend the meeting.

So thank you for for joining.

Uh next slide, please.

I've taken a real deep dive into the gateway corridor, Western Gateway Corridor planning that's um been underway for some time, just to sort of orient myself to this discussion.

Um we tonight are really looking forward to having an opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue around what's proposed in the concept, um, to allow council to seek clarity on any aspects of the scenario, um, ask questions, provide feedback, and potentially propose any motions at the end of the meeting.

And so, my role tonight is really in the hopes of maximizing our time, uh, keeping the discussion on track, focusing the discussion, um, both finding some congruence and shared agreement on aspects of the scenario, but also trying to narrow to those areas that might need more discussion or more refinement.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the staff presentation tonight, we've really allowed staff to sort of take the role of the technical folks that they are and bring their expertise to this discussion to allow council to have a more facilitated question and to seek feedback from them or clarity where needed.

So the technical presentation is going to provide an overview of the 2011 OCP land use designation, the proposed land use designations within the corridor scenario, identify the key differences so folks within the community and council can really easily assess what is proposed in the proposed scenario, and to provide any additional technical detail on land use and density, transportation, environmental protection, or any other key topics that may emerge from the conversation.

Next slide, please.

So what we're looking for from council tonight, really wanting to get a sense of what elements of the scenario really feel supportable to you.

Where do you have any concerns or unease?

And are there any issues you feel require more analysis or consideration?

And so, as the mayor had indicated at the outset of the meeting, the motions will come at the end of the discussion.

This is really around really facilitating and emerging people's understanding and capturing that so that we can bring that back together at the end of the meeting for any considerative any direction to staff.

So as you move forward with mission possible to get a draft OCP for July.

There are a few outcomes coming from this meeting.

Next slide, please.

Which will include a facilitated summary report, which I will produce in fairly short order to share back with council and the public to capture the conversation tonight and any any revisions that are required per council's motion.

So, in terms of just how we work together tonight, before I pass it over to staff, next slide, please.

We welcome a diversity of perspective.

Just to build on some of the earlier comments, everybody comes to these conversations with different perspectives, assumptions, experience.

And those different experiences really help us see the full picture.

So every viewpoint adds value and helps shape each other's thoughts.

And so all ideas and comments are welcomed, and now is the time as you head into this milestone within the process.

To quote Ted Lasso, stay curious, not judgmental.

We're really here to sort of emerge and bring those ideas and questions to the forefront.

We really want to honor our time together.

And tonight we really want to maximize our time so you can stay on track to the best of your ability.

And we really want to build on each other's ideas.

We may find there's congruence around all sorts of topics.

And if we do, that's great, but we don't each need to spend time echoing each other's comments to the to the point that we're just repeating one another.

We really want to build on each other's ideas and we want to amplify those ideas to take those forward.

And I guess the last thing I would say is that we have this discussion tonight.

It is one step in a process.

We're not aiming for perfection, we're aiming for direction.

And I think in service to staff and and the work that they've done to get you to where you are and where you're hoping to get to, um, that is the intention of this evening.

So with that, I will pass over to staff to provide their overview, and then we can jump into a conversation.

And before you begin, Sterling, thank you very much for all the extra heavy lifting you've done in such a short period of time because uh we wouldn't be here without you.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mary Tobias, and thank you, Katie, for the uh introduction.

Uh I'll do the next slide, please, girl.

Thank you. So, uh Mary Tobias, I know you've already covered covered this a little bit, but just a reminder for everybody in the room and anybody that's listening online or may listen to this in the future.

Uh, an official community plan is a bylaw, uh reflection on a high level of community values and ultimately guides decisions on land use, uh, housing, transportation, uh, parks planning, environmental stewardship, economic development, uh, etc.

Uh, and is uh also uh contains uh statements and map designations, uh, part of what we're looking at tonight that guide this uh development over the course of the next 10 to 20 years.

But it's a reminder for both council and for the OCP committee and the public.

What is the big difference between the OCP and zoning?

Like what are the details captured in the OCP compared to uh a zoning bylaw?

Great, great question, Mary Tobias.

Uh land use uh designation is a high-level intent of how the land is uh is going to be used.

Um, a commercial land use designation would uh potentially specify that uh the uh service commercial um uh the number of stories, maybe two stores to four stories, and the the density, so the floor space ratio that could be on the site.

The zoning bylaw gets into the nitty-gritty and the fine details and really looks at things from a use perspective.

So you might have a well, we have multiple commercial zones, but uh the C1 zone is very broad, and it will actually specify all the uses that you're allowed to have uh or that are permitted in that zone.

Um and that might say uh specifically service commercial, which is defined in the zoning bylaw, and will say how that that use is uh to be used.

It'll also specify the size of the property that you need to operate that use, uh, setbacks, the height, um, and may also have uh regulations too on the uh yeah, the number of stories and and again the density.

So the difference between the two is OCP is much higher level intent and zoning bylaw is specific, and there's multiple different zones um within the commercial uh designation that uh specify use.

Thank you, Sterling. Thanks for adding that clarity.

Next slide, please, Carl.

Um the screen is a map showing uh the study area uh for what we're gonna be talking about tonight.

This is uh informed uh based on some feedback that we had received from council back in June of 2025, wanting to expand the corridor area and really think about this area as an employment hub uh and an area that could consider uh commercial tourist accommodations, hotels, uh possibility of seeing some light industrial uses and some residential uses.

The area south of Parsons Bridge is what is currently identified as the Western Gateway Corridor in the 2011 official community plan, and the area north has been added as part of this uh as this part of this conversation.

Next slide, please.

We've done a lot of engagement.

Uh, I'm not going to get into all of the specifics.

We do have uh numerous what we heard reports on our project webpage that summarize all of this, but I will provide just a high-level overview of what uh we've done uh to date.

Starting in uh January of last year, we had engaged broadly on some visioning and value questions uh and identified a mapping exercise.

We'd received feedback uh on the Western Gateway at that time, uh, largely to see what people wanted to see changed, preserved, and uh modified or enhanced.

We had a business workshop uh in March and engaged with uh local business owners and uh heard from them what they saw as challenges and opportunities for business growth in View Royal.

Uh, that not it looked at the Western Gateway corridor, uh, but also broadly for the community.

We then had a community growth survey that took place between March and April in last year, and this was to explore the interest uh and supportability of density uh, specifically also looking at the Western Gateway Corridor.

And then in the fall of last year, we did a large amount of engagement.

Um, we had uh a survey, a uh community workshop, a open house, a couple open houses actually, and a uh focus group uh with businesses and landowners.

And um, there was I do apologize to the the landowner tonight uh that was in attendance.

We did send out uh we tried to send out uh invitations to through Canada Post.

However, before we were able to send anything out, we did have some issues with Canada Post uh striking, and we weren't able to uh respond in time before the uh the event.

The the number of uh participants through this uh this process uh we've we've had a uh roughly 130 um for the the first principal survey uh vision and granting principal survey, approximately 180 for the business uh for the uh growth survey, and then we had um roughly 50, 60 for the uh the Western Gateway corridor uh engagement um survey, and then additional people online uh or via the uh the workshops and uh open houses.

Next slide, please.

On the next three screens are going to be just a review of what was engaged on in uh the fall of last year.

So these are scenarios that were presented through the uh Western Gateway workshops, the open houses, and the uh the survey.

And what was provided was an opportunity for uh participants to identify their preferred scenario, one of three.

The uh first scenario is shown on the screen.

It also provided an opportunity for residents to provide feedback uh at a high level on values and and vision for the Western Gateway.

On the screen here is the scenario one.

So this provides the highest growth option.

It would introduce a new transit-oriented area land use designation and a new neighborhood village and Western Gateway Employment Corridor District land use designation.

This permitted or would have permitted up to 10 stories in the transit-oriented area and up to six stories in both the Western Gateway and neighborhood village.

The focus of this scenario was largely on the mix of commercial and residential growth.

And on the right-hand side, there is a range of units and population.

And I will very heavily preface this by an analysis analysis assumption.

Part of the numbers that were that informed this conversation, we what staff did was a desktop exercise to look at how this area could develop, considering potential for growth.

And the assumption here is that, or each of these in each of these assumptions, scenarios one, two, and three, is that the every parcel in the in the area would be redeveloped and to the maximum potential density.

However, this is not likely the reality.

Staff also have done some uh tweaks uh to this analysis as we have developed now a proposed land use uh designation uh or proposed land use uh uh designations for this area as part of our first draft.

Next slide, please.

In scenario two, uh it would probably help a little bit if we could ask some questions by each scenario.

Is would that be okay, Katie?

Or do you want to wait till the end?

I think the preference would be that we wait until the end, and I think we'll come back to land use and density specifically.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Mary Taz.

Um, in scenario two, we had presented back in uh we had presented back in the fall.

Um, this was the medium growth option.

So the big change here is no longer seeing a transit-oriented area.

Uh instead, the neighborhood village uh takes its place, and then uh maintaining the Western Gateway employment corridor district, uh, again, six stories for each.

The difference being that the neighborhood uh village area is focusing on residential with some uh commercial, and the Western Gateway corridor is focusing on commercial and some enlightened industrial uses.

I should have prefaced this too, or mentioned this earlier that the light industrial was considering uh technology uh processing, manufacturing, warehousing.

Uh, we're not thinking uh deep pit mining or any any crazy uh heavy industrial use.

Again, analysis assumption, uh, this was a desktop desktop exercise.

So the numbers on the screen are kind of a best case scenario.

All all properties develop and there's no consideration for constraints.

Next slide, please.

The third option that was shown as part of this engagement process was what was scenario three, and this is the existing 2011 official community plan use designations.

Again, assumption that all the properties develop.

This presents the lowest density for the area, significant difference, and was uh or is what is currently in place.

Next slide, please.

Through this engagement process, we heard uh from uh that we had received a total of 100 responses to indicate preferred scenario, and the preferred scenario from the the public was 39% uh indicated scenario two, followed by 27% saying scenario one.

Um what we took from this was a modified version of uh a scenario for the first draft.

But before I show that, uh if you could just go to the next slide, please, uh Carl.

This is just again just showing the the 2011 uh OCP land use map.

So sorry, actually, Carl.

Um, next next slide, please.

Um so with that in mind, with with considering the uh the preference for scenario one and two, um, preferably scenario two staff uh have proposed the uh the map on screen as part of our first draft.

The big takeaways here are that the Western Gateway Employment Corridor District or District Corridor land use designation would be uh for and uh commercial and light industrial use up to six stories, and the neighborhood village would be mixed commercial residential, up to six stories.

There's uh some slight tweaks as well to the um price uh price road area and heart road area, seeing additional density there where they were previously um uh lower lower residential.

Uh next slide, please.

We can see all of these changes on this um uh screen where we have uh notes on how exactly the land uses have changed.

So the like I said, the majority of the changes are um high level in terms of uh changing the bulk from uh existing lower density residential to higher density neighborhood uh village and changing commercial to the uh the western gateway uh corridor land use.

And we can devise we can review this.

Uh I just want to yeah, finish my presentation.

The next slide, please, Carl.

This map shows, or sorry, this uh table shows an overview of uh what was just shown.

And the big takeaways that I just wanted to uh make clear for everybody is that the existing land use designations for those shown on screen, small scale multi unit housing, residential, mixed residential, neighborhood mixed use, intensive mixed use and commercial.

There's no change to uh density, the uses, uh all of those would remain the same uh in the uh the first draft.

