Special Council

I'll call the uh special council meeting for the town of View Royal to order.

Uh for Tuesday, March 31st, 2026.

Um this OCP is a special council meeting, and it's entirely focused on the review of the first draft of the OCP that staff has generously provided us with.

So we'll start with a First Nations uh acknowledgement that we acknowledge the Lekwungen speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation, the Songhees Nation, that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

Um if you wish to provide comments during public participation period or ask questions during question period, please begin by indicating your name and the street name for the record.

You may then give us the benefit of your views.

Um and uh the public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

Seeing how there's only one item uh on the agenda, uh your um comments must be about the OCP.

Question period is open.

Any question is limited to two minutes for each speaker and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Uh, can I get an approval of the agenda if there's no errors or omissions?

Some of the moved by councilor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I think that brings us right down to public participation period.

So if anybody in.

Ryan, go ahead.

There we go. Ryan Painter, one two Zocourt.

Good evening, your worship and council.

Thank you for the opportunity to present here tonight.

V-Royal is at a turning point.

The question facing this town is not whether change is coming.

It is. The real question is whether that change is shaped with care, local knowledge, and a clear understanding of what residents need in daily life.

What this community needs is simple.

Growth with a purpose.

View Royal does need more housing.

It does need more services closer to where people live.

It does need a stronger local economy and a broader tax base.

But this town is not a blank slate.

And residents do not want growth that feels random, disconnected, and out of step with the character and capacity of their community.

This is a real town with established neighborhoods, with parks, shorelines, trails, schools, families, seniors, and working people already feeling the strain of congestion and rising costs.

Any long-term plan needs to begin here.

This is why the official community plan has to do three things well.

First, it has to be clear about where growth belongs.

Not everywhere, not all at once, and not in ways that ignore context.

If V Royal is going to grow well, that growth should be focused where it makes sense.

Around the hospital area, around key corridors, and around places where access to transit, services, jobs, and amenities exist.

This is where added density can support the community instead of working against it.

The draft OCP points in that direction through the hotel transit oriented area, the Atkins Mobility Hub, the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor, and other mixed use growth areas.

And that basic direction is sound.

Second, growth has to be matched by infrastructure.

Residents should not be asked to assume everything will catch up later.

If more homes are built, then roads, drainage, sewer, water, sidewalks, transit access, and public amenities have to keep pace.

If they do not, people feel it in longer commutes, in backed up intersections, increased congestion and pressure on their services.

The draft OCP uses the right language around fiscally responsible growth, infrastructure, planning, planning, planning and managing full life cycle costs of assets.

Those principles need to guide decisions in a practical way.

Third, growth has to protect community character and natural assets.

What makes Beroyal attractive is not just location, it's quality of life.

It's access to nature, its parks, its trails, its shoreline.

It's the sense that this is still a livable community.

The draft OCP recognizes that with goals around protecting natural amenities, preserving community character, improving parks and trail connections, and managing development in ways that protect green and blue spaces, the balance has to stay at the center of this conversation.

And this conversation needs to stay grounded in what people are actually worried about right now.

Will our kids be safe?

Or will our kids be able to afford to live here?

Can our parents age in place?

Will traffic get worse?

Will new development improve the community or make it more expensive and make us feel more crowded?

Will V Royal still feel like V Royal?

Those are fair questions, and this town deserves clear answers.

V Royal needs more housing choice.

It needs family housing, rental housing, accessible housing, affordable options.

It needs thoughtful redevelopment in the right places.

It needs economic growth that creates jobs and strengthens the tax base.

And it needs all of that to happen in a way that brings residents, staff, council, and the broader community along together.

This is not about pointing any fingers locally.

It's about getting the balance right and keeping local decision making connected to local realities.

Because one of the real challenges communities like V Royal faces today is that provincial policy is often applied with a heavy hand.

Housing targets, transit-oriented development requirements, and top-down rules may be aimed at a real problem, but when they are imposed without enough regard for infrastructure limits, neighborhood contexts or community concerns, they can create new problems at local levels.

The draft OCP itself reflects that provincial pressure, including the requirement to update the OCP to accommodate projected housing need and designate the hospital area for traffic transit-oriented growth.

This is why V Royal needs a plan that does two things at one time.

It needs to respond responsibly to the provincial requirements, and it needs to stand up for the community's own priorities around livability, infrastructure, character, and common sense.

This is good governance.

What View Royal needs is a plan rooted in how people actually live.

A plan that understands homes, traffic, infrastructure, environment, and affordability.

They're all connected.

A plan that grows the town up from where it makes sense without wearing the town down in the process.

That is the standard this community deserves.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

Mike, did you want to uh I might actually petition you to come up and talk about your motion because I'll speak to that later on.

Affordability. It's bad when you have to solicit public participation.

We've come to a whole other level.

The resolution which you'll be considering came out of a presentation to the um the advisory committee uh by um community living BC.

And it was highlighting the need for um appropriate housing for people with with a variety of um abilities and disabilities, um, and also um concerned by parents about how can the community help their dependent adult children have a place to stay so that they can remain within View Royal and remain as as uh citizens and residents.

Um we looked at um other people in need, you know.

The the uh the standard definition these days uh for affordable housing is that if you're spending 30% or more of your monthly yearly income on housing, you're considered to be um in need.

And uh the last um survey, which I think was 2021 or census, there were about 21% of the people in View Royal were considered to be in in need of housing assistance or were living, they were stretched because of that.

And the intent with the with the motion is to um uh have council consider it um there were a number of options that we added uh to it we we wanted to create a a roadmap for council to have specific steps the 2020 2011 OCP had uh wishful thinking but nothing has happened in the in the between now and then to help the people who are in need in in this community and the belief is that um when council acts or as the municipality municipality acts to help those that are that are in need in a way it strengthens the overall committee the own for all community um and so that that was um the driver for uh for this motion there was uh a good debate um some of the solutions were um you know advocating for more housing co-ops um joining uh greater victoria housing society um and and looking for like a fixed um percentage of um of uh new builds being designated for as a affordable housing um or blue blue market um housing and uh so that was the intent of the motion and i had the uh the uh advisory committee supported that and so we've passed it on to you thanks mike appreciate it can you uh turn the mic off as well otherwise we'll be zoomed that thank you so much i don't think there's anybody left in the room to speak we managed to get everybody that I think that should be the new rule anybody that comes in has to speak during our public participation um uh Carl we got anybody online Mayor Tobias we have no messages on the form system thank you sir um so I think that brings us down to mayor's report just want to highlight um uh a couple of things one is uh really want to thank staff for getting us here if we think back to uh election time almost four years ago there was concerns about the current OCP or that that was the draft OCP um particularly around engagement right uh and and how are we doing to address folks and I know the level of work that has gone in for staff to go out and even though it probably fell beneath staff's expectations for the amount of returns on surveys and participation and councils like we tried staff tried everything we possibly could to do that and um uh one of the things that I would like us to consider uh nearing the end if staff could remind me to do a little lessons learned, like what worked well, what didn't work well, what could we improve on.

Um, and hopefully we've got enough of a cookie cutter template that we're able to build the next update in five years without as much drama and take what we learned from this one um and and be able to work through it.

Um I also wanted to thank the committee, uh the OCP committee for their valuable time over the past couple of years.

Um there's been some awesome debates, some really good ideas exchanged.

I think people really took ownership of the issue.

Uh Mike's um, you know, passion about uh affordable housing is uh to be commended, and he hooked up with uh Kim and Daphne to actually come up with a good draft for it.

Some of the other things that I heard last night, because our sole purpose last night was to of course go through the draft OCP.

Uh one of the motions that we'll probably uh discuss is um the committee um uh wants to see like some visuals for the Western Gateway.

Like show us a picture, show us what you desire.

Is it the hotel with convention centers and an arts center, whatever it is as that employment district, like show us a picture so we can be inspired by it, developers could be inspired by it.

Um the committee also said, you know, the OCP has got a role not only for council to make decisions and staff to uh you know uh help guide council making decisions and developers giving them some guidelines about what would be there, but it's actually a covenant with the people that we've engaged on.

It's a covenant with our um with our citizens.

Uh and uh, you know, going through this much engagement, um, future councils have an expectation to be consistent with what is down there.

And if they're gonna change it, then it should be for good reasons.

There was some some uh good comments.

Generally uh everybody was supportive of the OCP draft um with with you know nuances but nobody saw anything glaring one is they like the presentation more uh one of the things that staff is gonna take away is that there's goals in it but the goals need to be crunchier they need to be really actionable measurable so every five years we can roll around and say hey did we meet this expectation does it belong in this order now so I think those observations are solid observations to take away and I know staff is gonna go and um and do that.

What I'd like to do with our time this evening is um of course we're gonna go through some staff reports and presentations for the draft.

I know everybody's had an opportunity to review the draft um then I'd like to go into questions that you know no comments no motions but any questions we have a staff about the process what's coming next what order the timeline that they're gonna cover anyway but it provides an opportunity for them to do that.

Then I think we um it's a big document so hopefully we've done our reading uh I'd like to read the two recommendations that uh committee has made to council for us to consider first and then we can get into our individual motions on anything, any page.

We're not only aspirational, but if there's a correction on some pages that or an inconsistency, tonight will be the time to do that.

Does that sound like an okay plan on how to tackle this?

Um, and then so for your motions, like I'll ask you to be crunchy, pull your motion together, get a seconder, um, and then there'll be motivation and and and debate after that.

But please don't start your motivation before you've read in exactly what you want to change because otherwise we will run out of runway really quick.

Um, so if everybody's cool with that, then we'll get into staff reports.

Sterling Leanne?

Leanne Sterley.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

The purpose of tonight's meeting, as Mayor has already uh given a great overview, is to review the uh first draft of the OCP and to provide feedback.

And I do have a short presentation, and then the remainder of the evening is really to hear from uh from council on what uh they liked, what they didn't like, and it's really just a sounding board.

Um, so yeah, I'll get into the uh PowerPoint.

Next slide, please, Carl.

So we are currently in the sixth and final round of engagement for this process.

It's hard to believe.

We started in January of 2025.

We've done uh five uh kind of engagement touch points to date.

The sixth round of engagement is currently live, so we launched a uh survey on the 20th of March, and it'll be open until April 15th.

The survey uh allows participants to provide feedback on all aspects of the uh the OCP.

Um, it is a fairly long survey and it does try to touch on the major shifts and uh changes, but there are uh open-ended questions to allow uh respondents to provide uh feedback on any section that they feel uh may need tweaks or or changes to uh better align with expectations moving forward.

The uh staff report has three attachments.

One of those attachments is a summary report uh detailing some of those major shifts.

Uh it includes the draft official community plan, it's an entirety, and then it also includes uh a facilitator summary of the discussion uh that council had uh a few weeks back on the Western Gateway Corridor.

So that was a meeting that took place on February 24th, and uh provides an overview of uh the outcomes and some of the discussion that uh that uh took place there.

It does include all the verbatim uh or paraphrase verbatim uh comments from from Mayor and Council, but uh does include uh kind of an overview of of what was discussed at that meeting.

Next slide, please, Carol.

So in terms of tonight, what uh staff were really hoping to uh achieve is to provide an overview of of how we got here briefly, um, identify some of the shifts uh and changes in the uh in the first draft plan compared to what we're where we came from 2011 OCP.

We'd love to hear from uh council uh there are any feedback changes.

Uh staff are here to provide any technical uh details or uh clarifications if needed on what's in the OCP.

And then this feedback, along with feedback that we heard from the OCP Advisory Committee, from our stakeholders, from the public, will be compiled into a what we heard report, and that'll be presented as we get a final draft showing you know what we heard and how it's been implemented into the uh the final draft of the OCP later this spring.

Next slide, please.

So as I just said, some of the things that we're hoping to hear from council tonight is generally what we what we'd like to hear is um you know, are is the is the draft plan uh supportable?

Is there anything that's concerning?

Um is there anything that needs more explanation?

And as Mayor Tobias has already made a note of, we are looking for motions.

Um I won't need to explain any more about that, but uh we are looking to get motions on the uh the specific changes to the OCP uh to move forward.

Next slide, please.

So brief overview of how we got here.

Um, like I said, we started this process in January of 2025, and we started off with an overview of our uh visions and guiding principles.

We then moved into uh how we grow, and that focused on uh neighborhood centers, our corridors, uh a little bit about the Western Gateway, and generally where and how we would like to see growth in the community.

We then came back and revisited the vision uh with a new vision statement or draft vision statement and developed uh nine goals at the time.

And then we moved into Western Gateway Corridor, and this was a decision of council to really understand what the Western Gateway Corridor was as a potential employment uh hub or uh uh you know mixed growth area.

The following that we did a uh in-depth dive of the policies, and this was done through a policy survey uh that took place in uh in November, and then we're now at our sixth and and final engagement touch point on the uh the first draft.

Um we've done a multiple of uh outreaches and uh uh different types of uh engagement touch points via social media.

We recently did a launch of uh uh I'll call them uh postcards in the mail.

Uh every resident of U Royal uh business should have got one uh last week, knowing it letting them know that there was an opportunity to uh participate in the survey and that the uh first draft of the official community plan was available for review.

Um I think it was around 3,500, 4,000 mailouts that were completed.

Um there are active uh notifications on social media letting people know that there is this opportunity to participate.