The only thing that's being changed uh at uh on this map is the introduction of two new uses, so the western Gateway and the neighborhood village, and the the neighborhood village is uh is an established use already through our uh through our official community plan that was adopted in the uh in December via the uh amendment bylaw so the western gateway corridor is the new big uh land use change for this area and like I've said it's for uh purposes of commercial uh development and light industry next slide uh please Carl um mayor to buy this next couple slides are just for more for information just again to kind of frame the context of the conversations tonight so this is a map showing the development permit areas uh in our uh Western Gateway corridor we have uh established these through the official community plan so these are existing development permit areas in the 2011 official community plan the one area shown as kind of an outline is the water course and shoreline development permit area and the area shown in solid green is the sensitive terrestrial ecosystems development permit area the the broad intent of both of these is to preserve uh the the ecosystems and habitat for these areas and uh roughly speaking um these apply to the water course area applies 15 meters upshore from the ocean and the sensor terrestrial ecosystems uh uh apply 30 meters from the the the banker stream the that's not all the all the time but rough roughly speaking uh there are uh environmental uh predator protections through the province that uh regulate this too so there's there's acts that further further regulate what we have in our bylaw that applicants would have to follow but um as part of the permitting process they have to get approval from the town uh somebody wanting to develop in these areas um before altering or demoing land or or removing vegetation next slide please the map on screen is from our uh 20 uh 16 transportation master plan it is just a a road network map i i thought it would maybe help the the facilitate the conversation tonight um and that is the end of my presentation my one note just for counsel is that uh all of the information and more uh that i presented tonight is in the package that is on the council agenda and um if you have any questions happy to answer them i think katie is up next for the facilitation thank you so katie's gonna facilitate the questions from what i understand thanks again sterling and uh we'll have lots of time for questions thanks kitty thank you and next slide please great thank you and thank you sterling um so you do have a very detailed package in front of you I think folks here um in the chamber do as well um and the first questions we sort of wanted to pose to you are are less about the specifics of the scenario itself but just sort of a general reaction to help sort of gauge sort of the the the strengths that you see within what's been presented as well as some of the immediate sort of questions or um topics that arise for you so I thought if we could just sort of do a round table um uh uh conversation or dialogue uh around that, then we're gonna quickly jump into a specific question around land use and density, and I think Sterling will be able to um answer any of those specific questions.

So I think just sort of from a general reaction perspective, I think we're just really curious to hear what sort of stands out from what you've been presented uh tonight.

Um is there anything in the scenario that's sort of surprising or raising questions for you at first glance?

I'll start with councillor Brown and then Councillor Lemon.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I see the strengths in all three scenarios.

Uh personally, I like the mixed-use neighborhood only because it's more flexible.

Um there's no in uh no note on there for uh institutions.

Uh when people moved, I was in the RCMP, so I moved a lot.

And people move to communities uh for a number of reasons.

They want the facilities, uh they want a nice place to live.

Um schools, of course, are a big attractor to to municipalities.

Um places to worship are a big attraction to municipalities.

Uh recreations, another thing.

So I'm surprised that the institutions aren't there that includes schools as well.

So um uh and some people are correct in saying institutions they don't pay property taxes, however, people come to the community and they buy homes, so they're paying property tax there.

They're paying income tax.

So that's going to provincial and federal coffers for uh you know the various things that we apply for grants.

So it's not true that they aren't paying, they are indirectly paying.

And uh my own personal is to see a mix of things.

Personally, I do not want to see two rows of six-story uh condo buildings down down the corridor, and I wouldn't want to see two long straight lines that looks like clone the 30 years ago of just businesses.

I think the mix is is healthy.

And I think we're missing something there in the other two scenarios.

That's why personally I prefer the the mixed, the mixed neighborhood use.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Brown. Counselor Lemon?

Yeah, thank you, Katie.

Um I agree, I agree with Councillor Brown.

I I do like the neighborhood village um concept, but I if it's okay, I do have a question for staff within within that.

And that is Steph, um, from the from the people that presented and spoke tonight, which of the scenarios or which which of the land designations could facilitate a hotel, a a community gathering place slash um place of worship, and a performing arts center.

Oh, I'm just kind of through through the mayor.

Uh both the both line uses too.

So the the Western Gateway Corridor would facilitate uh hotel use, tourist accommodation, and the neighborhood village would uh accommodate uh community facility uh or or religious worship place of worship.

Um the the table included in the agenda package is uh explains explains that and so does the the table in the uh the PowerPoint it actually says civic use so that's broadly speaking um uh something like institutional uses okay so that so within scenario two so yeah just a all of what was um um inquired about tonight could be could be covered that is correct and just a clarification the the scenarios um that were presented to the public um the focus I think more right now would be on the proposed land use so the the proposed land use is showing that uh we have neighborhood village in the north and western gateway corridor land use in the south uh but again both of those would would uh provide uh opportunity for those uses that the public is interested in the good thank you very much for the benefit of those following along it's page 21 that I believe in the package is the proposed land use designation map is that correct weanne yeah and just uh uh through the mayor just uh add to um uh Sterling's uh comments there uh there's been some questions around perform performance arts center and that would fall under the arts and culture use which is would be a permitted use or I would say permitted um a supportable use under the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor as well as well as a neighborhood village because that could also fit under like civic uses too so it's pretty uh flexible to to support those types of uses along the Western Gateway corridor.

And and just both uh segue um I don't want to see I don't want to see a canyon along there um that is is going to be uh you know whether it's whether it's commercial or office or or residential.

Um I think that would uh I I think I think that would simply be uh too much too high too hard.

Counselor Lemon, may I follow up on that?

Is the um the the sort of thought of a canyon based on height and mass?

Is that sort of the feelings?

Largely. Okay. Thank you.

Um Mayor Matt or Councilor Mattson and then Mayor Tobias.

I guess my first comment was one of the reasons I wanted this, because I didn't want to be surprised four months from now.

And when I look at the uh proposed quarter map done by staff, in general, I'm quite pleased with what I see.

So kudos staff and um a whole bunch of my anks that were there are are gone by by seeing this, because I could I could live with this even without the small improvements that I'm sure we'll make.

Uh I'm so my understanding is in both the neighborhood village and the employment district hotel would be allowed, as well as some of those other functions, the things that some of the individuals were talking about in terms of uh you know, a church or you know, various community uses that aren't really listed but would be uh looked favorably upon.

Um we we you know we we want to add some level of flexibility in the OCP.

So um, you know, we say tourist accommodation, but we're not gonna say hotel or motel.

Um uh when we say you know commercial, it means retail and office.

So it's a bit more all-encompassing.

Uh hotel, um, yes, it is a permitted uh a use that is I don't say permitted because zoning is where we permit things, right?

Um so it's a use that would be supportable in the OCP.

Um, and just for um council's information, the current zoning along the uh Western Gateway corridor right now, it's zone C7.

Um it currently permits a hotel use.

So all the lands along the Western Gateway corridor already permit a hotel.

Um we're not talking about zoning tonight, but I thought it'd be important just to mention that to council.

No, perfect.

Uh the other question I had was okay, what it and I know we're looking 20 years down the road, but when I think neighborhood village, I'm thinking sort of four stories, and we've got six here.

So I'm just sort of wondering what was the thoughts behind staff having six stories and sort of going along with some of my council colleagues here.

You don't want to see the whole thing six stories, but how do you get that you know visual differences?

Yeah, six-story, a four-story, et cetera, uh, rather than a you know, a wall of six stories.

So and like why six stories versus four.

Uh through the mayor, uh great question.

So uh the way the zoning land use designations are described is up to six stories.

So an OCP it's not an as of right.

Um land still has to be rezoned, and then at that time we look at okay, is six doors an appropriate height in in terms of context?

Um maybe it's four stories.

Council may recall that we did have a land economics study completed in View Royal.

And what we heard was that it is it is really not financially viable to build at four stories.

What is financially viable right now is up to six stories of wood frame construction.

So if we're wanting to see development along the Western Gateway corridor, I strongly encourage council to consider up to four six stories should you wish to see some some change.

Anything under that is not financially viable.

And when we speak about concrete construction, what we also heard from the consultants and as well as the industry is that if we're over six stories, you're into concrete construction, and to make concrete construction viable, it's 15 plus stories.

If we have an OCP that says 10 stories, it's not worth it.

You're not going to see a 10 story building.

We're not going to get it, it's not financially viable.

So up to six stories is really the sweet spot where we will see some change.

And in terms of dealing with massing, um, those things come out of the development permit.

So just addressing counselor's lemon's own comment around, you know, wanting, even though it's a very wide right of way, the Western Gateway Corridor is very, very wide.

Um, we can address um the sort of tunnel like concerns through development permit guidelines and through the development permit in the form of character to deal with massing and things like that.

So we don't get into that level of detail as part of the OCP, and that's why we strictly describe these land use designations as up to, and then the zoning is where we further refine where we actually regulate what can be built on the property.

Just following up on that, I mean, one of the concerns I heard some members of the council say, well, if we put up to six stories, we have to allow six stories.

But there's rezoning, and that goes through a process.

Obviously, when we when we look at areas that would you know perhaps support up to six stories, um, there's the is that there's the general feeling in in the community through engagement that six store up to six stories is is uh a respectful height uh uh for this area, um, and that's where we got the most support and um in terms of um yeah, and and in terms of um what would be palatable.

Also um with the Western Gateway Corridor, where we are you know introducing um some proposed land use designations such as light industrial, which Sterling mentioned that that would be uh processing, warehousing, manufacturing, like very like all enclosed, not heavy to make those types of uses viable, we're what we're hearing is like two to three story buildings, they're not tall buildings either.

So all of this has come out of some the the technical analysis work that we've done along the way.

Okay, and so my last question was in terms of the uh employment district corridor.

I'm I'm it says up to six stories, and I I think in there it's mentioned commercial or and sort of could be a mix of the two commercial and light industrial.

I'm kind of wondering is there an opportunity if somebody wants to build six stories to have two of each and then on top of it to put two stories of residential.

Um through the mayor, um another great question, uh Councillor Mattson.

So the Western Gateway, what are we calling it?

The Western Gateway Employment Corridor Land Uh, um does not um contemplate residential uses because um currently um the Western Gateway does not support residential uses um because for the preservation as an employment hub, um, because 95% of the town um allows for residential.

And so we have a very, very small percentage of our town that is really designated for commercial, and so that you have to we have to sort of think about that tax base as well and and and um bringing you know high-paying jobs to our community.

So um the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor land use designation does not contemplate um residential.

However, the concept that you're proposing would fit under um the uh neighborhood village, where um one could have like ground floor retail commercial with perhaps office on the second story, and then maybe four stories of um residential uh if it's financially viable.

Okay, so so my concept was you have four stories of commercial or light industrial and to make it viable, uh they add wanted to add a couple stories of residential.

Is that something we would could just we'd still have the the employment part fixed and you know there could be an opportunity in some spots to also put residential on top of that yeah and I think um that is you know that is where that in some OCPs um that is something that it can be is considered where um it's it's in it's in strategic locations or that added residential is um like rental housing or meeting other housing objectives in the OCP so not necessarily um strata uh condos but um non-market housing or rental housing um as a sort of as an incentive so um there are different ways of doing it I think it would be very challenging to get a development where you're having two stories of commercial two stories of office with the two stories of I I've never seen a project like that before in in a within a six story build I don't think that's financially viable to do something like that.

Often for these mixed use buildings the residential is um is uh is um subsidizing the ground floor commercial you it's there's it's really not viable to be building ground floor commercial and so um generally it's just one one story okay I I almost like everything we had to say tonight so I'm still I'm still iffy on that one uh those were sort of my major questions and um great a lot of the concerns were already addressed in terms of the additional things that could be put under some of these categories that wasn't specifically set out in the documentation.

So thank you.

Thank you counselor menza mayor Mansett. Mayor Tobias, and then we'll come to you.

Thank you. And then I think Councillor Rogers probably has some questions and comments online.

A question about that.

If I was a new defense contractor startup software, could I build um uh like a four-story that I needed up until you know we're not weapons grade here, but we're we're uh able to create um, you know, everything except a weapons grade item in those classifications for light enough.

Um through the yeah, so any uh we don't get into the like the what your processes, but basically pro processing, so processing widgets, processing um um even software development would fall under that.

Uh it's really all encompassing.

Thank you. Uh and most of uh all of my other questions actually center mainly around the Atkins Exchange area that we've got set up as a neighborhood village.

If I wanted to put a performing arts center in the neighborhood village because of its proximity to the train, and put a hotel on top of that, could I do that there?

Yes.

I could. And could I put a 15-story hotel on top of an art center there?

Um the way that the how the um Lad use designation is described, it's up to six stories.

So if someone came forward with a proposal to build a 15-story building, it would require an OCP amendment.

Right. Okay, but it would still trigger it.

So I could do a six-story on top of an art center, and that would be okay in that area, correct?

Yes, correct.

Thank you. And so currently, the uh from what I know in the studies, if we get rail off the ground, it probably the first flight of an actual one would probably be around 2030.

Um that would be a stop likely there as well as by a squamalt nation somewhere around Howell Road, uh, and then potentially another one just as it borders Calwood.

So in that area, it's not currently designated a transit-oriented area, correct?

For the Atkins Exchange.

Uh my apologies, Mary Tobias.

Uh Sterling and I were just uh confirming something.

Um could you would you be able to repeat that question?

Yeah, certainly.

Um uh so currently we're not uh the Atkins Exchange area that's designated neighborhood village in the vicinity of where the ENN is now.

That currently is not a TOA, correct?

That is that is correct.

Okay, so how much say would we have if we wanted to do something, hotel, art center, commercial buildup there because we've got mass transit?

Um, could we say we don't want you know a TOA there, we want to do this, it will have some residential, like how much play do we have with the province before they come in and heavy hand that this needs to be residential and what it looks like?

Um great question.

So the transit-oriented area um Bill 47 Act just it just regulates height and density.

So in a TOA, you can have what a 100% uh commercial or hotel.

You don't it there does not have to be residential.

Um so the only difference is that um our our draft concept here is proposing up to six stories.

Um if the province designates the Atkins Mobility Hub as a future TOA, then we may have to permit um higher higher buildings, taller buildings like up to 10 stories similar to the hospital bus exchange.

Um but that would be the only change.

Um it's not uh it's not use.

Okay, thank you.

The uh the other comments I think have been covered off.

I just wanted to make this observation to my colleagues that we could have this filled out and and have lots of employment opportunities, let's say in the next 10 years pop up, and nobody in Vic in View Royal works there.

Right? It's it's a reality.

Um, just like our staff that we all love that that live here, all except I think Scott lives somewhere else.

That's completely fine.

But this is kind of a regional asset.

To assume that only people from View Royal would be working there, I think we we might have some, but I would say the majority of folks that live in View Royal might not work there.

Um, and that's just something that we add on.

So it it is in a way a regional asset for that corridor that we're developing, not necessarily a View Royal asset.

My question to staff and Lynn, maybe you couldn't answer this, but Scott might be able to.

Because we're under strain for financial um uh build out and support for this.

Uh what would the difference be between the tax income from if that area was built out for light industrial compared to uh residential?

Is it the same?

Is it more or less to put you on the scott, and I can't even see your head because it's behind an easel, but yeah, uh my apologies, Mayor.

Um I would need uh an hour to figure that out at least.

Okay, I'll come back to you and I won't forget.

But I uh yeah, I'm just uh you know, I think it would benefit uh my colleagues here to look at um the differences because I know there is some uh between completely commercial, uh completely industrial and and completely residential.

So uh is this going to be an opportunity for the town to offset revenue uh from residential, or is it just the same amount that we be receiving potentially in in tax rates?

So obviously it would be tied with land value.

Um but that's the only question I had, and I think uh Council Rogers.

Thanks, Katie.

Thanks, Councillor Rogers?

Yes, thank you.

And and I apologize for my voice.

Uh what stands out for me the most is um um six stories, six stories, six stories, six stories.

From end to end.

And I I um I feel that that would be um, you know, we may vary it into a four by up to six, um but um um uh like um like the mayor was suggesting, I think um we should actually uh really consider, particularly along the uh the waterfront that enables um uh some high-end 15-story tour towers, um, they're not towers anymore, but 15-story that would help break up the um uh not only the uh the the whole look and feel of this uh uh gateway, but it also then would bring about um a lot more customers, if you like, if we're considering an art center or um you know um uh uh institutional like uh religious services and community centers and so forth.

So it's um um I I hope that um we can do some more tweaking on this and um bring about uh as some height variances besides six six six one of the if uh the staff can uh also clarify for me um the 2011 OCP, what was the FSR uh through the mayor, the FSR currently in the 2011 OCP depends on the land use, but for the commercial land use, it's up to uh 2.5 and up to four stories.

Really? Interesting.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um I'm also um uh surprised and a little disappointed that we have not kept the um transit-oriented areas uh um again.

When you think as the mayor said, uh you could have um now a use of the ENN corridor, you've got two regional trails this is the regional trails come together at this atkins area this is you know one of the big tourism aspects when we were building uh both the Gallup and goose and the ENN in the 1990s was that these were bookends Atkins was going to be the bookend to bring the tourists around before and before they circled back into town uh they would be able to have a a lot of opportunities to at this end we also have the rapid bus all of that synchronizing in this one area but I'm really disappointed that we've now traded that off to a transit hub a six what a 200 car parking lot and I do not think that that is in the economic best interest of the town.

I'm really disappointed that um uh and I hope um one of my right huge recommendations that we do do go back to the transit oriented and um and give the uh the population because it's not you're not going to be disturbing any of the neighbors in that regard so um uh that was the uh the one um aspect that concerns me um here's a question for your staff where's the walkable um shop shopping uh for those people that are in around the Chilco area and and up six mile that they can walk down and do some shopping where would they uh where would that be uh through the mayor great question um council rogers and thank you for your comments um so that would be the neighborhood village around the Atkins mobility Hub.

And just to clarify, the mobility hub the the vision of the mobility hub is not a glorified park and ride.

It's actually um looking at um you know a potential, you know, if all stars aligned, you know, 10 years, 15 years from now, it would be a um an LRD, uh train, an LRT stop, um, and having um an area will be uh multiple modes of transportation.

So it's not um the vision of the OCP is not to be a glorified park and ride.

This is really to be a like a transit-oriented area that I think you are or you may be envisioning for this area.

Um in terms of heights, um it's interesting um to hear that c commentary um just because um uh you know there's there's also been a lot of t concerns around around tall buildings as well.

So uh it's uh so um it's uh so thank you for that.

Yeah, no, thank you.

And and um um if we can have uh some kind of concept, a transit uh BC transit concept is a parking lot.

So if um if we can have a concept that we can bring to the public at the public hearing uh to assure them that uh it's not gonna be that it's gonna be something that's um you know more in terms of the transit oriented and and I think we should all probably lobby the province to get this um this TO uh Bill 47 in this area.

Um so my the other question I have staff is um you have um commercial and light industrial.

How does the island highway facilitate an efficient delivery of parts um deliveries and um what you know, as as as goods come and go, come and go all the time.

Um how are we're gonna be able to do that?

Because um shouldn't this this whole um um complex, western complex, have a back road, a back alley that uh so they would not be interfering or um conflicting with um the heavy heavy congestion that we anticipate on this island corridor.

Through the um through the mayor, um councillor Rogers, I believe you're referring to the map that's in the 2020 eight and twenty sixteen transportation master plan that shows a service road that runs along behind the property large parcels on Highland Highway.

Uh we have looked at that as part of the OCP and it's also being looked at as part of the transportation master plan.

And this road um cuts will make parcels not developable.

It will consume a lot of land.

Um it will um impact any opportunities for a future hotel um along along there.

Um so we have looked at that quite closely because yes, there was uh there was a um a sort of a service road that run along this, but it really would impact the devo develop development potential of those parcels.

Um so this will be further explored um through the transportation master plan.

But that level of detail does um take place in a transportation master plan.

Yeah. Um, you know, in order to um um you know have this vision of uh light industrial in in this whole s stretch, uh we are um making some pretty critical assumptions that we have to test um because I have a feeling that when transit is through the um Island Hyder Corridor uh and the rapid bus lanes, there won't much be much of a center line and and not much of an opportunity for those commercial vehicles to be able to left in, left out to for an efficient delivery and extraction of goods.

So it's um you know it's certainly one of those aspects.

Um Councillor Rogers, I was just going to suggest that we can dig into some of these more specific topics as we sort of um dive deeper into uh the the sort of three key topic areas we've um noted.

I also wanted to ask you whether there was any part of the scenario that you felt was well aligned with your vision for the corridor.

Um what are the strengths that you may have um seen in what's been proposed?

Well, I think it's very innovative, and I congratulate staff on on the whole aspect of the um uh focusing on the light industrial um revenue side of uh uh the town's uh ledger um to um it it's an innovative approach and um actually what I was hoping that um next go round we could have uh some examples of a um of a light industrial uh strip like this um somewhere either in Victoria or the lower mainland that would help us uh visualize how um how would actually um um look as as tourists drive up and down to the rec center.

Thank you.

Thank you. Did you have anything more to add?

Uh not at this point. Thank you.

Counselor Lemon.

Briefly, um I meant to mention this before.

There is only one spot splash of red in two of the scenarios.

And I think it's specific to commercial, which where it is splashed, I do think it's not particularly intuitive.

And commercial being allowed in elsewhere up the strip in you know it plentiful.

I do wonder if we could take a look at other options for that strip on Wilfort.

More options for commercial? Different. Different. Thank you.

Katie, I just had something to add, and that was uh Scott beat his own record and timing for getting back to me.

So for folks here and uh uh the benefit of knowledge, I asked, like, what is the difference in what we'd get back from light industrial versus residential?

So a one million dollar residential construction pays about uh uh two thousand two hundred and ten municipal taxes, the same amount for a light industrial construction pays eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-five, right?

So uh about four times the amount of a residential uh process, and that's just at our 2025 tax rates.

So when you're looking about the value of uh of the opportunity, it's not just for employment, it's uh it's uh uh a pretty lucrative opportunity as well for uh for the town to offset some of the operational costs and capital for infrastructure.

Uh oh, Counselor Matson, and then Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

Sure, just just following up on uh uh behind the casino.

So we were talking about putting in daycare staff is a daycare commercial.

Through the mayor, yes.

Okay, so just for the person who was worried about that, the commercial would fit fine with your plans.

The other question I had was how do we measure the 30 meters from the water?

Uh it's not up the hill you count, you know, because it's pretty steep.

So I'm just thinking how uh how the 30 meters would be calculated and and behind the case for that whole area, like there can't be much left to to develop of for the 30 meters.

Through the mayor, uh that that's determined through survey, and it's taken from the high water mark of the bank.

Sorry.

It it's just bird's eye straight line.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers, and then Councillor Brown.

Yes, um, you know, it it's one thing um again to uh and I and I appreciate staff have identified the uh uh the whole millstream area highly, highly sensitive ecosystem when you consider uh the ecological values uh uh that are in that area.