So hopefully we get some uh some good feedback on this draft.

Next slide, please.

So next three slides, I'll just go over a high level just in terms of some of the major shifts and changes.

Um these are just more speaking notes and not really detailing them, but um, in terms of general overview, one of the big things that we looked at for this uh draft OCP when we were looking at the terms of reference was making this a much more uh readable reader reader-friendly document.

Uh, one of the things that you'll notice is if you click through the document, there's quick links in there.

Uh, so you're able to quickly go between sections.

Uh it makes it much more easy to reference.

There is uh also kind of an overhaul of the uh terms uh and glossary in the in the document.

Again, trying to make it less uh, as we say, planner speak, so trying to make it a little bit more friendly, and then uh references to legislation, different programs, organizations have been either removed to be a bit more consistent with what's currently out there or uh removed to uh make things less confusing for general public and uh staff and uh council.

The next thing is vision statement and goals.

So we have a an overhaul vision statement.

We had uh in the 2011 OCP a vision statement approximately page and a half long.

That's been shrunk down to a single one-sentence uh statement, short and snappy.

We have uh 12 goals uh that have been uh heavily uh revised from the nine goals that were in the 2011 OCP.

Uh and the uh important note there is the goals are are really meant to be a high-level overall um focus for the OCP, and uh they they help guide the policies uh within the policy chapters.

They're not meant to be too specific, they're meant to be uh more of a yeah, guiding guiding principle almost.

The uh next thing highlight would be the community profile and uh new development growth projections.

So most OCPs contain uh detailed information in terms of their age, demographics, uh employment, education.

So this has been updated to uh recent 2021 census data, and the plan now has uh development projections or required development projections based on land use for commercial and industrial uh use uh as well as range of residential house uh housing, which weren't in there before.

So this is new information that's come uh through this update process.

Next slide, please.

Another major shift is the addition of reconciliation.

So this is not only just policies, but actual uh sections on history and context of the Cassap and Song East Nations as our neighbors and within the uh the community and their history to this uh this area.

The policies themselves have received uh uh overall a large uh rework.

Things have been consolidated.

So we've um uh what we've done is made uh each chapter uh have a uh list of objectives at the very beginning, and then underneath that we've uh organized policies by topic area rather than listing them by individual heading to make things a bit easier to navigate and uh to read and reference.

And the implementation section uh is also overhauled.

So at the end of each uh policy chapter in the 2011 OCP was a list of actions that corresponded to the list of policies in that check uh in that uh specific chapter.

What we've done is now moved all of those actions into one section at the end of the OCP and referenced uh what policy they referred to and which department or departments would be responsible for carrying out that project, and uh what time frame would be uh realistic to complete that uh that project.

The idea being that that uh update can probably more easily provide uh a good conversation for council and staff with in terms of strategic uh planning and budgeting uh for the future.

Next slide, please.

Final major changes is largely around land use.

So this draft OCP sees the addition of two new land use designations.

One of those is the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor.

This was based on conversations that we had a few weeks ago with council at that special council meeting.

And the other is the urban reserve.

And the urban reserve land use designation is intended to be an area that is next to the Xwsepsum Nation and is intended to be a future land transfer.

The land use designation itself gets into a bit more detail, but just acknowledges that the land would be transferred in the future.

There are now supporting policies for each of the land use designation, and the big ones are generally general policies as well as new policies for some of the big growth areas in the community.

So the hospital transit oriented area, the neighborhood village, the Western Gateway corridor, and these should provide very clear direction along with new contact statement and policy and how these areas may grow in the future.

Council may recall that this community development framework contained reference to uh the town center, the neighborhood centers, and community corridors, uh or what was really shown as large blobs on the map.

So those have been removed and have been um uh uh yeah, any reference to those have been removed, and uh references to development and density have been uh solely focused on the land use designations within the plan to take away that ambiguity.

And final uh change I'll highlight is the addition of new graphics and uh to each of the land use designations along with a corresponding image just to show what those potential heights and densities could look like.

Next slide, please, Carl.

So just a bit of a recap on some of those land use changes.

So on this map we see uh three different circles.

The two circles uh on the left hand of the image show the Western Gateway corridor.

So the area in uh that kind of dark salmon color show the new neighborhood uh village designation that has been uh changed for that area.

Previously, it was uh designated uh a mix of small-scale multi-unit housing and uh community facility.

The idea with this being that it would align with uh council's uh vision to see this as a mixed uh use area.

To the bottom of that uh circle is the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor land use designation, and then also a very small piece that has been designated intensive mixed use.

Those are within the um the Western Gateway Corridor.

And a few weeks ago, council uh wished to see this land use map changed to exclude some of that area from the Western Gateway, and that has been reflected in this uh draft OCP.

So it is consistent with council's direction from the March 17th meeting.

The other change is shown in the right hand of the screen.

So that is the purple uh uh land use that's been added.

Um that's the urban reserve.

I will make note that the document has been referred to both the Songhees Nation and the Xwsepsum Nation, and they are reviewing it.

So we may have uh further revisions and refinements to this plan based on their feedback as well as to what's been shown there.

Um and yeah, we look we look forward to hearing their feedback and it will be incorporated into the uh the final draft.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows the two mobility hubs that I spoke about.

So one of those is where the uh it overlaps the uh transit-oriented area at the uh the hospital, and the next is the Atkins mobility hub.

I included this just for discussion purposes tonight if uh if the need arose.

Next slide, please.

And this map shows the uh the the change from the 2011 OCP uh to what is now in the in the uh 22 or sorry 2026 OCP showing the uh corridors, so removing those blobs and showing more clearly uh via a line what those corridors look like, and these corridors support um uh much like the 2011 OCP uh higher densities uh transit uh focus, uh and the I should mention that the mobility hubs do much the same thing.

They are meant to be multimodal uh hubs that provide regional destinations uh within and and to other areas within the region and would support uh mixed use uh development.

Next slide, please.

So just to begin, uh that's the end of my presentation, and in terms of uh kind of outlining what the what the changes are, the rest of the evening is is um facilitated discussion, I'll say.

Um this slide just uh is is the first of many that provides uh an overview of what we'd like to hear back from council.

Um this slide is meant for more high-level discussion.

There are other slides that get into each of the land use uh or each uh policy section.

So the idea being uh kind of first thoughts and um later in the evening we can get into more detail into each of the uh each of the uh of the policy chapters.

Um so I may I may ask uh Mayor Tobias if if you'd like to start with this this slide, and then we can after the discussions maybe leveled off, we can move to each of the um each of the uh discussion uh topics.

Perfect. Thanks, Sterling.

Um can we start with questions, Sterling?

Like if there's any questions that council has uh specific or in general about um uh the OCP and the process, anything about that?

I'd rather do that now than later.

Uh and I I'll I'll lead with a question is um is how are we going to show the incorporation of input?

My brain is thinking it would be nice to have a red lined or a marked up one that we're, you know, make a working draft, but also show it marked up.

And I think from my perspective, it does a couple of things.

One is it shows that you're making changes based on people's uh councils, committees, the publics, if if you know, uh uh input.

Otherwise, if we're not showing it, then did they take my suggestion in?

Oh, they did. Look, I can see it.

Um, for instance, counselor Lemon took it upon herself last night to um uh do some alternatives for the vision.

Staff had already cut it down to a sentence, and we went around the room and and uh said, well, you know, we like counselor lemons, but we also like what's there.

So it wasn't the delta that said um uh, you know, let's change it.

We had a good discussion about it, and it seemed to work out.

So even circling the vision, like we went through that with committee, and committee was happy with it.

So putting both positive and corrections, I think would support council's decision and what we're gonna pick up as well.

Um is that possible?

I guess is my question.

I I think um if the scope is uh showing like the the big changes, like I I think if we're showing every single red line like a spelling mistake, is that what council's wanting?

Or just like no, no, the general things and particularly where they came from, so we can say, okay, that was a committee suggestion, staff went away, thought about that.

Here's the change they made.

Um uh so that i i it's kind of our proof that we're doing something with the input as opposed to not doing something with the input.

Leanne um through the mayor, uh, thank you for that question.

Um certainly we can bring forward a a summary report in some in some format um to uh if it's even a table format that's a really easy to read or uh incorporate in the what we heard report, which we will be preparing as part of the uh feedback that we received at uh the OCP review advisory committee last night and tonight's meeting, as well as the feedback we get from the survey.

So there will be a what we heard report that we would bring forward.

So uh we can we can definitely um do it in either a table format or a red line version or something like along those lines so that everyone is clear in terms of what uh uh refinements um we have made to the document um after the feedback.

And my intent would not be to create max work, like literally a red pen on you know, the document to say vision reviewed by committee, uh, you know, approved or or council or you know, uh addition of affordable housing.

Here's where it uh has uh changed our policy.

Like circles, handwriting, scrolling is is okay because it's a working copy, right?

So you know, a red line version to be good and you can brackets just put in what the change was, but the red line version just in the anyways the change just jumps right out at you, and so you don't have to go back into a report and then look at the document.

I like red line versions.

Stasso, uh you'll take that away to an motion for that or I don't think we did motion.

I think it's pretty clear in terms of what council's looking for.

Okay, thank you. Uh we'll start. Uh I'll go around the table. Counselor Brown first.

Yeah, just a quick question.

It's uh because it's uh well, five years, we'll review it again.

And uh did some little bit of research on my own about um, especially when you're making estimates like for population, uh just as one example.

I mean, obviously lots of factors can happen in five years.

I could population could go down, could go up for any reason.

So um if we wanted to make a change at midterm stat year three, I know it's difficult, I know it's expensive, time consuming, um, and uh there's a process that has to be followed.

So I was wondering how cumbersome, how cumbersome is that?

Like you wouldn't want to willy-nilly make a whole bunch of changes over a five-year period.

You want to try and get it as right as you can.

But there's a lot of estimates in there.

And you you don't know if a big factory is gonna come here.

We don't know if it's gonna be a major recession.

People are leaving the province.

We know who knows.

We might get a massive bunch of people leaving.

So, like population estimates, well, who knows, right?

I mean, you you do the best you can for BC stats, you do the best you can from planning, C or D planning, and you do the best you can.

And and of course, census, right, which is coming out uh soon.

So uh I appreciate the now, I really appreciate the work the staff has done.

I really appreciate the work that the committee has done.

Because certainly from the parts that I've participated in, I think you've captured a lot of stuff.

A lot of stuff that that's that's in there now.

And and what a difference.

Um when I studied Russian literature at Uvik, uh, you know, like Tolstoy and stuff like that.

Uh it's a long document, but this document isn't like that.

It's not a boring document, it's quite colorful, it's uh very interesting for community members, and I really appreciate the work that you've done on it.

Thank you very much.

And again, maybe you can just comment on that about changes, you know, mid-term, mid-stream.

Okay, I I'm I'm happy to jump in for that.

Um Sterling, please um um add anything to my response as well.

Uh so um through the mayor, thank you for that question, Councillor Brown.

Um benefit of uh uh updating our OCP every five years to align with our housing needs report, is that it will force us to look at you know, aspects, different aspects of the OCP that um such as updating our stats, like our our population, our um office and retail stats, our housing stats and things like that.

So we would be um required to update our housing needs um in the OCP, but it would also allow us to just do updates to the other um uh projections as well.

So that is going to make sure that it's truly a living document because the OCP is is a living document.

And um every five years, uh it's it is essentially like a check-in.

And we will be able to uh make updates to it.

It wouldn't be a uh a wholesale rewrite, because as you know, that is a very um long and expensive process, but it will allow us to do you know some updates in-house.

Um, hopefully, not without needing, I don't think we we would need consultants for these types of updates every five years.

Uh so that uh we'll keep our documents um a bit more up to date um over the next 20 years.

Just following on with that question, Leon, can you remind uh council how often we have to do our housing needs report?

Is that every five years with the OCP?

Um yeah, that's correct, uh Meritobias.

So I believe our next update is in 2028.

Um 2028 or 2029, it's one and we have to update the OCP by um 2030.

So it's usually one year after that we complete the housing needs report.

Thank you, Leah. Uh was there any other question you had? Uh Councilor Brown? Um Councillor Lemon?

I've I've just got one question, and uh but first I want to thank you guys.

This was a massive undertaking.

And I think last night at the uh the virtually everyone in the committee commented on the ease of readability and the volume of work.

Um one question, flash going back to Bill 44 and 47, and it it will, you know, it would just help me to guide me in a potential motion.

The hospital precinct or the the um transportation hub at the hospital.

10 stories are allowed.

Are under 10 stories allowed?

Is under 10 stories allowed?

Yeah.

Don't make it correct your ground. Yeah, through the mirror.

It's up to step up to 10 stories. So the province has said that it's up to 10 stories. Is good.

Answered. Thank you very much, Sterling.

And I just had one question, but it's more of a more of a uh comment that I'll make later in a motion, but um just to get this right.

So our OCP is based on the housing needs report largely.

That uh is one of those documents that we have to have to feed into it.

When was the housing needs report completed and what data did it draw from?

Through the mayor, so the housing needs report uh was uh drawn on uh 2021 census data, and there was a standardized approach that all municipalities had to use.

Uh it was called the HERT uh method, and uh it was a um essentially just a a plug plug-in and uh take the data out.