But one of the uh major issues is um as um long standing bureau residents know is slope failure, steep slope and um um and this is precipitated by atmospheric rivers back in the 1860s when we had the grist mill and the sawmill they were both totally wiped out the existing bridge uh that is over the millstream right now been wiped out that's a rebuild so um the the slope failure on the on the steep terrain like this uh is uh one of those things and it's so it's not just 30 meter setback um a uh geotech uh assessment is is critically important to uh for the safety of any any possible buildings and those living there uh if i may I just want to digress to the mayor's point um excellent thank you your worship and and thank you Scott for uh bringing back that critical um revenue value um staff about how many sta um in employees do you envision that this employment district could uh employ in in the region through through the mayor we have not done that level of analysis maybe we can get the South Island prosperity to chip in and help us with John I don't think we're we're we've got time to do any more studies at all.

Oh no no we'll find out so and I I think that that's that would be too speculative but I I think there's uh yeah it would depend so much on uh independent variables about who goes in there and and there may be no uptake but there may there may be significant so um and it may be all wall to wall AI you're right yeah yeah uh so yeah yeah you're quite quite correct so it might be a bunch of buildings with servers in them um uh which is uh, you know, we we don't know what's gonna go in there once we zone or once we uh put it for the OCP.

Um I did have a question, Katie, for staff and that I'm just looking at some differences between the scenarios and the green space associated with those scenarios.

And I'm looking at scenario three vice two and one, and it's missing some green kind of park area around the neighborhood mixed use.

And then again, I think that's over by Little Road.

Just wondering if that's just a shading kind of difference or um or or whether that's a change.

Could you just clarify what page of the package?

Uh a shading problem as opposed to an intent.

Yeah, just so just to clarify, the um the scenarios one and two are what was considered for the uh future potential land uses.

So the green was actually added in as a as a way to potentially um preserve some of the land for a future trail or for future uh green space.

Scenario three, uh, our existing land use designation doesn't contain uh or doesn't have any uh land use designation for green space along the the waterfront, and you'd see it show up again in the proposed land use designation um on page uh 21 of the package seen.

And would it be staff's uh intent or the recommendation when you say park, does staff envision, for instance, a trail going through that you couldn't get off of because that's a pretty um steep uh sensitive area like your when or would it be more of a reserve where it's just protected?

It thank you very much about it.

It depends. Um those details would ultimately come through the parks master plan.

It's going to depend on steep slope access.

So potentially trails, it could also just be uh green space.

Thank you. Uh oh, Leanne had a lot of things.

Yeah, sorry, just and just to add to that too, um the the the green, the park layer, the green layer also follows the existing um 15 meter and 30 meter um development permit areas along the shoreline and water courses.

Okay, and to be clear, like people the town doesn't own that right now, but there's a provincial legislation on riparian zones that restricts where you can develop close to that.

But when we say it's park, that would look at potentially the town creating park in those areas, correct?

Um, yeah, I mean, as Sterling mentioned, um, it's um it could um it could be a variety of things.

So uh depending on um, you know, the the our future trails and parks master plan.

Um, but um if it if it's uh if it's something where um you know uh sorry to ask answer your first question uh yes it is um prescribed by the the 30 meter setback along Mill Stream Creek is uh prescribed um by the Ministry of Environment.

It's a streamside protection enhancement area and no builder, no no-build non-disturbance area.

Um and um and so as you know if we receive applications to develop adjacent to this area, um maybe there's an opportunity to acquire a stature right-of-way to allow for future public access.

Um, or you know, maybe the town would want to acquire acquire the land.

Um there are numerous ways of of securing that for public access.

Uh we do not need to get into that level of detail in the OCP.

Uh what we do have are some um general policies um that we can hang our hats on um should this come up in the future.

That's that's great. That's exactly what I needed to hear. Thanks, Nan.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Brown, and then Councillor Matson.

Yeah, I'm glad uh Wilford Road was brought up, particularly the gravel section behind the casino.

Um if that roads developed uh goes out to Whale Road, because it'd be very easy to punch the road through to Whale Road if you're not if you're not familiar with it, but it's called the Triangle Properties in Callwood.

There's gonna be 32 buildings in that property, six floors and above, flowing on to Whale Road every morning.

If that road is ever punched through and we develop along that stretch, it's gonna be a parking lot.

It's like I cannot believe again.

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, although I am pretty good at it.

Why they would ever develop a piece of property like that without even having that access and egress from those properties.

I cringe. When I walk on the trail there, I see all these six six-story condo buildings, and then there's bigger high-rises going in there.

Uh wow, it's gonna be a city within a city.

So I hope in the in the OCP or whatever, that we don't we as Town View Royal don't develop, punch that road through, or allow Callwood to punch that road through, because it would be uh a disaster.

Again, in my opinion.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Yeah, just uh in terms of the green park area, uh I think it's really important to tell the public that we're not taking their property and turning it into park, because all people have to do is see the green and say, Well, we live here, and I I've been in a situation before where uh a whole project uh an evening was just destroyed because people came out to complain that their waterfront was being taken away.

So it needs to be emphasized what you said.

If a property is redeveloped then and rezoned, then there's an opportunity to do that.

So versus this is now the town's property.

And I think I only point this out because people get all excited about things and it needs to be they need to be advised that uh we we aren't planning to take their property from them, even though it's repairing zone.

Great. Thank you.

Just quickly, yeah.

Um through the mayor.

Um councilor Matson, thanks for that question.

So we that is that's the intent.

I mean, when we're not going in and starting to expropriate land.

Um that is not the that's not the purpose of the OCP, and I and we don't I don't think we need to get go there as part of um as part of policy or part of the OCP.

It's just if if you know if it it follows the streamside protection enhancement area, which is essentially a no-build non-disturbance area.

It's a provincial regulation.

It's not exceeding that.

So um it's it's uh it it does align with our development permit areas.

No, I no, I understand that.

I just I'd seen people panic, and we had a meeting where literally 50 to 100 people came out.

This is for the Pacific Capital Commission, and they basically shut down the meeting because all these people were so in so upset that their properties were being taken for just the same sort of thing, and it's it's one of those things that it it's sounds pretty silly, but it needs just to be explained at the start of a meeting or something for telling people that this is just as you said, the only time it would become town property or park is if we uh redeveloped the property and became part of it.

So thanks.

Councilor Rogers has another question, Katie.

Oh, thank you. I can't see you up there. Thank you.

Counselor. Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much.

No, I I appreciate staff's um um uh identifying in a in a you know intent, but um, you know, raising the point about uh the green space um on Heart Road.

Um, but uh a few um what was it a year ago?

We had a d uh uh developer coming to us on the f last four lots of heart road and uh there was an exciting possibility of of of building water access into a deep portion of um of uh helm um you know squaw harbor there um that the entire road would take a b have benefit of um and to to councillor match's point uh we have once aga before tried uh and approached uh the residents of along um heart road about a waterfront uh pathway shot down in flames dead in the water didn't go anywhere so um if we can put our eggs on on uh w uh water access that everyone benefits at the uh the far end of heart um I think you'll have the people buying in.

Um I have a question to staff please.

When I was doing the uh the numbers on the um um proposed uh land use and uh you know interesting stats uh it seems like we have a total of sixteen thousand seven hundred and twenty one parking spaces that are envisioned uh with this plan.

Um can staff assist me in understanding how is that possible and um you know c can when I get a better concept of how we're gonna be able to get sixteen thousand seven hundred uh parking stalls in the Western gateway through the mayor I again hypothetical situations um so that was based off of a highest potential density for every property and is based on what uh our bylaw requires, but might not be indicative of what applicants may want or need when their application comes in.

Um I don't really have anything more that I could add uh to that, uh.

Thank you. Um so it's hard to uh vision um the details, and I think everybody has been really good at staying at a high level because that's where the OCP is.

The rest of the crunchy bits get down to zoning and specific things, but uh staying at the high level.

The if I was a developer coming in, an OCP uh and a developer I don't mean only for residential, it could be uh commercial or industrial uh hotel.

Um do I have to wait really for six months for an approval, or is this uh can we attract the types of things we want built without an extra significant delay in development?

So I think that those things need to be considered for us is is um is the types of things we want to see there open enough so that we actually save significant time and maybe the loss of uh an opportunity by building what we want, kind of how we want it, but leaving it general enough that other things that we haven't considered that are like that might be built there uh where it's appropriate.

So it's a reminder for me that this is the highest level of land use planning, right?

Not not the detailed level of land use planning.

Um Katie.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh, Counselor Mattson, just one last comment, and then we're gonna jump into the specific topics.

So over the years, we've had there's many examples of when people have a project that is different than the OCP and they're able to put in an application.

And so following up on Councillor Rogers' concerns that there may be the perfect 15 story building that we'd love, they still like this is the concept we've we see for the area, but if somebody comes in with a really good idea, they could do what we say to do.

They'll come to council and see if there's get some feedback and see if it's you know could could I build a 15 story building here a 15 story hotel?

We're not going to say go away because it's not in the OCP.

We're going to say sounds pretty good.

You'll need to have an OCP change for you know we'll talk it so I don't I to John I really think the concern about 15 stories or or whatever it is is is almost one of those red herring things because at the end of the day if a proposal came in to council that was really good council would change the OCP.

And uh we you're presuming uh every every future council would have that flexibility um I think they some of them may be um strictly guided by the OCP and say sorry it's not in there um and who knows maybe staff would oppose uh the application because it isn't in there so um I I do think that uh we um when we consider you know what kind of hopes and dreams and amenities and arts culture centers and uh transit uh orientated zones, if we can prepare, you know, as you can in anticipate on the waterfront, some uh some of those structures, it's not that unreasonable, and I think it's um um, but then of course, one of the most critical things of the area is how the heck you're gonna get out to uh Shiksma or today across the road.

But at any rate, no, I disagree.

I think we should be um we're not we're not having a debate yet, Jones. It's not time for people asking questions.

So let's just hold it at the I do have I do have may I have uh a question and you worship for who's who's next.

Councillor Rogers, can we um jump into the key topics?

Because I think we have a lot of room for asking specific questions in a more narrow way, um, if that would be okay.

Yes. Great, thank you.

Um, so I just want to recap a little bit.

Thank you for taking the time to sort of react to the scenario that's been presented by staff.

Um, I just wanted to highlight, I mean, and there's obviously some really great sort of uh positive feedback around the overall scenario and um some favorable feedback around the idea of mixed-use neighborhoods in the neighborhood village.

Um mentioned are very quite pleased with the overall scenarios, innovative concept and comfort with the Western Gateway concept.

Um, and also viewing V Royal's role in the region in terms of some of the uses that you're considering and some of the um uses and and benefits uh that may come from from what you land on with these land use designations.

Um, when we were obviously getting into a lot of specifics, and I think one of the best ways to start would be to talk about land use and density, and I think this is where it would be helpful um to start to garner some sense of what parts of the uh the land use designations and density are you most comfortable with, and are there areas that you have any remaining questions on?

And I thought maybe Sterling, it might be easiest.

Oh, the Sterling stepped away.

Leanne, um, if we could go to slide um the slide that presents the two the the 2011 compared to the proposed.

Yeah, that's perfect.

Thank you. Uh there we go.

Yeah. Um, and so and when it comes to land use intensity, there's been a few um concerns, comments, clarity uh posed.

Um one is around just understanding the West Western Gateway use as being the the primary uh new use that's being introduced.

Um some com comment about concern about having like sort of a canyon in terms of height, um to a areas, and whether that should be included in this.

If we look at the map here um in front of us, the one on the right is what contemplates what's proposed, the one on the left is the 2011 um land use map.

Would there be any um uh comment from council in terms of what parts of the scenario you feel are really well aligned, and then what parts um may need refinement that you'd like to speak to?

Mayor Topaz?

Yeah, and just uh the two areas of concern uh for me.

One is again the transit area, and um uh I guess some thought around that because that may eventually look where you hop from a light rail type of train to a train further up island.

That may be a transectional uh uh opportunity there.

Um so specific for zoning.

Um do I need industrial or whatever?

Let's say if that train needs to charge, or we need to double a track there.

I know that most of that is on island rail corridor lands, and that's is that the white that we see there?

I'm just looking at scenario two right now, Leanne.

So the there's a bunch of different owners of land or control.

Some of it's the road, some of it's island rail, but I think they own a few of the weird bits in there as well that goes under um island rail corridor.

So would our zoning, the question mark would be, would our zoning affect land use on the corridor land?

Um through the mayor. So are you talking about um zoning or OCP designation?

Sorry, OCP designation.

Okay, yeah. Um, so right now uh as you can see, so to answer your question, yes, there's it's those it's a bit of a dog breakfast there with a multiple parcels um and ownership.

Um so the lands that are designated community facility are the blue, and so those are owned by the CRD, um, Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

Um the and so we've um and then we've and then the sort of the linear, the blue linear part portion is actually the galloping goose trail.

So we've um any any land that is owned by the regional or provincial government, um governments are are identified as um community facility.

So uh, but in terms of uh a train, I guess, uh or some type of um station there, that wouldn't be prohibited by these these land uses.

Um we'll have policies um in the OCP that um additional policies for the Western Gateway that strongly encourage that type of the like the that type of vision.

Um and then these the types of uses around around it is also very important.

And so having the mix of uses um that are supported in the OCP too.

Yeah. Thanks. The uh other area probably uh as counselor Brown brought up, the challenging part and what our neighbors are doing uh next door to us.

And I know that staff have been talking with Callwood and and um and what their plan out for their OCP uh was, but um I don't think anything on this plan would do anything except complement what Callwood has planned on their OCP right now.

The the obvious is there's gonna be more traffic on the old island highway.

There's nothing we can do necessarily about that traffic, it's not gonna go away for us.

One of the areas that I'll go back to kind of the Atkins exchange is with a question um and could that potential rail stop look like I can get out?

There could be restaurants there or opportunities for that in in the neighborhood village.

So I could you know a lot of people talking about the train to take downtown, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that would want to come up on a Friday afternoon or or on a weekend, like they could do potentially just um Starlight Stadium and go for dinner in View Royal and hang out.

Is that in the neighborhood village, doesn't it?

Oh, absolutely.

I think you've described the neighborhood village very well, counselor um uh counselor, sorry, Mayor Tobias.

Um it's uh what those types of uses.

Uh what I'm hearing is uh you're hoping that this area can not only be a place where people live and work, but also a destination and um and have those destination-like uses and um the way the OCP land use designation, so uh neighborhood village is described um is to um support all those things that you just talked about.

Thank you. Thanks, Katie.

Thank you, counselor Madsen.

Yeah, not to sound like a broken record here, but I'm really pleased with what I see, and I'm quite comfortable taking this to the public.

I don't a lot of the issues that I'd heard um staff is certainly addressed in terms of it would be facilitated by uh the current land use or people uh under these designations.

Um the only potential issue which sort of isn't addressed is uh in the commercial, the bottom half of the commercial, because the top half of the commercial uh which I gather will become a daycare soon.

Commercial fits perfectly with that, and so there's one little red area there, the back red area, which might be better to be, you know, something which would allow a combination of commercial and say uh residential there.

But so, but other than that, I'm we're very pleased with what I see, and again, as I'd mentioned uh an OCP is just a vision and any future council can change a vision to address those weird things like the tall buildings or anything else they want to do so I I'd be quite pleased taking this to the public thank you any other councillor Brown

just very quick there I really like linear parks I'm a real fan of linear parks especially when they run along the water courses so um you can never have enough park space and and even building the um uh corridor up regardless of what's there I'm a real big fan of uh rooftop greenery whether it's raised garden boxes uh meeting areas um even play areas if you go ever been to Hong Kong you see the the high rises with the play areas fenced in they even have soccer pitches on some of the uh buildings obviously you want a fence you want people dropping off a 15 story building but uh and we need trees so the more trees we can put in otherwise you can just put the tree museum and charge them a dollar and a half just to see them right uh quoting Jordy Mitchell but anyway um that's just my feeling I I'm wearing my green jacket today because I am green I'm greener than green my name is brown but I'm greener than green.

Thank you.

Counselor Lemon I'm I'm like I like it.

I'm I'm comfortable with this I think I think it's very it it's looking to view Royal's future in a really healthy way.

I love the you know the possibility of of an entertainment or dining or whatever hub around a a train stop.

I think I think that you know in the future that just makes this whole strips that much more livable and inviting um I do as my colleague mentioned and I previously mentioned I you know the red blob seems random to me and so if we can make the uncommitted piece of that into mixed residential or you know something um that's non-impactful uh on the environment but um would be reasonable and useful i i'd support that i guess following on that what would we need to change it to land if we wanted the current commercial zone to be able to accommodate things like a daycare and a mosque what would that zoning look like or correction of a recreational center um through the mayor uh thank you for that question so um the current land use designation in the in the 2011 OCP is neighborhood mixed use, which permits up to three stories uh or up to four stories for apartments and um this this uh designation envisions um commercial with townhouses and low-rise apartments.

So it does envision mixed, yeah, mixed-use buildings, the current 2011 OCP.

As we know, it is, you know, it is challenging to build mixed use up to four stories just due to the economics.

So you know, however, it's also right up against Millstream Creek.

I um, you know, obviously we would want to try and encourage a small, a smaller building footprint.

So it's kind of squeezing the bubble and going up a bit.

So uh you're having less uh less building footprint and and uh preserving more more um more space.

Uh and uh and especially on the millstream of what uh part one section of mill along Millstream, like these these properties uh have quite a steep grade and uh steep slopes.

So um there's uh that also creates some limitations, but I'm also you know mindful mindful of um some of the you know the retaining walls and structures that would be required to hold up a building too.

Um and so in the in and an impacts that may happen there.

So um, but uh the option is to um keep it as its existing uh 2011 um OCB designation, which is neighborhood mixed use, or council may wish to consider um uh uh neighbor neighborhood village designation um it's it wouldn't really be a village because we're sort of trying to have you know the neighborhood village around an actual village.

This is sort of more of a standalone, a standalone parcel um uh or we just extend um uh the western um uh the um oh yes okay and then the other option is intensive mixed use up to four stories but um as I'm reading through all of this I'm I'm sort of thinking that it may be beneficial for we'll staff will just take the comment back and um and perhaps sort of consider sort of consider get the comments tonight and we can come back with something um for as part of the first draft might be helpful.

Yeah I think uh one of the things might be and staff can consider this is this a new land use thing where you don't want because of the area how much land you've got the grade you don't want some of the um you don't want four stories there probably couldn't accommodate it anyway with parking and whatnot we we're looking at a a daycare and I'm not sure how many uh potential stories if that's a good space for it maybe it we have the power to create a new or different um land use for that area given the um given the circumstances that that's in potential oh great question um I think it really comes down to um if if count if council um sort of at the end of the day, there's there's there's with some of these parcels along uh Millstream Creek, and I don't want to just focus on one parcel because the OCP is not just about one parcel, um, it's about the whole the whole corridor, right?

Um the um the the there are some you know geotech issues along here, there's some environmentally um sensitive areas.

Um there's uh yeah, so there's definitely some site site constraints for sure.

Um I'm also sort of thinking too compatibility of uses, right?

So we have a casino um where and I don't know quite you know, I'm not sure how you know how how busy that gets, but I'm also sort of thinking about not just me, but the the planning team is sort of thinking about so the the compatibility of uses adjacent to other uses along the corridor.

Um however it's uh a lot of it will come down to um the design.

So we we designate a parcel, but then um it will be up to uh the developer to to do studies and figure out what can actually be built on the site.

Like we don't um we we can't really prescribe how each site is going to be developed, um, so it's more high-level general, and then through studies and through site constraints and other things, that's sort of when uh we come a developer comes forward with an actual propos proposal that fits with the the actual site and the context.

So I think quite the I think the question for council is really um does council support residential uses here or not?

Um so the current OCP land use designation um supports uh residential.

Um the and when you say residential, um we're we're talking daycare and other things associated with residential as opposed to a four-story residential only.

Um no, the the current um land use designation is that it has to be mixed to use.

So commercial has to be combined with either townhouse or an apartment.

So it can't the the way the OCP designation reads right now, it cannot be just standalone commercial or standalone residential, has to be mixed use.

And so we have no separate one that would denote a daycare or a um uh a community center.

That's commercial.

That is commercial, okay.

Yeah, the the current designation right now.

So the current not the current designation, pardon me, the proposed designation.

So if we kept that area as commercial, potentially, like in scenario two, a daycare could go in there or a uh recreation center could go in there, correct?

Um not a record, uh this the under commercial, I just have to read, oh uh or retail office technology and service commercial.

No um uh that would be um more like civic has civic use.

So that would not be permitted.

Um yeah, it's pretty prescriptive uh.

But again, this isn't lot by lot.

This is general overview.

If somebody wants to go in and do request an OCP amendment, Leanne, they could do that to um to accommodate, but currently that's my question.

If it's zoned that way and it's fit for purpose, then what what does that look like?

So if if sorry, land use designation, not zoning.

Yeah.

Good question. So if um if if council is is contemplating um sort of expanding um the type of uses here beyond just commercial, so retail, office, technology and service commercial, then my recommendation would be Western Gateway Employment District Corridor as the as the um designation, um, because it allows for um commercial, light industrial or arts and culture uses, tourist accommodation, as well as the light industrial uses, like manufacturing, warehousing, processing, and technology.

So it's a bit more all encompassing, um, but no residential is is so we would still there's still not be a support for for residents.

Right. So if we painted the red on scenario two blue to match the western gateway, it could accommodate potentially a daycare course with no residential and uh a rec center potentially.

Oh yes, a rec center, absolutely, yeah.

Okay, thanks. And we don't have to make I'm not looking for a motion now.

We'll do that at the very end, but I just wanted to explore through questions.

But Katie, thanks.

Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Rogers and then Councillor Mattson.

Uh this uh conversation is deeply deeply concerning.

And uh Joni Mitchell would be turning over in her grave uh for us uh paving paradise.

This is a wildlife corridor.

This is a fish-bearing stream.

This has um you know histories or slope failures up and down.

You know, town, you know, I think uh council Matthew may remember, but I certainly do.

The town was sued for its uh its position on um uh a slope failure um just as a residential lot and um and across the way you know this this individual said wanted to uh expand uh just a house he just wanted to put a house so he has to bring in rice tech and and you know so there's slope issues in this now if we're you know to do the entire thing in blue to turn this into an industrial site you know when you um you know is a is a mockery of the urban forest strategy it's a um uh when you consider the fire smart you know how many trees you're gonna have to cut down thanks Councillor Rogers I'm gonna we're talking about land use right now right now it does have a land use yes I understand that right I understand that you're proposing something else wouldn't it park be better?

Wouldn't you know considering the natural uh as a staff are considering the um uh the merits of having a parkland and and I and um I think there's merit in the south end of this uh property but the north end is precipitous it's a problem you know counselor uh lemon you can recall back in 2018 um where a developer didn't want to put a hotel or some huge structure that would absolutely totally wipe out the ecology and still keep apparently the 30 meter setback you know unbelievable the the Wilfrid Road is very narrow it hangs on that cliff.

So there the the implications is we wipe out those trees and um, you know, so it the land use, you know, has to be commensurate to the overall, and I think staff pretty well did a good job on that page that showed us the sensitive uh trans uh trend transitory uh ecosystems in this area.

It's not just 30 minutes.

Council Rogers, Councillor Rogers, we're debating something that's so far into the weeds right now.