The next uh update, as Leanne noted, would have been would be in 2028-2029, and that would likely use the 2026 census data.

And then just to add to you uh Sterling's um response there is that uh our OCP we we were required to update our OCP by the end of uh last year, December 31st, to align with our interim housing needs report, uh, which we did, and that is why we had to undertake this OCP in essentially two phases.

One to meet the housing legislation, and then this obviously the second phase is to deal with the rest of the OCP.

So thanks, Leanne and Sterling.

I I guess my follow-on question would be um I guess the world has changed in January when BC Stats re-released its new um uh population projections.

Knowing that's the housing needs um study or report is a point in time based on the census, that's fine, that doesn't need to be touched.

But I think there's some areas that we get into with the OCP that relies on BC stats pre-January release.

Um what uh when I went through the January release, because of the changes in immigration policy and student um what do you call them?

Um foreign students, uh, it has essentially flatline view royal for growth over the next bunch of years, like maybe a hundred people being added.

Now, of course, it's BC stats, it's an estimate.

It'll change again next year.

But I'm just wondering how we're notating, like not only just that it came from BC stats, but when that information came.

So if somebody wanted to replicate our assumptions, they could say, oh, they made this assumption based on this phenomenal amount of growth or no growth, whatever it is.

I'm just wondering how we're going to notate uh both the data source and the assumption that we have made from that data source.

Through the mirror.

One thing that we could potentially do just to make it more clear for for future council staff readers is we could make a a notation in the just looking at what chapter this is.

So section 4.5 community growth so that's where we discuss uh population growth and trends.

So there could be maybe something that staff could add in there making just a yeah I'll form that as a motion but I I was just wondering like uh is that the only place that we draw from BC stats.

I know there's a bunch that we use the land uh economic use study and some other things that might might have changed since the time that it was created by the time we go to launch.

And is it significant enough to consider well even putting a footnote there like alongside of it to say things may have changed with the fact that we haven't had any new development the past year for instance.

So our growth uh might be off there.

I guess I guess that's my question.

It's uh I want to I I just it's it I also want to be careful in incoring like assumptions that perhaps um I think they need to be qualified assumptions, obviously um so it's uh it yeah, I'm sort of I am struggling a little bit in terms of how how how to do that, other than um we can just have a footnote.

Um referencing the source and um and then just some that you know this may change based on um other um other other like uncertainties or other just uh other other things that we just have no control over.

Um obviously we'll think of better wording for the OCP, but I'm hoping that that's what um you you you may be looking for.

Thank you, Leanne. No, that's perfect. Uh Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um certainly an in-depth report, and it takes a long time to to figure this out and you know, the the various sections, how one uh section will impact the other.

And um, you know, there's certainly a very strong emphasis on housing.

But it seems like the only place that we've really modified the OCP is the Western Gateway.

So if the next OCP is uh five years from now, is all the anticipated housing growth really going to be focused in on the Western Gateway.

I'm gonna hop in here for a second, Council Rogers.

We just the province just rezoned the entire town.

The the province does rezoned the entire town.

Yes, I realize that.

We were focusing on the Western Gateway, but the entire town has pretty much been rezoned, either transit-oriented area or small-scale multi-unit housing.

Yes, thank you. And I certainly agree.

Realistically, roughly uh 30% of all lots in uh in the town would develop as SMA, and the remainder would be distributed uh throughout the uh uh throughout the town.

The remaining being the the TOA now the Western Gateway.

It's hard for staff to say uh exactly what's going to come forward in terms of an application.

Um but the the ToA uh does have uh some promising uh densities that are what we're hearing from the development community as being uh viable for construction.

What we're hearing is that wood frame construction of six stories is kind of the new standard for uh mixed uh residential, and uh beyond that would be uh greater than what we have in the the draft OCP, so 12 stories uh steel concrete construction.

The Western Gateway corridor uh as shown has the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor, which does not permit any residential, it permits commercial and industrial use, but there is the neighborhood village land use designation that's been added, and that permits uh or or uh uh allows up to uh six stories of mixed residential, just as the neighborhood village in the uh around the hospital transit oriented area also allows up to six stories.

So that that is in line with what the uh development community has uh expressed as a uh a viable uh kind of development model.

The remaining of the remainder of the town hasn't changed.

Um we haven't changed any other land use designations.

So if there were uh any interest, it would be uh applicants be reworking with the existing land use designations that we have, and many of those uh are capped at uh at four stories, so up to four stories.

Leanne, maybe jump in if you have anything else.

Uh no, Sterling, I think you covered it.

Um I I there's only one comment that um I thought I'd add is in five years, um, when we're we have to do an update in five years.

Um if the council would like staff to look at other aspects of the OCP, other land use designations at that time, that is something that we can do as well.

So uh we have to align the OCP with the housing needs report in five years.

Um, and if council um would like this the OCP update in five years to um revisit some other aspects of the OCP, we can also do that as well.

Thank you. In terms of the general OCP, when will we be um reviewing the action plan?

This evening.

Sorry, missed that. Tonight.

The action plans attached is is in the um is in the draft OCP.

It's there. So as Sterling mentioned earlier, we have the short term short-term, medium, and long-term actions as part of the implementation plan.

So it's all there.

Well, and I appreciate it's all there, but I don't think we have six hours to do it all.

You know, the the action plan is uh I think something that deserves a a um uh a great deal of focus because that's where really the rubber hits the road and and um the determination now, staff have made a determination what would be short, what would be medium.

But you know, how the uh council may agree or disagree that something should be reversed into medium that or hasn't even been considered.

So uh yeah, that uh with all due respect, I think that's something that the council should really focus in on because that there's one aspect that the uh the last OCP uh uh that we tried to do 2022 never had.

And so this is a new component that where we have to measure uh not only the work that's involved, but whether we uh get a good realistic viewpoint of whether we have sufficient staff or we have to hire staff for consultants to achieve it.

Thanks, uh Council Rogers.

We can come to that to see our progress tonight.

Maybe we can get to it or we might refer to uh another meeting as well for the the action plan to go through that separately.

Uh did you have any other questions, Council Russ?

Counselor Matson.

Yes, thank you.

Anyways, I'll again say nice things to staff.

Great work. Horrible people to work with up here.

So I thank you for all your efforts.

Uh back to the uh needs assessment, etc.

So my understanding is we've already met our targets for the full five years already.

So we or could be four years now.

So we in theory, if we don't build another unit, we still have met the targets that we've been assigned.

Through the mayor, uh we've we're on pace to meet our housing target.

Uh but we have a separate uh number that's the housing needs.

So the housing need is a 20 year uh target, and that is off the top of our head, I believe it's 2,889 units.

The housing target uh order is 585, and that's uh until uh 2029.

The 20-year uh housing need requirement would be until 2041.

And so following along with the mayor said in terms of uh stats BC coming up with new numbers that say we over the next number of years we're not we're gonna be flatlined in terms of population uh I'm assuming that that will mean that the our old targets for the next 20 years of housing needs is way overstated.

It should be the same right if our our population doesn't grow or doesn't grow by much our housing targets should remain the same right but our assumptions on population and growth might differ.

So our our housing targets unless our population goes down our in the next five years our our housing targets should be the same is that right stuff but isn't our housing targets based on potential population increase.

No it's on census data is it not yeah it's a point in time census data.

So if you've got this then I don't know if there's uh Sterling do you remember putting in growth data into it it's just point in time isn't it through the mayor I yes I believe it's point in time and it uh predicts yeah f future need based on what is available as an as an input being I I think I I I should correct my previous statement.

I think it's a combination of B BC stats and census data.

I forget exactly what it went into the the BC part tool but it was a standardized approach that all municipalities had to had to use.

I'll try to plug it in tonight on the new stats data and see if it makes any difference.

Yeah I I I guess my concern is us setting targets for things that are are overstated based on black population growth.

And I think staff had already mentioned that given the work done on the current OCP, the next OP OCP is basically two things uh updating where we are with population and development and taking a look at what our potential needs are for housing and to see if what we currently have available uh potential available under the current OCP is sufficient to meet those targets.

So in theory unless we have a big increase in potential needs we're probably met for two or three OCPs in the future with what we currently have in the current OCP.

Go ahead Leav.

Yeah thank you through the mayor uh we um yes like uh in terms of a sort of a desktop exercise that we we did um that uh I believe by rezoning all the lands to small scale multi-unit housing as um it would increase the housing capacity to like over 9,000 units with all the lands rezoned so but but and but realistically not every single property in V Royal is going to be a small scale multi unit housing development um just to give you an idea we've only had one application since um since this um since this provincial legislation came into place.

Um and uh and then also just with the um the new transit-oriented area uh requirements and uh I mean we we do have this um sufficient housing capacity based on the uh work that we've done to date.

Okay, and and one of the things I did like what you said was we aren't gonna have to go the full meal deal like we did this time to do our next OCP.

But it does bring me back to the map question because the map that we are currently working from uh if you go back a couple of steps, my understanding, and I'm not all that vexed about it, but just my understanding was uh council asked that we go back to the first map that was sent out to people, which would include the price road area.

And so I'm just wondering if that was the case, people's understanding, because it price road is now village, whatever it is.

Just so if I missed something there through the mayor, uh it was staff's understanding that we follow uh the recommendation in Mayor Tobias's uh report, which didn't make reference to Price Road, it made reference to Heart Road.

And it followed the the map that was shown in Mayor Tobias's uh report as well, which includes the uh portion of Heart Road that was shown in the map as part of the uh the the meetings that took place in Maine uh June of last year, but uh I personally recall there there not being a decision point on on Price Road okay because i thought the decision point was to go back to the old map which included price road as a schmoo rather than higher density i mean i'm not that vexed about it but that that's just my recollection and so i've been when people have asked me i but people have lived in the area have told them that that was taken out again so i don't know is there a way of going back and listening and seeing what we actually approve we can check the minutes counselor matts on on that one i'll take another look at the map but it was i i can't remember sterling if the original or the map that you provided had price road in it or did not have it in it not the first time because you the map you brought to us the same you understood that this was the map we were going with that yeah so price road wasn't included as it was a shmoo it was left the way it was and and so again I'm not that concerned other than that was my recollection and I I've been telling people when they've asked so if somebody could check I'd be appreciative yeah uh through the right we're checking the council motion from the March 17th meeting uh right now thank you did you have another question motion versus the comments that were actually made on you know on camera yeah if there if the motion was there I mean you we can also make another motion counselor uh uh mattson to in order to to uh to do it if if that's your your will did you have another question thank you sir uh scott those are just things i wanted clarification on i don't have any additional questions thank you um i don't really have uh many questions again very well written and easy to read um the one thing i did wonder is whether we've captured and maybe i've missed it but uh bill forty four in here is uh because we talk about small scale housing and we actually list bill seventy uh 47 in here but i can't find actual mention of 44 and whether that would be appropriate to do or not yeah through through through the marewell sterlings um looking looking up um the your question there are just reference to bill 44 um yeah we can definitely they just make um just even have a note in our OCP just um that the small scale multi-unit housing uh land use designation reflects the um the provincial legislation under bill 44 we can just have a a note in the OCP on that if that's what you're um referring to councillor McKenzie.

Yeah I was just thinking back to I I I remember there was a survey and we did this whole thing explaining like that we've been told we have to do this by the province.

It like really formed that context and it talked about Bill 44.

Um whereas I I don't know if that's in here.

Um I couldn't really see that.

Uh through the mayor, we can definitely take a look at that and um if that is sure.

I definitely um agree with kind of the the question comment request uh that you have Council McKenzie because for some people, uh despite the news and everything like that, looking at their neighborhood on this OCP map and seeing how the land use has changed from single family to will be the first time they see it, right?

And and so having a bit of an explanation of where it all comes from uh may be appropriate so they could better address their questions to the MLA rather than council blink.

Um I have an update for you on the uh motion that was passed um at the March 17th uh meeting.

So the count council passed the following motion that the Western Gateway Community Corridor boundary exclude Heart Road as presented in figure one aerial photo of the proposed properties within the Western Gateway Corridor from the uh Committee of the Whole report dated August 14th, 2025.

So my my only other comment on that one is you know he who does the minutes rules the roost.

And so I'm I still say that we should go back to our discussion because I don't think we specifically stated that motion and passed it.

Uh I'm just bringing up the document that I submitted to see if it's in there or not.

And um actually the area we defined and approved uh at the Cal meeting on the 9th of September, uh the Western Gateway does include Buddy Road, um Atkins Place, Price Road, and uh Dunkrill Road.

So that we did approve that in the initial map um to be part of it.

And and was later reflected.

The only change between the two maps was I think Hart Road, according to what I'm looking at here in the maps.

That was the only thing that staff had changed from what they submitted to us, what we approved, because what I'm looking at their their map presentation on here's the study area, uh, it doesn't include all that area.

Yeah, I agree their map did, but your map that you brought saying this.

That was their map that they brought to us the very first.

Although earlier, the first one, the first one that we approved to start this whole thing does include the Western Gateway does include those areas.

Okay, approved, but the one that you're anyway, I don't want to get into, but no, no.