It has a land use designation right now.

We're not talking about intended uh um, you know, build out or anything like that.

Our exercise tonight is to talk about land use.

Not necessarily not necessarily about anything else.

It has a land use now.

Yeah, that hasn't changed.

We have owners of the property even that are present.

So uh so I'd ask you to level up a little bit when it comes, there's been no recommendation made for a motion right now.

Good. So let's wait until we get to that stage.

Thank you. Okay, so I think Katie.

Councilor Mattson? Chair, Chair, Jarrett, do I have a question to staff?

Yeah, uh Counselor Matson got it now and we'll come back to you.

Chair, what's the current zoning on that property?

Staff through the mayor, it's uh C7. Pardon? Uh C7 business commercial.

And and the reason I'm asking is there they can already go in there and develop it to CEM.

So we're getting way too in the weeds and something that you know, boy, we'd like to have it as parked, but it's already zoned.

And there's a current development going on on one half of it.

So anyways, I'm just perplexed as why we're going into such detail if it's already the zoning is already there and we're not going to change and I I think to to Mayor Tobias's comment we don't have a motion on the floor we're not debating that specific um parcel or area at this point but I think we've obviously got a couple of different perspectives on what perhaps should happen there.

And then I'll come back with a question.

Yes thank you um I have a question with respect to um the intensive mixed use that's on the east side of Price Road so um I wonder if can you see that uh brown portion the only brown portion among amongst all the uh the purple island highway price road so um so my question is to staff um all the individuals that live on price road have a very difficult time um even doing a right turn um off a out of price road with all the uh the traffic uh the way the BC transit has changed their orientation um and you know it's virtually impossible for them to do a left so with this intensive mixed use um uh being proposed how in the world would I know another 400 units uh be able to and it was residents be able to egress out of there Leanne, would you like to respond through through the mayor um thank thank you, Councillor Rogers, for that question.

So I think it's important to note that the proposed neighborhood village is to support that future mobility hub in that area.

So hopefully a lot of those residents will be taking rapid bus, hopefully a future train, cycling, so not getting into the car for every trip that they have to make to get places.

So the reason for that is to transition from six stories down to four stories and then the um and then into into the harbor district, which all those homes, as you know, are on a on a hill.

So really looking at that having a sense of transition there.

Um so not having and then also to um we're also mindful that um there's a huge lot of bedrock in that area.

So you know, getting anything more than a th a three story townhouse will likely be challenging to do.

So um that was taken into consideration when looking at uh those types of land uses um along Price Road.

Thank you. Um if I may just uh one last question.

Um I noticed the um, and this is your your uh land use capacity analysis, and the notice that the uh total number of residents would be 10,300.

The number of uh units uh is uh 4480.

So basically um uh 2.3 individuals per unit.

But um if you delve further into the details and the size of of the units and so forth, it sounds like the average unit would be 662 square meters, and um with the expectation that 2.3 um people would be living in an area of six, six to square meters.

Is that isn't that a little high?

Through the mayor, uh again, general analysis.

The the way that everything was calculated in the very large Excel spreadsheet was uh using the StatsCAN 2.3 average and for households.

The number of units that were calculated for one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, studios uh is based off of uh kind of typical applications the town receives.

So a majority of units um for uh this purpose of this analysis were uh studio and one bedroom units.

The the determination of whether it's too high, I again the the analysis could be uh changed, but there's a lot of variability here, council.

Yes, I would think so. Thank you.

Thank you. And I believe Councillor Brown was the next on the list.

Don't tell any urns because the province is charging tax on urine now.

So I'll try to be quick.

Um I think uh I think Mayor Tavares's question, I think he was asking about uh single lot zoning.

And just historically, and I'm very was very surprised when I was the head dog catcher in charge of the not so serious crime section of the CRD.

5401 Pat Bay Highway is a dog pound.

And it's the only property in Sands that's it's has a zone of its own.

So uh you know who knows what might come that's totally unique that we might have to create a zone.

I I can't envision what that would be.

I don't I don't think we're ever in a dog pounder, but I thought uh when I found it I was very surprised, but um it's certainly a way around uh if something every unique comes up.

So perhaps uh answer that um th through uh through the mayor.

Um thank you, Councillor Brown, for that question.

Um so the the topic of zoning, um so these in terms of like sp specific uses um that we might see on the properties that will come through through zoning.

And so um if someone uh would come in um with a proposal uh to to rezone to something and um that is that is uh uh um unique to that area or to this area, that is definitely something um you know that we would definitely um look forward to having conversations on.

But that's also the beauty of an OCP because the land we want to keep the land uses relatively, you know, sort of higher level, like commercial and um light industrial and uh like service commercial and things like that because we don't want to, we also um want to be we don't want to be overly prescriptive because then we won't get these unique ideas that you know you're describing.

So that is that's the why you know we want to keep the OCP at a certain level, and then we further refine it through zoning with um like what permissions are are allowed.

Thank you. Um based on the conversation, it feels as though there are very few areas that may need further discussion around potential refinements.

Um, does council generally have the information they need related to the land use designations and density to carry on to the next topic?

Great, good job.

Thank you. Next uh can we move to the next slide?

Um, and I'm gonna use yours, Sterling, because I think it's easier to jump off the materials that you prepared around um transportation and transportation's come up in a number of different ways tonight.

We've heard a little bit about rail uh or future rail potential.

Um, we've heard about traffic congestion um volumes, um, we've also turned heard about the mobility hub mention of BC transit and the rapid bus lanes.

Um I think it's the road network it is slide.

Sorry, Carl, I'm not being very specific.

Uh 20, please. Thank you.

Um, were there any specific questions um around traffic or transportation in terms of how the scenario aligns with your vision for this corridor?

Um, are there any refinements or clarity needed um from staff at this point?

Just to say that I think that Atkins area will increasingly become important, not just because of the rail, but because of you know the intersection is the only place in the CRD where you've got the two trails, Old Island Highway, the Trans Canada all converging there, plus with uh a potential for light rail that we'll know better of in March uh when and if the federal government opens their checkbook.

Thank you. And more of a observation or comment.

Yeah, it's just uh uh I I I think I would be because it's such an important place, I'd be like looking at whatever we need for infrastructure first and then build on top of that.

So if there needs to be a train station there, then kind of invite them into the plan as opposed to let's just build a bunch of stuff here and and and hope for the best, because I think once um we get the transportation sorted out, I think that will um increase the um uh the the quality of that site quite a bit.

I mean, personally I love the idea and I know it's been a passion of of counselor Lemon for a while, and that's the arts um uh you know, facility for the West Shore, something that the CRD has mentioned as well.

Um I've also noted that downtown Victoria in the conference center is out of space.

There are things that are being turned away.

It's nothing that the municipality has to necessarily build, but if we've got the right amount of land, the right amount of resources that could support quick transportation from downtown, you can come to View Royal, stay in the hotel for your conference or an arts performance, go to a couple of restaurants and then go back downtown.

I think that would be like an incredible bonus for the West Shore.

You know, I I think that um you would start really looking at a View Royal as a as a destination.

And there are already people coming from Up Island that don't want to go downtown for various reasons, and uh this would be a natural stop.

Plus, they could hang out at the casino and go to the Wanda Fuca rec center.

So I think there's quite a few things in that general area.

Um the other thing I just want to point out for my colleagues as well is that um the casino's been something we really banked around for a while.

And given its change of ownership and kind of declining revenue and and some uncertainty there, you know, as we broad brush this in 40 years, the casino might be something else, right?

It's it's not that it's going to necessarily be there, even though it's wonderful and it's uh a good source of revenue for the town and whatnot.

Um it it we should be able to prepare to have that land use planning in place for the next thing that might want to come.

That's thank you.

Thank you. Shall we move on to environmental protection?

I have no, sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Mr. Councillor Rogers. Sorry, are we still um I didn't on transportation?

Transportation.

Okay. Um as uh said a point well taken with um again the combination of the um trails, the uh rapid bus and and hopefully the ENN.

The um but people are not going to get out of their cars.

The Western community is not going to be simply um you know going by bus.

Um and I think um and I'm hoping that you know what transit is doing is reducing the minutes, just the minutes of uh their uh run into town and and to the west shore.

I do not think that um we're going to see a drastic change considering um the extensive uh development that's going on in in the west shore and the continued pressure and the pressures for them to move uh east and west in a in a in commuting.

So um I'm I'm dubious that an art center in this focal point um is going to be viable when you consider all of the west shore as as um that was just uh I'm gonna move us on, Counselor Rogers, because that that isn't in our we don't have to rezone for that.

So I don't want to get caught up in a conversation about an art center right now because we don't have to rezone for that or anything.

That's not not the place to do discussion for that here.

And just in the interest of the case.

Just wanting just wanting to put the things into the transportation context of which we're talking about right now.

Um and I guess one of the things that we have working against us is a six-mile bridge.

That's a constraint with traffic lights on both ends.

So um how um we're going to um um as a region address that maybe it's the EN, but even even the buses are going to have to time their their sequences to be able to get through that pinch point.

So I'm just saying, and my my other comment is uh the whole um commercial uh residential area um on the south side of Island Highway, Price Road, and so forth.

Um all that development, all that commercial is going to have to come out of one of those two lights.

And um six mile is now taken up by Warter's Edge.

Maybe that'll evolve.

But the other light, all I think there should be a major, there will have to be a major street reconfiguration in order for those uh for a um a reasonable um traffic flow in and out of that area.

So that's one of the counselor Rogers, particularly the one about the uh six-mile bridge.

I think that we could put that down as a constraint because it is right now with the bus on the shoulder and only um one of the limited lanes it's got, plus it's aging out.

Um so that that's a relevant constraint until it's replaced.

Thank you. And the other and the other constraint is the the area that I just mentioned, they can't get out.

You know, so we need to have to read if we're gonna have density, we need to be able to give them proper access to those two traffic lights.

And that's price road, Councillor Rogers?

Price Road, um, you know, yeah, basically, and and that other street canard or whatever it is.

Okay, excellent.

I we've noted that.

Um, the last key topic that we had identified um heading into tonight was just around environmental protection and just wanting to ensure that council has the information they need, and I guess question back to you at this point.

There's been quite a bit of discussion.

We've touched on Milfstream, um, we've talked about the riparian area requirements of the province and any development um and the potential green space.

Um, how does the scenario or or does the scenario support your environmental protection and climate objectives?

And are there any questions you have staff for staff or any refinements that you think are needed at this time?

Mayor Tobias and then Councillor Brown.

Yeah, I think uh the only question I really have is managing runoff.

Uh I don't know whether you saw an article in Langford Late that they've got part of it that nothing's growing in at all, and there's foam on the top of it.

Um so uh I I think you know we we've got a scenario now where it's uh even beyond the 30 meters, it's quite an elevation uh decline to get down there.

And even they're noting now like the hardening compounds and rubber are highly um uh toxic to fish, uh especially this being uh egg-bearing.

So I know staff is and we uh previous councils have done a great job of protecting that area, but I'm just concerned that we continue that not only that setback, but really looking at our stormwater management around those areas.

That would be my only real concern about what I see, Leah.

Um through the mayor, I thank you for your question.

And um, yeah, so uh we do have our um so we have development permit guidelines that require um biologists to prepare uh reports and assessments um that do speak to those things in terms of sediment um sediment erosion runoff and um in um and recommending mitigation measures to to prevent that um and uh and then our we also have and then and then diving down into our uh subdivision development and subdivision servicing bylaw where we have um specific storm water management uh requirements um that we that we have in place.

So we have sort of two layers of of regulation and then also those those lands along um Mill Stream Creek, we do have to submit um the riparian areas like raw they're called RA reports to the province, and they must sign off on them too.

So thanks, Leanne. That satisfies me.

Thank you, Councillor Brown, and uh next slide, please.

Are we uh are we finished with the environmental?

Uh not yet. We'll go to you in a second, Counselor Roger.

I hate to keep repeating it, but um certainly uh on tall buildings to get the green space, the more green space and the more trees um on boulevards.

Um we we are considering a natural asset inventory in our budget, which I think is a necessity.

Um it's a must actually.

And it uh prevents some of that runoff issues too, potentially with the uh you know the heavy rains we've been getting.

So uh it's very important, especially as we build and build and build.

Um and we do, we have a strong tree bylaw, but it all the assets are streams, our creeks, or natural uh habitats for animals, birds, all that stuff.

It's growing, it's so important.

Um we don't realize uh uh the importance of it.

And again, I don't want to talk about specific properties, but certainly that um well I know where Councilor Rogers is coming from because it's a it's a beautiful park uh park area and per perhaps at some point a piece of that could be hived off.

They got the fish counters in there.

We do natural uh the habitat there, they count all the fish.

Um at the middle stream creep there.

Um so I think as a council and as a town, we're doing quite well in some of the stuff we're already doing, but there's certainly uh more that can be done.

So I think I don't know how you build that into the OCP, but uh it it is important so thank you, Councillor Brown.

And I would imagine some of that shows up as policy in the general OCP document, not just specifically to this corridor.

Um and sorry, Carl, can we go to slide 19, please?

Oh, I just one following up on I'm I'm not moving along.

I just have wanted to get the right slide on and then Councillor Rogers and then Councilor Matson.

Sorry, thank you. Is that me?

Yes, please.

Okay, thank you. Uh yes, uh sorry to interrupt.

Is this the slide you want? I can't see the number of the page.

I'm sorry, the existing environmental protections slide.

It should be further along more.

Oh, I'm sorry, mine says 19.

I might have given you poor information.

Uh forward.

It's slide 25.

There you go. Perfect. Thank you. And Counselor Rogers, to you, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Um yeah, appreciate the uh the information here.

What's missing and a vital component in this chapter and and is the slope stability and the geological makeup of those slopes is probably glacial till.

And so and we certainly know the contours is of uh of grave significance.

Um and we've seen lots of evidence of uh slope failures, landslides, and so forth.

So um staff, do you have a history and will you be including um you know slope failure um or slope uh stability issues that are equally as uh important to the ecosystems?

Uh through the mayor, uh great question.

So um we currently have so this is a development permit area um question, and so we have development permit guidelines that uh require applicants to provide geotech studies where there are concerns around slope stability.

Uh council may recall that uh once the OC once the first this phase of the OCP is done, um staff is very eager to start looking at the development permit areas, which includes the environmental development permit areas.

So that is phase three of the OCP update, which we hope to get going at the end of this year, uh which will look at uh the environmental D DP areas and perhaps is you know establishing some new ones to address um some of these uh concerns.

So so the question of staff, um you know, because there was the uh what was the term?

Uh a development permit is required to remove vegetation or alter alltain, uh that's a new word, couldn't figure that one out.

Altained lands.

Um so um with slope failure, um, is it then um permitted for the the applicant uh to clear cut the forest to mitigate the slope failure or put um 15-20 feet of um um uh concrete blocks to um effectively entirely change the landscape uh to mitigate uh these uh areas.

What's permitted in in terms of um drastically altering a natural landscape, particularly along Mill Stream Creek.

Uh through through um the mayor, um counselor John, any alteration uh meaning like even removing a very small patch is an alteration and subject to a development permit.

So it doesn't really matter the scale of alteration if you're changing the parcel that in any any size, shape or form within the environmental DP area, it's subject to a DP.

There are some exemptions, um, but they're very minor in in nature.

Um and we we we look at each parcel in a on a case by case and um and uh we have the guidelines in place um and we will require studies like geotech reports if there is a is a if there is a is a concern around um slope stability and we you know we have that information.

We we work with geotech engineers um at the DP stage as well as the building permit stage.

And um again, some of these um sort of comments are very hypothetical, like and and um and i it's really hard to to answer um that, but we do have the authorities in place to a ask for these studies um where there are concerns around steep slopes and um erosion and uh and basically um failures.

So uh does the urban forest strategy that we've adopted um give us uh any further strengths uh in in protecting uh this uh essential green area uh through the mayor.

Uh the the tool is actually the development permit area in legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Yeah, just a quick one.

Um we've sort of got a sea of uh cement going down the whole corridor.

I'm just wondering if what sort of opportunities there will be to sort of green it up if you know, I don't know if you can plant trees or or or something to do to green it up.

I that's something I would like to see.

Through through the mayor, I think uh through the redevelopment, I think we'll see uh an increase in tree canopy along um along the Western Gateway corridor as part of redevelopment of these lands.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Not cut off yet, didn't I?

For too many comments. Yeah, not yet.

I don't know if anyone was going to St.

John's Newfoundland, but you look at the buildings there, and they they got the multi multicolored hardy plank.

You know, I don't know how much uh uh strength we have to to force that also like the staggering a building, so you you stagger the setbacks so they're in the same as the heights of the building, but Councillor Brown.

Yeah, yeah, you're you're on the environment aesthetically pleasing wise that would be pleasing uh it would be nice to see buildings with the multicolored party blank similar to uh St.

John's Newfoundland thanks Councilor Brown I think we're at the point we start talking about color of things and how they look that we need to move on a bit yeah we need to move on so uh has anybody got anything uh for for us to reconsider specifically about the ecological zone that we've already kind of covered a lot of it but is there more things specifically to that that anybody wants to touch on okay um can I can I sorry just just a question um staff the um Mill Stream is an estuary so where does the how does the estuary um uh aspects um uh play into those those setbacks and uh environmental protection um it's within the um in the stream side protection and enhancement area so it's captured under that and uh there's quite rigorous provincial sort of requirements in terms of addressing the repairing area through a develop the development permit so the the setbacks would be what the 30 that is correct 30 meters thank you thank you well with that that covers all of the topics we had on our agenda tonight from the perspective of seeking clarity from staff um finding some agreement or shared understanding of where folks are at on the corridor specifically um obviously, you've highlighted a number of topics that will be covered within the broader official community plan in terms of various policies and whatnot um which which which would come forward as part of that draft.

Our intention tonight was to identify your level of comfort with what you're seeing in the scenario, where you needed clarity and where you saw further refinement.

And so I think at this point we've captured everything that's been shared tonight, and that will be fed back to you as well as the broader public.

Yeah, um, I think it's probably a good time to get our OCP committee that have showed up tonight and just invite you kind of one by each.

You don't have to, it's not obligatory, but if you'd like to come up and share your observations, it would be really valuable to us to get your take on on this and again just kind of restrict it to this.

And if you could provide um, you know what what option you like or or none uh of the options or an option with modification that would help.

Who's brave enough to go first?

Mike, not clicking on you, but to say.

Yeah. Just so uh with our short-term memory, we can record it for posterity and have you on the webcast.

And my name is Mike Lloyd and I live on We're our Road.

Um I at the open house about the um about the gateway, uh, I chose the second option, which seemed to be the least disruptive or um I like the variety of um development areas um there and I thought that was good.

Um one thing that I would really like to see in that area is that we don't repeat some mistakes that have been made elsewhere, like on the Helmcken recent developments on Helmcken, whether we're at Burnside and Helmcken or Helmcken and Island View where planning has stopped at the sidewalk or inside of the sidewalk.

And there's been no consideration for servicing the businesses or the or or the or the buildings.

And we've those are 100 year buildings at least.

And and there's no consideration for if you have a grocery store, how are you going to get the food to it every day?

If you're going to have a restaurant, how are you going to service that?

And so it's more of an urban planning concept that I hope that we as in view will take on uh so we expand beyond the the property itself and look at the larger plan.

I I like what you've said about the uh the transportation master plan and the and the possibilities of rapid truescent um bus rapid transit or rail, I think is something that we will uh need to get to uh before very long.

I also like the idea of uh planning the infrastructure before you you uh start uh giving um building developers permission to build there so that we can put the course in front of the cart.

Um I'm gonna ask you this one and I'll ask anybody else that comes up.

Is there anything about these scenarios that you don't like?

Anything that you're concerned about?

Um the thing that I had difficulty at the open house was the concept of the of the village.

The neighborhood village being a six-story building.

And I know that we have the constraint of people saying you can't build unless you can't, it's not uh affordable unless you go with six stories, and I think it's ridiculous to call it a village then.

Um there are some developments in in Victoria, like dockside green that does have very tall buildings along that street, but there's a quite a variety of buildings around there, and there's really good green space, and there are lots of trees that buffer um buffer those buildings, and I think that's where the urban planning part of development uh needs to be emphasized.

Like that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mike. Uh appreciated that. Who else wants to be brave? Kyle.

Uh hello, my name's Kyle Pete.

I live on Shoreline Drive.

Uh I I generally I like the um north side of the uh uh UC designation map.

Um I find the uh no man's land between I guess six mile bridge and the rec center.

Uh it seems like it's gonna stay the same.

Like there's nowhere for people to live along there.

There's nowhere for people to uh stop and see.

Right now it's a bunch of surface slots, um, which I'm assuming is a lot of uh oil and other stuff running running into the stream.

Um what I would like to see along that is uh, and I think to counselor Rogers' point, um putting industrial just uh is asking for uh industrial failure into the into the creek.

Um I would prefer to see uh neighborhood village along that side I think um having residential or um mixed use through there uh would create more of a community through that space uh and there's a lot of opportunity for the Western Gateway Employment District corridor on the I guess on the south side of Island Highway there but the north side is a little bit more concerning to me especially given that we don't see any green space in there in the in the planning uh there's a little bit of a strip of a park which I'm assuming is is for a different purpose uh amongst the kind of southeast here but um otherwise I don't know what I'm stopping for in there.

I feel like it'll be people from nine to five and otherwise it'll be pretty much dead zone which is what it is right now.

Yeah otherwise I think the like I love the idea of the um transit corridor uh the community facility kind of train train area if if we could get a train there that'd be amazing.

But otherwise I think the uh it's surprising me that we have this uh space in Callwood near the rec center uh where the London drugs is where the grocery store is uh where there are communities being built up around it um kind of on the I guess on the south end of this uh this Western gateway uh then we have this new neighborhood village kind of idea on the on the north end of it but we just have this gap in between um and I'm not really sure who that's for and what that's for other than maybe getting some more tax dollars in.

Um but yeah that's it thank you.

Thanks Kyle that was great.

Um just uh um Leanne uh Kyle brought up a point about what goes in for light industrial can you give us the rundown?

So it's labs, but it's not really you're not gonna be manufacturing car parts there with kind of a heavy industrial or medium industrial.

Can you give us some examples of what we might see in in the light industrial?

Yeah, so a light industrial includes um manufacturing, so man manufacturing um potentially carp car parts, depending um I don't I don't know if a if a car if a car company would choose uh like a manufacturing business to manufacture car parts parts here, but um it we don't really get into the um the types of materials that will be manufactured, but it can be um it could be you know manufacturing um like food product fruit pro food products such as um jam, exactly jam or um hummus, or I don't know why hummus just came to my mind.

But anyways, like any any any type of um food product.

Um it could also be um like uh high tech, so software research innovation, um like green technology.

Uh and I think it's just really important that in and this is sort of how the um the economic development section of the OCP is structured, is really sort of focusing on that vision in terms of you know what the economic development vision would be for uh V Royal and in this area.

Um warehousing is another, and um a lot of manufacturers require warehousing um to store their products for shipment.