You brought that you brought this map and you said in this map.

discussion about price road requests yeah um yeah the split part so i i think that is but counselor mouttson if you wanted to make a motion to alter that we could do that as well your mic's on by the way and i'm excellent but you know if council's happy with all of price road being included i'm not gonna object uh council loan i'm just gonna say and i'm not expecting any change that my understanding at the time was the same as counselor mountson's so i thought i i voted against um what did i vote against i i voted against against the same thing that voted against okay so we need we have so i i think there was that motion but i don't think there was a subsequent motion to include it so it's not too late to throw that motion out there if you wanted to include that area for dunkilk um price road buddy road as uh leaving it small scale multi-unit housing we can do that by motion.

My only comment be if we get a lot of people complaining about price road being included, then we can just that that we look at that again.

But other than that, I'm I'm okay with it.

Okay.

Right. Councilor Rogers.

Just on that, and uh, I'm just curious, the the uh do we have a um a map on whatever page in the big uh 258 page OCP that shows the full um housing zoning areas types?

Can you um just read off the page so we could all follow along?

We could page Carl, if you could go to pay uh PowerPoint slide number nine, and for those following along in the document, it's page uh 57.

So can thank you.

I see it on on um on page 57.

So can you give us the zoning that is in the uh the most of that area from six mile bridge to Price Road?

What's that uh was that is at all just small lot or what commercial village?

Through the mayor.

So the the properties uh I'll say north on the north side of Price uh Road and Um I think it's Price Bay Lane, those are neighborhood village as well as the remaining area south of that area.

And just to clarify through the mayor, so the area north of Price Bay Road and Price Bay Lane were changed as part of the Western Gateway Corridor uh employment district land use uh review.

So if if council is wanting to make further revisions, then recommendation would be to do so through a uh uh a motion and likely to make things super clear would be to uh reference the um the 2011 OCP and and if if possible give give staff specific street names.

Um yeah.

So we got lots to cover, folks.

If there's not a motion or there is a motion, then we'll um carry on.

Um leave it as is for now.

So that's uh we've gone through our questions.

Hopefully we got everybody an opportunity to ask questions.

Sterling, where did you want to guide us next to uh or did uh if should we go to councillors that already may have motions about it to get those out of the way and then dig through it?

Uh and we could start with the committees, so I think that would probably be appropriate.

Um and forgive me, I have to do this from memory because we didn't have our minutes exactly.

So I'll ask uh um Council Lemon, Mike and um and Sterling and Leanne to keep me but they had uh two motions that came last night.

The first one of which that I'd look for a seconder would be um to create a a visual for the Western gateway so that we could all see it.

See whatever the vision is for that area.

We've done a good job on the other housing types but we haven't done such a good job for that.

So again I'll move in second um yeah just just for motivation is that this is the place that we concentrated on normally this is teased out as a local area plan.

And the first thing on a local area plan that Callwood did for the triangle area I think is put a big picture what they want the thing to look like on the front of the local area plan.

So everybody gets excited about 20 stories or however big it was it's but it's big.

I'm not expecting 20 stories here Leanne for whoever your artist is but uh yeah for some s some sort of vision that we could get to but um Jerry if you want to add anything um I I boy I have to reflect reflect on last night.

Yeah uh I think people in general weren't sure what kind of employment opportunities might be there.

So we want pictures that that don't identify a not a body shop, for example.

Um technology centers, etc.

We would perhaps like um a hotel.

Uh we would perhaps like a performing arts center.

We would perhaps like a conference center.

Um we would um yeah, show people what's possible in this whole new area.

Uh that's the motivation. Um so any comments? All those in favor? Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah, I'm trying to uh so w is this part of g visualizing what this is that still part of the toll topic of visualizing what the Western Gate was going to look like.

Uh it was we need a picture, like staff to go away and generate a picture of what it might look like for us based on some of those things.

But we don't have a picture of it, we've got a gray blob.

Yeah, yeah, no, no, that's that's true.

And and uh just from what uh council Emmer is saying, yeah, I I got the Arts Center, I got this, but suddenly I heard medical.

That was Councillor Matson next to you, whispering in your other ear.

Uh-huh. Which uh but but uh it could be what whatever it is, but I think it it's uh i we needed to see not only what it could be, but what it's not going to be.

Right? Uh and and you know, uh looking at a building and uh that could be a medical arts building or it could be a performing arts building, or it could be a located in the same building isn't the point, but we can see a vision of density foliage, um, that it's not basically Jiffy Lube.

Okay. So that's what we're asking.

Um, all those in favor of visualization for the Western Gateway.

Not gonna be a dead shown. Yeah.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed uh motion carries.

The other one, and it's quite long, but I'm gonna read out um it from uh the hard work that Kim and Daphne and Mike did.

Um, that the OCP advisory committee recommends to the view royal council that they include hard targets for the full range of affordable housing as part of the official community plan, bylaws and policy, and that our ratio for non-market versus full market housing be set and adjusted using best available data.

Some of the motivation, uh, I think Mike talked about, that's why I asked him to speak.

Um, but we've got it's not just affordable housing as a certain percentage.

There's uh special needs affordable housing, there's scaled affordable housing that that um I I don't I know I'm not happy with how successful we've been in building the types of affordable housing.

Most of it just been market rental, right?

Um the other point that that uh Mike made uh uh last night that kind of stuck with me is that you know, we've got something unique, and we have talked about it frequently in that um Fort Victoria is an area that uh is low-income housing largely.

It's not supposed to be that, it's supposed to be a campground, we all get that.

Um, but it's something that has evolved out of need, and they're there are a resonance.

Um, and uh and you know that serves so much.

But how do we solve for parents who've got uh somebody with learning needs that you know they're aging and they need to take care of themselves, but they're worried about their child living with them.

How do we how do we solve for that?

So basically, the the what we're looking for here is something with a little bit more chops in our policy that um uh could look at a variety of things.

Those those numbers are also reflected, I believe, in the housing needs report, right?

So the only thing I'm going to say that gets in our way is Leanne and I have reached out to the province to see if they would entertain buying single condo units.

They would not.

We have single condo units that developers want to get rid of right now, uh, and have been asking us.

Um they are not in the business of doing single condo units, even though we might only need 12 of them or 10 of them or whatever.

They're not interested in doing that.

Um the other thing that they've done is kind of frozen BC built, which builds most of the affordable housing, which is leaving the CRD in a hard spot because we have targets.

So the the um Steve Valla, and I think I I sent this to some of you, uh, I asked him, like, what have we given?

Because we collect for affordable housing uh for CRD in our taxes.

We also, previous council had supported a notion to put ACCs forward for affordable housing as well.

So they go into the CRD fund, right?

Um we have one CRD um facility in uh Thetis Lake.

Uh I think there's a gamut of things that that we're looking for.

We've done all the zoning for small-scale multi-unit housing and other things.

Haven't had any co-op in, right?

And I know co-op's hard to build and it's a special case or whatever, but it just I'm just trying to demonstrate that we haven't done that, like factored in aside from some token words and policy.

So uh the committee is imploring council to let's have a second look at it, let's make it crunchier, let's embed it deeper in policies, because whatever we had before is aspirational in the last OCP has not worked.

So I can get a seconder for that one, then we can open it up for comments.

Secondary from Council Matson.

So yeah, so that's my motivation.

Uh you know, it's uh our biggest problem.

I don't believe somebody's not gonna have to convince me that we got a housing crisis right now.

I think we gotta have an affordable housing crisis right now.

Um we have stuff available, but we just don't have it at a price that people can afford on various incomes.

That's what I think.

No, my motivation is I've been here a long time.

How long? Um 29 years now.

So we've been talking about putting a percentage of new housing developments as affordable.

And we've talked about it, and then we've heard well rather than specifically stating, for example, 10% of all units, because we we've left it.

Well, perhaps maybe we'll have bonus density to allow it.

And so absolutely nothing's happened.

And bonus density is just an excuse to build a few more stories for for something.

And we're not gonna get affordable housing unless we specifically state it.

We probably built close to a thousand units in the last I don't know, seven, eight years or something.

And we have no affordable housing out of that.

You know, other than the this CRD thing.

And we're not gonna get people building it unless we mandate it.

And my only concern about this motion is we don't specifically state like a starting point.

Ten percent of all new units have to be affordable, and then staff can work that out good.

But if we wait a six months or a year before that all look goes through and staff comes up with a policy, we could get new buildings coming on and there'll be no more affordable housing.

We're not gonna get any more affordable housing.

So I'll support this motion.

I just wonder if there's uh enough support from council to just start with 10% and over a period of time can be evaluated, but no new buildings would sneak in without a requirement.

That that would be uh something and I'll follow up with Leanne, two questions.

One is the new housing legislation does allow us to mandate a certain percentage of affordable housing.

Do you remember what it is?

Um through uh thank you, Mayor, for the question.

Um no, they didn't um they didn't prescribe a certain percentage through the legislation.

Um they've outlined uh uh legislation on establishing inclusionary housing, uh occlusionary zoning.

Um but in order for a municipality to implement inclusionary zoning which is like affordable housing or special needs housing in the zoning bylaw um is that we have to undertake um a financial analysis a feasibility analysis because it cannot impact the developer's ability to develop the land so um it's just it's just not a straight up oh you must provide 10% of house of affordable housing or special needs housing um there's actually um uh uh a a framework that we have to follow in order to do that because um at the inclusionary zoning um legislation cannot um prohibit the ability to to develop the the land it has it can be prohibitive um and just to add on to that so we there is a draft policy in the OCP I believe it's section three point section six point three point three B under the housing section of the um draft OCP that encourages um buildings residential buildings that are six stories or greater to provide um a minimum of five percent affordable um affordable housing units or below market housing that is the um that is the the proposed target in the draft we define below market because it could be like a dollar below market and they could say it's below market.

Do we define that?

Um we uh I I have to look I I I don't recall if we have a definition for below market, it's something that we can definitely explore for sure.

Um, and uh and there are a number of different definitions out there uh for below market, but we can definitely look into that.

And do we have a um uh do we will we see that policy before it goes to final draft?

Um it's the the draft policies in it's in there now and um uh yeah it's in it's in the draft OCP at this time.

Okay, the reason why I'm asking that if counselor Matson wants a specific or is moving that for a specific percentage of things, then we could include that in the in the policy as as a motion, correct?

Um that is correct.

Um, but I do caution council like when you're when you're establishing certain targets, it needs to be evidence-based and and um and just establishing a certain target, just like 10% is a nice number.

Um, it really needs to be backed up in terms of you know the the the fee the feasibility of of establishing of of making that happen.

Thank you, Leanne. Uh did you have a question first, Council Lemon?

Then I'll go to Council Rogers.

Yeah, I will um Mike would like to speak for a second if that's allowed.

That's up to you, Mike.

You okay. Um it seems to me, and just reflecting back on the um when the community living people spoke, that they had only one example of a uh housing for challenged adults, and it included a nurse.

And I think it was, and I think many, many of them are because the government saw it coming through.

Service clubs. I think service clubs, you know, come to the rescue and make things happen.

And uh we can't, you know, clearly we can't count on the government, and we will, I think, you know, if we go say 10% must be allowed, I I think we'll negate development here.

Um, you know, develop it it's up to the government.

Uh thanks, councilman. Councillor Roger.

Yes, thanks. On uh page 13 of uh staff's appendix uh attachment number one is the housing objectives and policies, and at the bottom there was um staff have uh given prioritizations of uh and reviewing development applications that met one or more of the various criteria, one of which was below market um housing development.

So, you know, I I think if I'm can paraphrase what staff are saying, you know, this is already anticipated and uh will be given you know priority uh consideration through this OCP.

We may not be able to set targets 10%, but you know, that's uh you know, by giving it the priority on those numbers there.

I'm just curious why we didn't include uh co-op housing.

Um we didn't define um so below market housing can be um any type of housing, so it could be it could be co-op housing.

It doesn't, it's not specific to a specific type of housing.

So um I would be able to look at a glossary and see below market housing and see co-op housing as one of those possibilities.

Um through the mayor, generally generally speaking, when we define um below market it's it's you below below market housing, it's usually based on how a percentage of ink of household income is spent on housing in terms of how we how we make it defined it's not so much the type of housing but uh there's there are many types of housing that could be below market so it could be townhouses it could be co-ops it could be um uh apartments it can be a variety of different types of housing just as um we've made mention of Fort Victoria as being one of those amazing places where there's a lot of affordable housing uh the other uh I think um just as amazing affordable housing is the uh cameo co-op on Glantana and powerful um that you know I guess the CRD had the foresight with whatever the opportunity was to build that there so I guess my question you know in this the the um the OCP when they are looking to rebuild and um because they're all pretty old you know 30 50 years um and the huge amount of inf uh and investment is necessary uh is the OCP there and to to support a regeneration and improvement uh even more units um on that site when they do rebuild can we keep it as it is or are we going to get some developer buying it up and putting ocean point towers right um yeah through the mayor that's a that's a that's a really good question um counselor rogers and um in um I have seen some policies in other OCPs that speak to um like replacements so um if if so for example if um an existing um below market housing building is being demolished and replaced the same number of units must be um built um minimum number of units must be included in in the replacement uh so that is um you know if that's something that council would like to see a policy on then um I you know something that staff can look into provided if it it forms part of a motion um but yes uh there are there are policies and um and some of those policies are actually further refined in in housing strategies as well so the OCP has a bit more of a a higher level policy and these types of more details are um are integrated into a housing strategy however it can also be incorporated into an OCP I would like to move that motion yeah on my on this motion so back to what staff had mentioned there already is a policy in our OCP where buildings above six stories are encouraged or something to have five percent so that's very few buildings this next while they're gonna be built at six stories so we'll have no uh below market housing built by developers unless we require a percentage of all new market house or all new housing to be 10% and so either we want affordable housing or we don't we'll have to require developers to do it because no one else is going to do it.