Um so that would be and distribution, so that would be part of it.

Um, and um and then processing, like even like processing microchips, things like that.

So it's um it's very it's all enclosed, it's not external, um external um uh like uh uh the in terms like unenclosed storage and um and uh and lots of you know fumes and noise like those types of um those types of news nuisances that the that's those sorts of things would try to be you know mitigated through through um less impactful in light industrial uses and and just to clarify again Landoring in that Western Gateway employment corridor district in the parts that are mapped accordingly that Kyle kind of presented there's no residential that goes there at all that is just industrial up to a certain amount of stories and that is uh for uh for employment that is correct because we're also mindful um amount of the number of units that will be generated on the Cullwood side and and the plan in the for the future and how many units along that corridor understood thank you thanks for that Kyle is anybody else from the OCP committee you don't have to again but yeah Blair come on out of uh turn on your microphone there tiger

apologies um I'm Blair Spencer I'm with the OCP committee I live at 115 St.

Giles Street um I really do um like the second option I think if I had to if I had to pick one of them I feel it's a bit of a balance between a really high growth scenario and the the status quo um I also like the idea of a neighborhood village as it's been outlined in here.

I think that that's a really great idea, and I think that it has quite a bit of potential too.

Um and a neighborhood vill.

I mean, the devil will be in the details, of course.

I know we're not here to debate that, but as things get approved, um, I hope that there are some spaces in there um that are that are green where people can meet, and then it really does start to feel like a neighborhood village.

Um and I I think it was mentioned here, so I I don't want to restate too much of it, but um my concerns are are more about just the the pace of of um infrastructure keeping up with the amount of development.

And I know we talked about this at a council meeting a couple of years ago where the population of U Royal has grown by over 30% over the last 10 to 15 years, and and um this isn't um a slight at at um council or staff or anything, but it's really very difficult for infrastructure and services to keep up with growth that intense.

Um we know that like my kids' elementary school is already over capacity um at Eagle View.

Um so I I I just uh I hope with the transportation and the infrastructure pieces that that can keep pace with this.

And um Councilor Rogers mentioned it, but um we do have a lot of seniors and young families in this community, so um we have to be mindful of um of keeping transportation.

Some people can't get out of their cars.

I know there are people that can bus and can take rapid transit, but there's some who just can't.

So I think that really needs to be reflected in the in in the infrastructure that comes into actualizing this plan.

Um, and um, but otherwise, like I say, I I I do quite like it.

I'm quite excited about what this could end up being.

So so thank you.

Thanks, Blair. Much appreciated.

Anybody else on the OCP committee want to address council?

Thank you're the last one.

Second. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah.

Hi, I'm Kim Abraham from the OCP Advisory Group Committee and I live on Highland Road.

Yes, I'm actually quite happy with the proposed Western Gateway quarterland use designation map.

Um I do think we do need a hotel in the area, which I guess would be under commercial.

Um the only hotel in the area is I think the Holiday Inn.

And um now with no um Airbnb, I think it would be great if uh we did ha keep that designation in that area.

Um otherwise, um I think a lot of work went into it and um I think it's well done.

Yeah, be happy with it for the next 50 years.

Okay.

No, that's uh great.

And just to confirm, Leanne, is anywhere in um the Western Gateway uh is a hotel uh able to go in there?

Is that just uh along the Western Gateway employment corridor or district corridor?

Um uh uh great question. Um along the entire uh corridor from Atkins Interchange all the way to um the Callwood border.

So anywhere in there they could um they could good to go for uh a a hotel.

Yeah, the proposed land use designation support tourist accommodation.

Um and thankfully some of the zone the many of these properties are zoned um C one or C7, which already permits a hotel, so it's already in place.

Okay, perfect. Um I think that brings us down.

Kate, did you have another exercise for us to go through or was that I think we've covered it.

I think you've asked great questions, and it seems like you have some clarity on where you need to go next.

Um staff, can you talk to us about do you need a resolution from us tonight?

Or are you gonna go away and take what you heard and package it up to be a motion?

Uh I think uh I I think given how the conversation went this evening um and the notes that we have, and they're really the only um specific change that we heard tonight was um you know, revisiting the parcels along Wolfert, um, and those land use designations.

And I what I we heard tonight is um it sounds like ex it's sort of extending that Western Gateway Um Western Corridor Employment Hub land use designation to that particular parcel um because it allows for um more uses um would be something that is palatable.

Um and uh please council correct me if I'm wrong.

Um and I want to just make sure that we heard you correctly on that.

Go ahead. Just in turn up, what I heard was that the second part of the of the little red two little red dots.

The first one commercial would have been fine because that's we're gonna put in a uh a daycare there which fits in with the daycare.

It's the other little bump which they might want residential in or is that institutional the um but i don't think residential would fit under what you'd mentioned that's absolutely correct so um the the uh yeah so the current the current zone um permits daycare so that's really a non-issue it's just um if uh council I think needs to decide if if there's support for residential along there so and under the current zoning residential up to three stories is already allowed um no and the zoning doesn't permit residential it's the existing land use designation that permits residential yeah so if they were to rezone for residential it would be um um supportive under the current designation so you probably just need clarification for my colleagues that they would like to see residential in that second bump that that's what I'd heard yeah go ahead sir whatever whatever goes into the second bump clearly needs to be um unimpactful on on the slope behind so if by sticking with the land designation from the 2011 OCP um something can be developed potentially that is you know narrow and unimpactful um yeah, that I mean it's been it's been in the that designation has been in the OCP for 15 years now and nothing has happened.

So you know I don't feel that it's too daring to stick with that.

Thank you. Any other comments because we're gonna switch off to question period your worship.

Go ahead hang on uh John uh Leanne and then we'll go to you John yeah through the mayor I think it would be helpful if we do have a council motion on that because um I think staff are a little bit kind of confused in terms of the direction for along there so um that would be helpful.

Okay I'm just gonna finish up with councilor rogers for input and then if you'd like a motion then uh uh happy to entertain that councilor Rogers go ahead yes um I'm certainly confused about what uh what the possibilities are be it um you know commercial um um intention mix use whatever you want to call it I think um you know um staff should bring back a some information for not just the five of us but the two member of councils that um have not had the benefit of of uh the debate the discussion and the end the implications so um I would put it back I would uh urge you uh your worship to um so that staff can bring us some written information so we can seriously consider the pros and cons implications um and uh what uh and how they fulfill the intentions whatever they may be.

Thanks, Councilor Rogers. Councilor lemon, you had a uh motion that you wanted to put in.

Yeah. Um I move that uh we maintain the land use designation from the 2011 OCP in the in the uh eastern, northern piece.

Yeah, so um yeah, so the I think the recommendation would be is to uh change the um proposed land use designation commercial to um or re no retain the existing 2011 land use designation um uh for you know the the parcels that are currently designated commercial in this scenario yes that uh that that is it do you have a second or councilor mattson seconds um you can go ahead and motivate councilor lemon um I I struggle with the notion that um make having it as com as commercial struck me as entirely random and it has been um the mixed residential I believe in uh designation for 15 years and so far it's been um untouched so I I I don't I don't see it being a an impactful use of the property which as Councilor Rogers has so fervently pointed out is precious councilor Matson, your opportunity to motivate.

Yeah, I just think it addresses some of the concerns I heard from my colleagues.

I would have been happy with commercial, but this this makes sense from based from what I've heard from my colleagues, so I'm happy to support that.

Very good. Any other comments or questions from anybody? Comments. Go ahead, Counselor Rogers.

So can we be clear about what specifically we're talking about as we move forward for this property?

Is it uh just the daycare?

No. No, it's uh it's main what the motion on the floor is is to maintain the current land use that's been there since 2011, which is neighborhood mixed use.

So no change. That's what the motion is.

So my question then to uh to staff, why did we change it to commercial for the um that's not the motion on the floor, Councilor Rogers?

That's not the motion on the commander. Oh no, I understand.

I understand it's not the motion on the floor.

So the motion on the floor is to keep it the same as it has been for the past while.

So I'm not sure what the relevance is, why the change.

Look, I guess trying to understand the uh uh the intent of staff and where we were going.

Um so I'm I'm still not quite sure what uh the implications are and what we're asking um, you know, uh in this green space.

So yeah, implications don't change, Counselor Rogers, they remain the same.

I'm highly suspicious.

Okay, uh, we're gonna put this uh or or are we happy to call the questioner?

Do you have any more questions or comments for Councilor Rogers or anybody?

Councilor Brown, go ahead.

I think I understand. I think it's uh the motion would include uh institutional, correct? Perfect.

We're in a no keeping it the same as just neighborhood mixed use, uh, and that would allow for what, Leanne?

Um, so um commercial with townhouses up to three stories, or commercial with apartments up to four stories.

That is the existing land use.

We're talking about the that that that is the mixed use, does it?

That's correct. That's the one that's the current land use designation.

Okay, and then would that could a daycare go in there at a one-story thing?

Yes, because the zone currently allows daycare.

Okay, and could a um institution like a recreation center go in there?

Um under the current C we um I need to Okay, just give us one second.

Yes, um the zone does permit recreation facility, indoor recreational facility.

Okay. Um that is uh fine. So any other questions or comments from anybody? Uh councilor Brown.

Okay, so it includes those some of those are institutional, so would that include uh places of worship or not?

No, okay, thank you.

Okay, so the motions on the floor.

We've had a couple of rounds.

All those in favor of the motion to keep it the same designation as it wants since the 2011 OCP.

All those in favor.

Any opposed to keep it the same way?

I can't see you, Councillor Rogers.

I'm opposed.

You're opposed?

Okay. Thank you.

Uh motion carries.

Um, and I think uh is there any other motions associated with our discussion?

The only other motion I'd like to have is uh to compliment staff and the OCP committee for all their hard work and efforts.

I would second that.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson, for putting that up because it's a lot of thought that's gone into it and a lot of work.

Thank you for that, counselor.

Um so I think that brings us down to considerations of matters well the consent agenda first, and I think we've got one piece of correspondence on it that was in our late submissions.

Uh so can I get a motion to receive, or somebody was moved by counselor Mattson, seconded by Councilor Lemon?

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, and now that brings us to question period.

So anybody's got a question, and it doesn't have to be about the Western Gateway.

I won't guarantee that I'll answer it, but you can ask a question uh for council this evening about anything.

Yeah, you know.

Thanks, Mike. Uh, but we do have one online.

Uh go ahead, Carl.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have a message from Derek Pace of Price Road.

Their comment is as a resident of Price Road who purchased my home with appreciation for the current feel of the smart of the small street and tight-knit community.

What consultation will be done with the current residents on our small road in advance of such massive alteration?

And that's our only message.

And Leanne, go ahead.

Yeah, um through through the mayor.

When we were when we did the engagement on the Western Gateway Corridor, we we did um we did do we didn't drop off notices to to residents um in the Price Road neighborhood to keep them informed on the engagement that we had.

And also there'll be another opportunity for the public to engage on the first draft and provide and provide comments at that time too.

Okay, and uh if somebody wanted to notify council, they're free to uh mail in or email in or drop something off for either council or a question for Leanne at the at the town hall.

So you can email um uh counsel at uh viewroyal uh.ca and that will also appear on the agenda so you can do a long form and answer any question there.

You can show up at our council meeting, you can do what you just did uh on specific uh things, but the consultation has been going on for open for all public for about three years now.

Um but yeah, you you'll be definitely uh there'll be an opportunity to look at the whole uh OCP coming up as well as when this um uh returns back to council.

Uh thanks for that, and thanks again for staff.

Can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Moved by Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Mattson.

All those in favor?

And thanks, OCP committee and Ryan for showing up.

Thanks for coming out.