So but I I'll we can make pass this motion and I can make make my motion see if anyone passes yeah I I think um uh I think the the motion is fine as it still uh but uh the first one of his uh that I read in was uh the advisory committee recommends to view royal council what we're going to do is um this motion would direct staff and then begin it that they include hard targets for the full range of affordable housing as part of the official community plan bylaws and policy and I I guess the message to staff is we're not happy with kind of what we've got here we need because it hasn't worked we need something crunchier something that we can put better policy around to to develop more affordable housing so I I think uh it would be best served in in the policy that you've already got just retooled to make it have teeth and and bring it back for council so that that's I think what the the motion's intent here is is that we need um not only in the OCP but our bylaws policy and specifically a ratio and Mike did a good job it's not just below market housing uh Mike's talking about yes more affordable housing but more non-market housing and potentially special needs housing as well but I I don't think we could spend the rest of the night just on this motion easily I think we need to refer this to staff to have that direction be included in the OCP because once it's in the OCP it's the groundwork for all of the other policies and bylaws we have.

And we'll review that before the um before the final draft.

Okay. So my comment is staff has a policy in the OCP I hear that's five percent for building six stories and above, which doesn't cut it.

My point as well.

So it needs to be kind of more focused and more aggressive on affordable housing.

So with that, uh we had motivation, got a move on a secondary.

All those in favor of a more aggressive affordable housing policy.

Any opposed? Seeing non-opposed motion carry.

So that's the two uh motions from uh committee.

Uh councilor Rogers.

Uh just uh the discussion that um um staff had as we were talking about uh cameo co-op um and um I'll see if I get this right.

Um I would move that um we um protect and or replace existing below market um housing um with below market housing that's the gist help me staff so um yeah yeah I um so uh establish a policy that's um establish a policy that considers uh um sort of one for one one to one replacement of affordable of below market units um as part of uh a redevelopment yeah that that would work but i i think we could go one step further to that in some of the co-op folks that i talked to are even looking at potentially greater density for their co-ops right so so that would allow them you know if the if the co-ops are townhouses and they're done in sections they could pull down those townhouses in one section create I don't know six and and have various units in that like a one bedroom a two bedroom a three bedroom so that when people age their kids go out they can move within the co-op as opposed to um you know having to leave the co-op because now they're in a three bedroom and it's just mum left so that what they were looking for is um it's hard enough to get things on the go right now with a co-op but if it was in the OCP that would allow increases in density within the co-op but only used for the purposes of the co-op right it's not going to be sold off for another thing that that would be uh an availability but protecting protecting the designated land use that we have now for co-op housing or affordable housing um I think it's important so I'd support that yeah so you can do that allow decrease density as long as it's for yeah council McKenzie well I'm just um curious from staff whether it's actually required because so co-ops are not likely going to sell their land to a developer so a developer isn't gonna come in and put in a high rise um and don't they have the ability already under the designation to increase the the size of it?

Um through the mayor.

I um I I I don't recall the current land use designation for let's say the the the co-ops um I well we have they haven't been changed as part of this OCP update but um I I don't I don't uh recommend that we specifically um just refer to this policy to co-op I think it should be all um below market housing in in view royal so um for any like any other like co-ops or existing below market um apartment buildings um that so if these buildings are going to be redeveloped that um there is a policy a desire that there needs to be a um you know a one for one replacement a minimum of one per one replacement so for example if um if you know an existing um building is at end of its life um it needs you know it it it it needs the the nonprofit housing and we we're generally dealing with non like nonprofits or um who are in the business of building affordable housing um or um like co-ops or whoever um that uh say they want they have a building 60 units while um they want to redevelop develop redevelop well there at least has to be a minimum of 60 affordable housing units obviously there'll be more but at least there's a one for one replacement so we're there's no net loss of affordable housing units in our community um hopefully an a a net gain but at least we're still maintaining the minimum number of affordable housing units within our community so we'll try again go ahead council Mackenzie then back to you Councillor just in that case and maybe it's not I and I'm thinking just of the co-op like as owners, you would think that they wouldn't reduce the number of houses because the they all want to live there.

So again, I'm just like not sure, with the exception of maybe the CRD-owned affordable housing, that's where we might need to, but I don't know if it's necessary.

And there's also a scenario as well.

Let's say if the place burns down and it's a co-op, right?

Everybody's displaced.

Now technically they still own it and whatnot, but do they have redevelopment?

And could somebody else swoop in and build something or buy it?

So I think Councilor Rogers' motion is let's protect those areas that are zoned for co-op, specifically for co-op, and protect them and and add uh potential density onto those if it fits it as a co-op, not as another entity.

But I don't think that's unreasonable because I think one of the things we're all concerned with was affordable housing.

The worst thing about not building more affordable housing that we need is losing the affordable housing that we already have.

Like losing one of those co-ops would be devastating, I think, to our distribution of housing types and uh uh availability for view oil.

So I I'm in support of counselor Rogers' motion.

I think it's sound that uh we we start really looking at the biggest problem.

The biggest problem in British Columbia is not housing zoning, it is affordable housing.

So by us doing this, it would uh at least protect those areas for co-op housing.

Council McKenzie.

Sorry, I'm I'm just unclear on how you would enact that, because again, like the a co-op is private owners.

Like we can't put it on, unlike the CRD, we can't say you have to do this.

It's not a there's not a covenant on that land.

So like how can we mandate that they have to do replacement one for one or more?

How can we require that?

As long as the zoning says it's that would be a zoning change and not an OCP change for that correctly.

That's correct.

So I think we're just yeah more referring to uh in terms of a policy so there's yeah no no net loss but um but if we change our policy we can then change zoning correct yeah at least it's embedded in the OCP as well as a protection.

So the motion's looking for uh I think two things and that is protecting uh uh protecting uh and and replacing when necessary with uh with uh uh co-op as well as um increasing density if they so desire within that zone at least yeah so co-op for example uh below market housing for example co-op with at least a one one to one ratio at least okay yeah and do you did I second or I did second uh any other comments questions concerns all those in favor any post.

Council McKenzie is post.

Um, specifically on staff's report.

You had in the report a bunch of were things were referred to as big moves.

Were all those big moves included in the OCP, or was that just wishful thinking for the future?

Because I have a bunch of motions and they're all related to the big moves.

Through the mayor, the the big moves that were attached to the summary report were um just a highlight of some of the changes that were uh shown in in the OCP.

Uh they're not detailed in the OCP as big moves.

Um they're just uh uh kind of a summary of the the policies that are included.

Okay, but they are policies that are bedded in the OCP. Through the mayor, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um so we'll go to motions now.

If nobody's got any more questions or comments.

We'll start with Councillor Brown uh for motions associated with the OCP.

Yeah, on page uh five goal number six.

It's nice the goals are short and succinct, however, um the one goal, the number six is kind of weak, I think.

Uh keep community safety and well-being.

I mean it's fine to say is prepared for emergencies.

Wow, that's pretty weak.

I would like to make a motion to add to it that all principles of crime prevention through environmental design that's separate and short, will be considered in the review of applications for new commercial and residential developments.

And I can I can uh motivate if necessary, or hopefully I get a second or I'll second, but I have a question for staff specifically on this.

So staff, I my recollection is we used to have a section in there would have to be a sep-tead review on every proposal brought to council.

Does that still the case?

Through the mayor, uh in speaking with our consultants, septed doesn't seem to be the most up-to-date uh best practice.

So it has been removed from the uh OCP.

Council Brad.

Yeah, on three different communities, Burnerby, Richmond, and I'm all I was on the advisory design panels and as an RCMP member, and we were specifically tasked with making sure every development had a review of crime prevention through environmental design.

Now I may be wrong.

I think now the curriculum for planners, and correct me if you're on planners, um, I think it may be included in your curriculum now, crime prevention through environmental design.

I'm not sure. I I'm aware of criminology curriculums because I taught it, but I'm not aware of planning curriculums.

Through the mayor, um it is um septe, it used to be a quite a very uh well well.

I I've taken septe courses.

I have like the level one septe course.

Um, and um in early on in in in my career, um, septech was quite a very sort of popular approach to crime prevention through environmental design.

Um, but as Sterling mentioned, it's um it's the the um the different um professions are sort of m moving away from that because there is sort of you know different uh sort of pros and cons into the approach of of septead and and um and dealing with uh vulnerable populations and things like that so um it's it's not as of I guess um a a a popular approach now um and different asks different and different um approaches are are being used instead of sept but I mean it's still it's still around it's still it's still around um don't get me wrong but um the professions are moving away from that a little bit uh counselor brown and the problem is and there's a lot of horror stories I won't go into a lot of horror stories but there's been major developments in big cities including Detroit that were they've had an implode uh high rises because there was no environmental design and they've become crime havens and uh because nobody ever looked to the look at the some of the simple aspects of crime prevention through environmental design and it doesn't necessarily be target hard it could be lighting it could be landscaping the way the traffic flows and I I think it's important because it's community safety and this this goal is wow that is weak and and to include that it was included in the last in the 20 in the in the 2011 OCP was included so to me it's it's fairly simple to do a review.

I mean when you bring plans here certainly I have the background to say you know all that shrubbery and stuff that I was on the committee for Centennial Square downtown about the crime prevention for environmental design there.

And there's a lot of things that needed to be done.

I'm sorry to say that I love trees, but that Sequoia tree, not only is it's a pain in the ass because the roots rip up the pavement and the sidewalks and everything else.

It's also, no, I know.

It's it's a crime, it's a crime attractor.

And if you look at a development and see crime attractors, and it's not safe, it's not safe for people.

If you don't have proper safety and security, to me, I don't know why it's not in here.

All it's talking about is emergencies.

So that's my motion.

And that's the reason why I'd like to see that one sentence added.

Uh uh, can I go to Councilor Rogers just for a second because he's got a clarification that might help?

Um Council Brown, I think on page uh, and this I'll just read this to you, um, section 513 General Policies K, it says integrate community safety principles and best practices into all design guidelines.

So that's in the OCP right now.

That's in the new OCP.

So yeah, it doesn't mention SEPTED, you know, in here, like you know that, but you know, if you do a a uh a search community safety, uh section K of 513 general policies does appear to have uh what you're looking for.

It's too uh it's too general.

Um it needs to be more full zone for sure.

The uh it's not and and believe it or not, people do look at that.

Look at all the communities that are being built in well in at least California's example that are blue gated communities and and stuff like that, and there's a reason for that.

And I'm not saying we have to have that here, but the basics, the basics if you want to build light industrial and stuff that and there's no one there in the evenings there has to be sufficient lighting look at gorge gorge and uh gorge and david road in Victoria like there's no septic principles there and look at the problems there with prostitution drug dealing and everything else if you don't build it right no serious if you don't build it right the whole communities could have to be it's happened in Detroit you look at some of the buildings high rise that have been taken right down because they did not follow very simple principles of septic and I think we got your motivation counselor Brown so did you have anything to add Counselor Matson no as a secondary I'll just support including his last motion yeah I don't think it was broken so I'm I'm willing to support um so uh all those in favor of supporting inclusion of septe into community safety and security decide uh any opposed seeing not opposed motion carries uh councilor brown did you have any other motions okay uh council lemon oh I have to try and read my writing here uh okay here I go that the town pos that the town position the Victoria General Hospital precinct to become a regional health center with facilities providing health care for all stages of life seconder not sure what it means but I'll second it secondary motivation we thank you we had um something came by us a couple weeks ago it had to do with it who it it was um island health asking for our little bit of the ALR land there to be excluded and it said I believe that it the and and they were going to take a big chunk of of sandwich and I believe the purpose was for a women's health and pediatrics building um am I right Sid yeah and uh which would make that particular facility this that proposed new facility a destination so we have the property and I can't remember the numbers on hospital way and hence my question about how high can we go but we could have you know long term care there we could have assisted living there we could make this all a regional or even an island um health destination and from that we you know are in the the surrounding areas and into the the neighborhood village um you know it could be considerable development of specialists um you know, um obstetrics and and pediatrics and all kinds of specialties there.

So if we and we have Tennessee Place as well.

And actually, you know, I I I am I am plagiarizing a little bit.

It was one of the the um committee members last night who said, you know, and he didn't, you know, specify, but he said, why don't we, why don't we?

Why don't we be a regional health center?

So we don't get any benefits from, you know, the town does not get financial benefits, but we would certainly, you know, as reputationally and um and and for the possibilities of employment, expand exp expanded employment and businesses.

Um I I think this could be great for the town.

So that's my motivation.

Okay, but as a tertiary center, it already has specialty services that are only provided on the island there.

Uh but if you're looking at the general area, I'd be quite happy to see medical arts building across the street and and in other areas.

So if within the precinct, the whole area is considered.

So we've got the hospital precinct, and we'd certainly like more medical buildings.

Yeah, uh, so I came up with a new vision.

Get hip and View Royal.

You can go to View Royal, get a new hip.

Yeah, right. Yeah, that's a thing.

Um, so yeah, I'm I'm totally supportive.

I I would just do a friendly amendment, and that would be to include the trans oriented area as well.

And even though we can't specify exactly what goes in where we and some of the proposals have already that I've seen have come in and kind of had a life lab spent of potential opportunities, but I would say hospital precinct, including the TOA.

That's my next motion. But okay. Fine. Let's yes, no, good, good. That I will accept that friendly amendment amendment.

All those in favor. Any opposed? Seeing non opposed, motion carries. Get hippin be royal. Wait. So next. Yes.

Uh that oh gosh, I you know, I can't read my writing anymore.

Um, well, this is the gist of it.

That entertainment and meetings precinct be incorporated incorporated incorporated into the Western Gateway section of the OCP.

And that's going to require a whole bunch of yeah, I know.

I need to speak to it.

Western Gateway.

Specifically the the Atkins hub.

Yeah, it yeah, I get it.

Okay. That um I'm gonna need some help making this nicer.

I think Sid gets it.

Yeah. Um, I think Mike gets it.

That an entertainment and meeting place precinct be incorporated into the Western Gateway section of the OCP.

And if I have a seconder, I will tell you what I mean.

So it's like a sneaker. Okay, uh, did you second it? Okay.

So so we've we've spoken in previous meetings about having an entertainment precinct.

Um and one of the possibilities that came up last night, and and it was our mayor actually that spoke spoke in part to this, was the a performing arts center and hotel at the at the hub, at the transit hub area, in those properties.

But Sid also suggested, you know what, the conference center downtown, it's too small for some of the some of the conferences what that want to come.

Perhaps we could take some of the smaller conferences in a hotel and conference center with entertainments and make View Royal a destination.

Goes way beyond just having a bus stop there.

Don't ask a question.

So I guess how is this to be reflected in the OCP?

Is it just another policy thing?

Or like when you say precinct, like are we actually putting something on a map?

Or what's it? I think it would just be go ahead, uh Leanne.

That might you might help uh provide an answer that we didn't have a question for.

Yeah, um, yeah, thanks for allowing me to jump in, uh, Mary Tobias.

Um and uh yeah, thanks for the question, Councillor McKenzie.

So in um in just in reflecting on um the motion on the table, uh what we could do is um under the West the sort of the context statement under the Western Gateway Employment District Corridor designation, we could enhance that section by speaking to it being um sort of an entertainment uh precinct area.

Um I don't I don't suggest creating a new land use designation.

We don't create land use designations for sif for specific uses.

It's it's um I do not advise us to go down that road with an OCP.

Um but what we can do is just sort of beef up the context that the vision for this um the Western Um Gateway Employment District Corridor is is to be an the entertainment precinct or entertainment cultural precinct in in in the town.

Um and uh the um and then we can also um make uh have to go back and have a look at the neighborhood village um OCP designation as well, but we can also incorporate that um as part of the context um to capture it.

If and uh we also have policies like general policies in the OCP around um around um entertainment and tourism and um you know cultural um opportunities, uh so there, yeah.

So it'd be just words and not necessarily land use designations or changes similar to the hospital district.

Um that would be these are the types of things that go into the hospital district.

Um if I'd encourage anybody that if you haven't been there, if you go down by Integra Tire and just walk across the goose, when you look up at where the uh Sterling and I were talking the other day, it was uh it's about a couple of stories up that the train actually goes through a natural or uh built up kind of area.

So you could have potentially uh parking underneath and um uh uh opportunities for catching the train on the main level, still sheltered into a hotel that could have the rest of the amenities that uh council Lemon talked about.

You know, that would be um an opportunity if you didn't want to go all the way downtown if you were coming from the West Shore, or maybe people would rather uh if our facilities were newer and nicer than the Victoria Conference Center, uh prefer to spend their money out here and uh and and come out uh come out this way.

So just an opportunity because that area is just so rare with the goose, the old island, the um Canada or Trans Canada Highway, and then if the rail gets back up and running, you've got five the only place in the island with five modes of transportation passing within meters of each other, right?

So um exploiting that and having a meeting center with all those things would be a good idea.

So we got a mover seconder motivations, all those in favor?

Any post thanks, folks?

Uh any other ones that you have land.

Just one one more, and it may, you know, maybe maybe it doesn't have a place because certainly not a land use thing.

Um here we go. That the town actively seek and encourage ways to ensure a supply of general and nurse practitioners for Veroyal residents.

General practitioners, nurse practitioners.

That the town actively seek and encourage ways to ensure a supply of general and nurse practitioners, general practitioners and nurse practitioners for Bureau residents.

Second, uh seconded with counselor Matson motivation, Counselor Well.

Um Leanne had her hand up.

Leanne, go ahead.

Uh through the mayor.

Um I'm I'm in thinking about this this policy.

It might read a bit more like an action.

Um that might that would come out of one of our our of the existing policies.

Uh and um so just just a thought because sort of policy versus action um in in terms of power drafting this OCP.

You know what? I I just want to see it reflected in the OCP as an intention and uh that it's you know that it that it won't die.

And when I say and to in seek and encourage ways, so we don't know how it's gonna happen.

Will it be, you know, like like uh 258 where we have just decided.

Um it might even be filling um that for medical medical offices should go in there.

Um that might be the way, but that we've that that we're innovative and we look at all the opportunities to ensure the best way we can using whatever influence we have to ensure a supply of doctors and nurse practitioners.

Thank you. I'm just gonna go to the second motivator, Councilor Mattson, and then I'll come to you, Councilor Rogers.

Well, we've had a number of discussions at council about how to do this, and we've been talking about opportunities, so this fits in nicely with the direction we've already been going into.

Thank you, sir. Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, it's given that um, you know, we have the hospital um hub, and um, and you know, with all the definitions and um policies and so forth.

I I see what where staff are saying that we've got a goal, we've got a policy, and um this fits really well in an action.

So if we put that in one of the actions short term, long term, uh, I think uh it's achieves everything.

Thank you. Uh so good great comments.

We got a mover, secondary, we had motivation.

All those in favor, any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Council Lemon, did you have any more?

Okay, you're at a road of ammunition.

Uh surprisingly, I I just have two.

Uh one is I think our direction to um the public future councils to staff needs a bit of beefing up.

That um what we have invested in over the past three years, and really it's a legacy that goes back to 2011, right?

So we carried a lot of those policies forward, the ones that have worked, uh, as well as uh some of the baselines for us, is that I think we need to beef that up a little bit, that it represents the interpreting this um OCP is kind of of a covenant with both our historical past and you know, after we get done a public hearing with the public as well.

So essentially, if you're gonna change or radically depart from the OCP that we that councils approved, that the public have been getting engaged uh with, do that with ultimate care because it's also about balance about what we've considered about not only roads but park space and trails and everything else.

So that if you're gonna make an OCP change in the future based on this, that you do it with care.

So uh my my motion is is just a good introduction, like how you use this OCP, but talk about the covenant with the people or the province with the or the the uh covenant with the public that we've invested all this in, right?

So if you're going to make a change to it, ensure that it has public value, right?

Uh, that it's going to be a benefit to the public because there's all kinds of regional things we could do that could upset you know the the town when it comes to development.

So uh yeah, my motion is let's beef up the language around how the future councils, developers, staff, and the public interpret the OCP, and they do so with care.

Second. Uh I'm not gonna motivate any more than that.

I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

Um okay. Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion curious.

My other one was kind of a simple one, and that is what my question was about.

And that if we have data sources, let's make sure that they're annotated correctly, like not just BC stats, but BC stats, this report.

So if somebody wanted to reconstruct, what were they thinking back then?

They could do it.

Or if we need to rebuild this thing in five years, hey, we can do this, we'll just need BC stats of this year or census input here.

The other thing is if we've derived assumptions, like hard assumptions.

I'm not talking about just words, but if we've done the Western gateway, even we should be doing this.

Like, why did we select the Western Gateway to do it?

All of us might have our different reasons to do it, but there's not a lot of residential going on there.

We weren't happy with car dealerships there.

We needed some new things to read.

Just call those out.

Like right in the footnote.

We are based on this data, we assume these things.

I think it helps explain to the public, allows consistency, like when we um are trying to justify something, uh, and and make the document more digestible and defensible, like and and open.

So if I had a seconder, that would be the ask.

As staff goes through it, we would just go through and uh really spell out annotate data as well as we can for source and any assumptions that we tied with it.

Not every assumption, but the big ones, like the big takeaways.

Are you secondary?

Yeah, we just do I need a second or before we can talk about.

Okay. Uh Counselor Matson, I think secondary.

Go ahead, Councillor.

Okay, so uh I I think you're referring to uh the stats page, right?

All of it. All of it?

Yeah. Yeah, because you know that it it certainly strikes me, and that's the most relevant part.

We've got all the statistics uh that have you know interesting scenarios and possibilities of um high, medium, low probabilities.

Um, but what are you know it's almost like after each one of them, it's a takeaway.

And give show me the takeaway, show me the relevance to this OCP.

Yeah, I think that's uh another way of putting it.

Yeah, yeah.

Any other any other comments, questions?

Yeah, not a big change, just to make it better if we're gonna use this as a template going forward that we would do that.

Uh council McKenzie.

Sorry, is this it will those kind of comments be for the public? Like it will be visible to the public.

It would be visible, it'd be just like, you know, below a stat or whatever, you'd have a footnote, you know, footnote one, BC stats, taking the state.

Uh two, assumption there will be growth in view royal.

Three, um, there there will be need for commercial growth and view role, that type of thing.

I guess um I would just like to ask staff if that's kind of a doable thing, if that's uh it seems like a lot of work to me, but it's already there in most cases, but not in all cases.

Not the same thing. But is that a big task, Sterling Lianne?

Well, he's looking. If you don't annotate where you get information from, it's meaningless.

Um through the mayor, I think um it's it's uh it's not a big task to annotate like where the um where the numbers are coming from, like PC stats or sense our um census data.

Um in terms of a I guess assumptions, um I in terms of um, for example, like around population projections, we can include an assumption that yes, like the population is projected to grow by this percentage.

Like we can do that.

Um I think um, yeah, I think we just have to be careful in terms of the types of assumptions that we we include, but I think that um we'll take it away and uh we'll we'll um yeah we'll be able to um could because um you know obviously the the the projections and the stats that are included in the OCP are are informing policies, right?

So we can um sort of try and and tie that back to to stats as much as we can.

Um yes, it will it will be some work to do that.

Uh and um but we'll we'll try and and do our best um and making sure that it's you know as factual.

Like I I just don't want to be throwing out assumptions like just because we needed assumption because council told us to put an assumption here that I don't feel comfortable doing.

Um but um if there's a um if if we can correlate on a um uh projections and assumption and why this policy was created, you know we'll we might be able to look at that.

Um just for clarification, I I Sid, are you also saying that if this came out of report XYZ page 63, that should be listed so that people can actually go back and check it out.

So it's more than just saying this is Stats Canada information, it's from Stats Canada report so-and-so page, whatever.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

Yeah, and uh I'm just looking for base assumptions.

So if you've got that population that we're going to grow by 2,000 people in the next three years, one of the reasons why we would create policy is to accommodate those 2,000 people, right?

So an assumption is we'll grow by 2,000 people.

That's all I'm looking for.

I'm not looking for every assumption that could be peeled out of that.

What I'm looking at is the big ticket items of why did why are we using this data?

Right. That that's uh the most important thing.

Yeah.

Yeah, through the mayor, I think Sterling um had some just he wanted to add um to my comments as well, if that's okay.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mayor Topas.

Uh just a point of clarity for myself, just because I'll be communicating with the the consultant on this.

For for most of this, I I guess I see it as more of like statement of fact.

So for instance, when looking at the income levels uh in in the uh economic profile page 30 of the OCP, it it lists or a range of incomes for the uh the town and there's many other examples I could use.

There's a a note below that that says, you know, from the census 2121 census.

So, would council like to see to your point, Mayor Tobias, the the reference, so where the data came from, and then an assumption for those kind of things?

Because I see that being more of a statement of fact, and with the assumption that council wants as to is why it's important, or is is that in many cases?

Uh, when I went through the document, things were annotated, in some cases they were not, right?

So just make it consistent.

So I'm not asking for new information, you're probably from the right to the same place.

What I am asking for in the assumption is if you're putting stats in, the question should be so what?

Why are you including these stats?

Like what assumption are we drawing?

Is this just general information, or is it we're grounding policy in it?

If we're grounding policy in it, then the assumption would be compared to the rest of municipalities, viewed oil requires more commercial, just as an example, right?

So that's just an assumption that's just put there.

So really it it is the justification of why you included the stats in there in the first place.

That is the assumption, right?

Because you're trying to make a point, you're trying to sell a point.

That's great, but what is your assumption from this data?

And it's a point in time, I get it, but it it traces back to why is that whole section going in there?

Uh, why do we need this data even in there?

Is it just taking up space or are we trying to make a point?

If we're making a point, let's put the assumption up.

Our our growth is not expected to exceed 500 in the next five years.

Simple as that.

Uh, so we got uh do we pass that motion?

No, we just had a mover in a second, or any other comments or questions about it?

Not a big ask, just looking for consistency and spelling out what we're actually putting data in the thing for.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing council McKenzie's post.

Before we go to John for the next hour, can we have a five-minute break? Let's uh do that.

John's limited at uh 25 uh resolutions this evening.

Uh we're back from resets, and I think um Jerry's here.

Yeah, uh Jerry would be along in a second.

Councilor Rogers, you had some motions.

Yeah.

Um section four, context of V Royal.

Uh we have 4.1, the physical setting.

So um I'd like to make a motion that um we renumber the uh those sections a little bit, and we have a 4.1 the history of V Royal, so that um we're able to identify, you know, um V Royal's past of you know, farming, lime quarries, forestries, relationship with the uh the industries in the harbor, the cannery, the pulp mill, and uh you know, up to um you know the incorporation and how that incorporation process happened.

It wasn't the first time, and um on our first OCP, which I think was 1990, two years after incorporation, 1998 and four.

So um I would move that um uh to give people uh a brief historical context of uh the town that we have a section called the history of V Royal.

Uh I I've got a question for you, Council Rogers.

Is there a location in you said a previous OCP?

It was 2009. The previous the first OCP I don't know when it was, but I you you're using a context.

Is there an example staff can cut and paste that would make you happy?

No. There isn't.

I don't I don't do you think we did have a history?

Well, my suggestion would be look in. Sorry, what's the name of that view roll history book that was done?

Yes. So uh staff can help us on that.

Craig Flower Country. Yeah.

Yeah. Um through through the mayor, our twenty eleven OCP has history set the history section.

So we can just pull from that and the twenty twenty two.

It won't be it's not a big deal.

Thanks, uh Leanne.

So that you're suggesting that goes context of URL that goes to four point one and then the numbering go down from there.

So physical setting would be four point two, correct?

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we start with yesterday.

Oh, yeah. Okay. Four point one. Four point two. Okay. Just a question. Uh Leanne, go ahead.

Yeah, uh my suggestions just leave it with staff.

We'll figure out where the best place to put it because we you know we want to make sure that we also it's incorporated with the reconciliation section of our OCP.

So I think we'll we'll we'll make sure it's in the right spot.

Okay.

Uh okay, so we got a mover, we got a secondary, I believe, Councilor Mattson.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead, Councillor.

Um, I would move that um we keep the um uh O two thousand eleven OCP uh um context of the uh ENN corridor, which was uh basically recognizing the EN or ENN was a uh transportation corridor.

We don't make reference to that uh in this OCP and I think it's vital that it's could still consider it a transportation corridor.

Second.

Seconded and I'll just add that I I happen to know some of the people on the reconciliation committee are going to petition council in the next month or so um to ensure that the corridor and the light rail reconciliation project is a strategic priority for the town.

So even more than just adding that, I would I would up that game by keeping it as a strategic priority.

Okay, indeed. 20 amendment and as a strategic priority.

Any other comments or questions?

I don't think any other motivation needs to be done on all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

Go ahead, Council Rogers. Thank you.

Second end. Just a question for staff. Is that a problem?

Through the mayor, no, I I don't believe it's a problem.

Okay, and uh can you uh what page is that on again for everybody's is figure 11 uh on page I'm sorry sorry is figure 11 in the OC uh on the OCP is actually in the OCP figure 11.

What is it? Uh 58? Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I think you've motivated a bit, but I don't uh second or did you want to motivate?

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead, Council Rogers.

Thank you. On page uh five of uh the appendix uh attachment one, uh community input and governance.

Um amend amending here.

Um community members are meaningfully informed and involved in the advancement.

So it it at this moment it says are meaningless meaningfully involved, but um I'm uh suggesting an amendment meaningfully informed and involved.

Okay. Sure.

So he may be informed but doesn't get involved.

Understood. Uh any other questions, comments, Donna?

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Next.

So in um in relation to that, and this is a brand new policy, um, that um in relation to being informed and involved, um, I would move that the OCP include policy for uh the creation and maintenance of uh resident advisory committees for transportation, parks and recreation, planning and development, and sustainability climate action.

Moved and seconded, and I go ahead, uh Council McKinsey.

I just had a question.

So where it is that or is that general to all policies, or is it specific to it is a general uh policy with uh community input and governance?

Now, um, I suppose staff may suggest it might be an action item, but uh um I think it needs greater weight um because once you have that as a goal or whatever, then you can see that uh coming up and and being supported in strategic planning.

And I think when we had this conversation very early in the term, that was the intent, like to re-dool those committees, but then it became problematic for staffing and other reasons, and it never got filled.

And then um, and then we used uh mayor's committees since that were a limited time duration, both for the SMA, um the OCP advisory.

Um so that is another venue for it.

I'll be honest with you, I'm kind of split in uh in this, and that I think we got a lot out of a limited duration committee, and I think my challenge with standing committees are the same people on the standing committees year after year after year, which on some, you know, they have corporate knowledge, but it becomes to be an echo chamber after a while, right?

That that's my challenge with with both sides of it.

Is it more effective to have committees for shorter duration or to have committees that don't change for decades?

I I'm I'm I'm kind of torn between those.

Well, as I say, I'm not saying saying defining them and it says well, yeah.

Every other municipality has has these advisory committees, and uh and I think they can devise it in such a way to ensure um new blood.

Can I make a friendly amendment amendment?

And that is simply that we we that we don't specify which committees, but that we instap or reinstate um advisory committees because there's there's it it seems to me in past um you know there would be meetings would often be canceled John uh parks and rec because there was you know there wasn't a quorum um there's the there's simply not enough interest all the time to yes uh to fill you know four committees so we may we may simply say uh uh provision advisory committee committee this committee's not because advisory means are there for a long duration so if we just say committees I would have moved no no I I um sorry I I won't um remove the word advisory um because um you know that's that's the function that they they provide they are advising uh council and and um uh and it's it's a standard practice with the other municipalities um um and how we define it but I think that's their purpose is to uh be informed and this is a way of them being involved Leah yeah um thank you Mary Tobias one thing I just wanted to note is that um that sort of you know level of detail is um was typically found in a uh in a community engagement strategy potentially or a strategic plan um we are working on our community um engagement strategy right now and there is an action a long-term action in the draft OCP um in terms as part of the next update to the community engagement strategy to seek um seek to understand how civic engagement can be improved and integrate into actions as well so um perhaps sort of that level detail around advisory committees may be better suited in in a community engagement uh strategy or another type of I I with um again with respect you know the whole point of uh the goal is for VO community members to be meaningfully informed and involved and what better way than they can be involved in in the specific categories and this is not new every other municipality respects their their citizens so much that they're willing and wish that they would be involved in an advisory committee so I'm just saying let's get it in let's get it recognized it's important enough to be in an OCP so that we can make sure that this OCP you know and it's that they would become well well versed in this OCP as they consider their mandate.

I would support if we just leave it as committees but we're not gonna stand up advisory committees between now and the end of the term and I would hate to impose that on the next council that's something they could bring up but I'd be very happy with just adding committees.

Scott I I just wanted to pitch in uh further to what you said mayor um that would fetter the next mayor's ability to select um and appoint a standing committee so I council should just be aware of that and we we likely won't be standing up with committee before the end of the term so that might be something we want to leave to a future mayor to establish um as well, there's staffing considerations.

We need to have a recording secretary at these meetings.

And typically the meetings are in the evening, so we will there will be some budget impacts to supporting these committees as well.

Okay, so I don't want to get mired down into the uh the nitty-grated working aspects.

This is again uh adhering to uh and then um facilitating the goal of community um informed and and uh involved.

Um and you know, we had many years of highly successful advisory committees, you know, that you know there was the advisory committee that put the playground and view of um portage part that put the park and ride in view royal park.

Staff were opposed to that.

So um with with the their community involvement and facilitating, they do a great service in improving our community, no matter how much time they're put in, and it's just it's the same investment that I'm sure other municipalities are doing.

So let's invest and have them involved.

Okay, um can you read your wording again uh so everybody understands?

Okay, so um you know include policy for resident um uh standing committees, if you like.

Um for example, and I'm just as examples transportation, parks, recreation, planning, development, sustainability, and climate action, these are just examples.

Okay, um uh did you have a suggestion for an amendment, which you can do uh that we don't list or name the possible the the committees that we just say committees.

And uh you got a second or we could call the resident committee.

No, we've got a seconder as well.

So we have to deal with the amendment first now that you put it on the table.

It's kind of no longer yours, Councilor Rogers.

Uh takes on life at Song.

Um so they're saying uh uh the the motion on the floor is just not to cite the examples, just have committees.

Um we got a mover uh and a second, or do you want to motivate?

No.

Okay. Uh councilor Brown.

Yeah, we'll just gonna locks us into the names of those committees.

We might want to delete one or have a different one.

So just keep it general.

I mean, again, it's a new council, who knows what's gonna be here and the mayors and council want something different.

So I don't know, I don't know what the advantage would be to do it.

Uh so just on the amendment only um to to remove the specific committee names, all those in favor to remove the committee names and just leave committees.

All those in favor, all those opposed, councilor Rogers is opposed.

So your amendment still stands with that amendment that it would just be committees.

Um so now we'll deal with councilor Rogers um amendment.

So all those in favor of councilor Rogers' uh amendment as as amended.

My motivation is just I supported the last motion because otherwise it would have failed and we wouldn't have committees at all.

So thank you, Councillor Mattson. All those in favor of the motion? Any opposed? Being none opposed, motion carries.

Our next. Okay, so um on page six, uh objectives.

And this is um uh within objectives, the third bullet from the bottom.

Manage div uh development to protect the natural environment.

Um I would um amend manage development to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment.

Staff are you got the page in the reference? Uh you want to read that out again? Yeah, sure.

Um so again, attachment one, page six, third bullet from the bottom where it says manage development to protect preserve.

Sterling, go ahead.

Sorry. Are we okay?

So just we're we're referencing the summary document.

Oh, sorry, land use objectives. This is your page six, land use objectives.

Is that the draft itself or the amendment?

Attachment one.

That's the summary. Yeah, so that's just the summary, it's not the actual document.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. So allow yeah, hmm. That's a problem, isn't it?

Is that reflected, Sterling in the actual document?

That exact wording through through the mirror correct it is.

It just it would be easier for staff to be able to reference the I realize that.

And uh I'm sorry, I was working from you know from this document here.

You could just uh uh say what page it is on the summary and staff could find it given time for the actual document.

So just read out where you found it in the the start state the summary document.

Page six manage development to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment preserve and enhance or or my added words, the natural environment, parks, trails, shorelines, and water bodies.

And you had a second or council Madsen seconded.

Uh I don't think there's a desire to motivate there.

So uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? I've seen none opposed motion carries.

Is it over to you, Councilor Matson?

Are you taking a break, Councilor Rogers?

Okay, all right.

That's that's probably good plan.

Okay for a little while.

Go ahead. So I have like three or four, but they're all related to the big moves items that were included in the staff report.

And I could actually go to the policy it lists, but it should be self-explanatory.

Peace. So the first one uh recommendation is that the OCP does not include policies that reduce off-street parking requirements.

That that the OCP does not include policies to reduce off-street parking requirements.

Second night.

So you're yours, it is in there, so you're saying that one of those.

Well, that's listed as a big move, so and the motivation is wherever we've done it, it's caused us nothing but trouble.

So I I don't want to encourage it.

And you've got a second or uh council.

What he said.

Uh council McKenzie.

Um I just have a question though, because uh obviously there's also the the province some provincial legislation around the developments without except where the province is already mapping would be in addition to that.

Uh yeah, I definitely support this.

Mainly I look at my street now with a bunch of secondary suites and um it's chalk, and I can only imagine if it um had open ditches and was a very narrow road, and that's what we're coming to.

Um so yeah, definitely in support.

So uh any other comments?

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed passes unanimously.

Uh go ahead, counselor Matson.

Okay, this is another one related to the big moves.

Uh and it talks about providing bonus density.

And while I don't support bonus density, uh in instance that the OCP uh any policies related to book provision of bonus density, that that in the OCP, uh there'd be a requirement that the bonus density be for affordable housing.

I'll second that.

So in terms of motivation, again, I want to get to affordable housing in, and what normally happens with bonus density is require an extra floor, and so all we're gonna get is an extra floor or two of unaffordable housing that wealthy people from some other area are gonna move in, and it's not gonna deal all at all with the affordability crisis.

And so this motion, if we do provide bonus density, uh it will be for affordable housing.

Thank you. And it allows a venue uh for affordable.

So if it and it would be a benefit to the community.

So yeah, I support that.

Council McKinnon.

Sorry, just another uh technical question.

So um would all the bonus uh density be for affordable, or is it just you could get sorry for housing developments?

Like if if somebody wants to put in bonus density for an uh the commercial or something, that that wouldn't pertain.

Sorry, but my question is let's say they want an additional 10 units, like they're gonna put in additional 10 units with another floor.

Um would all 10 units have to be affordable, or is it just a percentage?

No. Councilor.

Where are we with oh Sterling has a question?

Um go ahead, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

The um by focusing just on housing for density bonus, that that limits the scope of that quite a bit.

Uh there's other considerations like parks, for example, could be included.

There's also numerous policies in the draft OCP that speak to density bonus.

Some of them are exploratory, so actually understanding what is viable in terms of density bonus.

One of those policies is actually looking at the hospital transit oriented area.

By prescribing exactly what needs to be done is maybe a bit prescriptive for policy.

It might be better to have policy that leaves things open and then those things can be established through a density bonusing bylaw.

And I think Leanne might also have some uh additional uh comments.

Go ahead, Lynn.

Uh no, no, I think uh Sterling answered the question or provided that comments on that.

Okay. So again, this motion is for in housing projects. Yeah. Bonus density has to be for affordable housing.

Yeah, I would support this um uh move because we're not getting it built otherwise.

And uh I think one of our main complaints about the density is it's just adding on to our infrastructure whether it's supporting a public service.

So council Lemon.

Have we not already got a policy in place that requires medical offices?

So are we not asking a lot of developers that you you have to have a medical office on the main floor plus you know, 10 affordable housing units?

Not not all. Um I do we have I don't think we have a policy on we did it was Ron's motion some time ago.

Did do we not have that policy uh yeah through the mayor yeah so council um in uh in last december council um passed uh the ocp bylaw amendment um and introduced the policy that um any like buildings four stories or greater um should have either ground floor commercial wasn't specific medical office but just ground floor commercial or community space and that was that's a new policy that was added to our 2011 OCP our current OCP which will be um included in our which is is included in our the draft OCP now so with this one is if you want to build a fifth story a sixth story a seventh story on top of that the the bonus density would have to be a four yeah oh okay I I think most developers wanted four you know if they wanted four stories they actually wanted four stories of residential because that's where the bucks are and we're telling them well you that can actually have three stories of residential plus you know that your the main floor has to be a medical office um it's not medical office just commercial or or whatever yeah it needs to be something for the community so we're we're asking a lot and I don't think we'll get any interest in anything if we're making demands that oh and by the way you know your whole top floor or your whole bottom floor also has to be Ron I get it.

I like it, but you've already done it.

But that's only if they go above.

I mean they can do for the four stories, but if they want to go five and six, it's got to be.

Yeah, go ahead, counselor.

Staff we need your help.

So um, you know, if these is the bonus density only referring to, as as counselor matts in saying, um, more stories solely for housing, more units, or could the bonus density be applied to a ground floor commercial or some other ash aspect that um you know that we're getting as a bonus.

Yeah, I I um we haven't we're um throughout the draft OCP um there is reference to bonus density um throughout in order to get amenities, right?

Because um obviously if we want amenities, it's in exchange for density.

And um and there's an action item that and it's actually in our financial plan this year is to establish a dense a uh looking into density bonusing bylaw.

Um so I um yeah, so I guess it it is so if if um if a developer is proposing to go um beyond the supported density in the OCP, um then what I'm hearing is that the um that added density would have to be you know affordable housing.

Um there are also other amenities, for example, and are um to consider too, for example, like childcare spaces, um affordable housing, any other like community space.

There are other amenities that you know that council may want to consider and not just not just pigeonhole ourselves into just housing as well.

So a couple things to think about if um with respect to getting that prescriptive in the OCP.

Yeah I'll just leave it there.

Only way we're gonna get any more affordable housing.

Council Rogers Yes thank you and I I see what staff's referring to there um it's on uh page 158 of the OCP at the short term the first short-term action item we're uh undertaking den uh density bonus analysis and this would be specific for the hospital transit area and the Western Gateways employment district to identify how community amenities associated so this is these are we may be using uh this density bonusing to negotiate for improved community amenities uh that might be just as valuable as negotiating for um and maybe we councilor matching if you say excluding uh the hospital transit area and the gateway employment bonus density would only be uh uh allocated to um um affordable housing.

So if you and that then that would still allow the uh staff to do that analysis um to the town's benefit at the in these two specific areas.

Uh yeah, I uh I see both sides of the story with this, but the fact is we've done bonus density significantly for the fastest growth period that View Royal has ever had, and we have no affordable housing.

Go to the deal.

It's not going to fall out of trees.

It's either going to be mandated and we got to have the chops to do it.

Uh otherwise we're getting daycare for rich people or amenities for people that can afford it, but not for people that are working at quality foods or cobs bread or any of the other commercial that we're that's why nobody that works in View Local Royal lives in View Royal, because nobody can afford it.

Right. So I'm the only way to control, I think housing and get to goals that we need to keep young people in the province, to be honest with you, is to get bold with regulating density bonus and and say that we need affordable housing uh out of the deal.

And if we need uh daycare somewhere, we zone it and say that building has to be bottom floor uh affordable.

I think you know, making the assumption about what developers will build or not build um doesn't make us better if we're ignoring the problem that we're creating by upzoning land.

Council Mackenzie.

Yeah, so I think um that it's I don't like that it constrains us in what we can ask for, it limits us, and also I think that um if we make it, we already make it quite difficult for developers.

Um I think if we add this, it's going to be even less attractive to build anything in View Royal.

So we have no hope of uh affordable units because no one's going to want to build any units in View Royal if we keep making it so difficult.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Okay, we'll go to vote.

All those in favor of bonus density being associated with affordable housing.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

And what is the tide goes to?

So it does not pass.

Okay.

The poor and the homeless appreciate your support.

Did you have another one, Council Matson?

I just can't believe that.

Jeez. Okay. Um another big move is to uh pre-zone multi-unit housing development.

And so my motion is not to pre not to put in policies to pre-zone multi-unit housing development.

Except for housing that already um is sort of pre-zoned under the current legislation.

Like that. So all the small and the what we what you call it.

That the hospital district, the the 10th story thing.

So but you you would still want to okay.

Yeah, I we don't have the ability to, but I don't want to I don't want to pre-zone these properties, and I'm more than happy to explain why.

Can you can you give this an example? I don't know where um negotiation and improv.

Ah okay. I'm s well staff knows where it is.

It's listed, uh I'd have to go back and check.

It's under one of the big big moves.

That's the big move under housing supply policy.

Uh E, I think pre-zoning sites for multi-unit residential.

Well on it yeah.

Leanne, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Mary Tobias.

Yeah, so um it's uh um under section six point three point two e of our draft OCP, the policy reads consider identifying sites with a high likelihood of redevelopment for potential pre-zoning for multi-unit residential in the next zoning bylaw update to support the town school of increasing and diversifying the community's housing supply.

So um as part of the zoning bylaw update and review that um will be taking place in 2027, so following the um the adoption of the new OCP, um uh identifying sites that might be um suitable um for uh uh pre-zoning, like perhaps in the in the trust in the hospital TOA or maybe along the Western Gateway corridor, uh things like that to help incentivize uh uh redevelopment.

And and what would the advantages to be speak to me like I'm a developer coming in if it was already so the land use is already there, so don't have to go through an OCP amendment.

But if the zoning now matched the OCP, what's the advantage of a developer coming in for time and negotiation and and all the rest of them?

Yeah, it gives the um well, A, it gives the developer confidence, um, it helps the developer get financing, it um also um streamlines the process so it reduces the uh the the development processes that uh a developer would have to go to and to change the zoning.

So it's um yeah, so it provides incentivize is a incentive um and it helps um provide certainty and the developer would only need to apply for a form of character development permit.

Right. So if I owned a uh lot that was single family residential SMA now, because it's zoned that way, somebody could come in and have that advantage of knowing that the zoning is already there.

Is that correct?

Uh correct. They would um in our case they would just apply for a form and character development permit.

Um and uh you know, when you when you pre-zone land, um obviously we have to we have there are legislative tools now available in order to making sure that uh we still get the amenities um that we would secure as part of a rezoning.

So uh just well, if somebody seconded it, I'll talk to it.

Second about council.

Yeah, like over the over the years, we've had many occasions where we've had properties during the zoning process, council gets dis to work on what this thing looks like.

Uh also gets additional items from the developer.

Uh the whole issue about the trees on that other property on uh the Cambridge Motel or or the one we approved.

Uh uh Yeah, where the Cambridge, we never would have been able to preserve that tree area if we would have just had it already pre-zoned.

So when you look at when you start working on a proposal, you can see what you like and don't like about it.

If you give up the if you allow it to be pre-zoned, you lose the hammer and you lose your ability to get exactly what you want.

And so that's my concern.

And it doesn't, it doesn't have to be a huge process to do this, but if you if you give it up, it's gone.

And there also are other situations where somebody really wanted a property developed and they offered us things, which they would never offer us things if it's already pre-zoned.

So that's my rationale.

Excellent.

Councilor Rogers, and just for clarity for everybody, there's no such thing as seconding for discussion.

You're either in or you're not in, right?

So you're you're either seconding or you're not committed now.

Well, you can do that, but you still have to motivate.

Yeah, that's right. Well, um, and not necessarily motivating.

Um because that's the role. So you can't second unless you're you're agreeing with it, Councilor Rogers.

All right, I'll wait until I we go around in discussion.

So if there's a seconder for not discussion, but an actual seconder is going to motivate behind it.

Otherwise, it means that you're not supporting the motion.

Go ahead, Councilor McKenzie.

Yeah, I'll I'll second that.

I just um I agree with Councillor Mattson, and I also think it just uh it might be a reason people elevate the price of a property and then that gets passed on to other future homeowners.

So um for that reason I support it.

Uh okay, so it's been motivated to go to Councilor Rogers and Councilor Lemon.

So for discussion, um the you know I I see where staff are coming from, and they're they're saying um the policies to consider identifying sites.

So I guess the question to staff is who considers.

That would be council, staff and and council.

Yeah. Right. So so staff uh you know council and um and I'm one great example is um uh we have a significantly run-down area of town um that uh contributes to the um uh the ghetto feel.

And um, you know, there's um if we have the ability to motivate redevelopment um of those tired discussing homes, um premises, buildings, shacks, then uh this enables us to um uh facilitate that improvement.

Uh council, uh did you have a reply or was that drug addict? Okay, um Council Lemon.

I agree. I'm gonna support it, but I just want to point out that the only thing we got out of the Cambridge Motel property was the trees.

Uh and I've got to interrupt and uh get a motion to extend us to 930, please.

Second moved by counselor mattson, second by uh council lemon, all those in favor.

Any opposed. So uh motion carries.

Thanks for reminder, Scott.

Um so we've got a mover and a seconder for counselor mattson's uh motion on uh against pre-zoning.

Um answered all the questions or comments they wanted to make.

Uh all those in favor of council mattson's motion.

All those opposed, seeing council rogers is opposed.

Uh motion carries.

Uh next one.

One more little one.

Little one.

Only because staff is noted.

It's a little one.

Under housing the uh big move for housing supply under policy G, which is to allow staff to where there's in development permit areas for staff to approve the DP for two units or less.

From deforming character, yeah.

Performing character. And my motion is not to allow this unless there are ironclad council approved.

What did I put it uh uh form and character guidelines and requirements already in place like I think Leanne's got a comment go ahead yeah um I think it it's just for a point of clarification is first um so garden suites are already delegated to staff form and character DPs for garden suites are already delegated to staff council made that decision um over a year ago um and this policy 6.3.2g is actually to exempt um development permits um so residential developments where there's two units or less so a duplex or garden suite for example from going through a form and character dp process so that's what this is about it's not it's not about delegation to staff it's actually no longer requiring um a develop form and character development permit for um two units or less so that could be a duplex or a garden suite to set to to obviously to increase um just to streamline that that type of development within the town then my issue is that if you don't require a dp somebody can go build something that's totally out of character with the community and that that's my concern is like you'll have a something that looks like a sore thumb in somebody's backyard or right beside you and at least with staff had to approve the DP.

I thought council was still doing it, but if staff had to approve the DP, they would ensure that it would fit in warm and character wise.

And so my that's my concern.

I don't want it to have a garden suite or whatever in someone's backyard that's totally out of character with the community.

But you we've already delegated staff the power to do that from I'm assuming.

Yes, but now there's a there's still a requirement for form and development character DP that they'd have to get through staff just to say well we no longer need it, you can put in whatever you like.

Leanne?

It's a it's it's a it's a policy to consider exempting so it's the the policy yes the policy in the in the draft OCP is is for you know in the future consider I mean obviously not right now but in the future consider exempting um resident uh development permits for this type of small scale development.

Yeah okay any other comments questions thoughts I I I get where you're coming from council matzon and many ways I support it but uh I think we're only allowed so many structures in our backyards now and we got all kinds of where I live many structures that are kind of haphazardly stuck together that have been there for years.

Um and and is it a pain?

Absolutely but I mean so for something like garden suites though do you want a garden suite next to you that is totally out of character with the community?

Or do you want something that's gonna look like a a little cottage?

You know, it could be a you're just protecting the community.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Can you get Smarties instead of Skittles next time?

I'll work on that some meat smarties.

Okay, so if there's no other comments, uh we got a mover and a second or um counselor Matson's um motion is to uh retain a DP for garden suites duplexes uh or the requirement for one and staff's recommendation in the OCP for future policy is one not be required.

Uh so all those in favor of maintaining a DP for garden suites and duplexes.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

I'll be crazy and be opposed for one.

Mainly because I I think that you know for garden suites, I think they're um there are things that are necessity, and I'm seeing in my neighborhood people living in stuff that we would never approve but a necessity.

So that's my concern.

And then one more real simple one.

Basically, for all new residential or all new single family developments that fireplace would burning fireplace is not be allowed to With the price of gas right now and somebody uh putting a uh fireplace in their living room haphazardly and burning a log, I would uh wouldn't for forgive them.

So uh uh so yeah the counselor uh Ratson, your motion. Do you have a seconder for it?

I just wanted to point out I'm trying to help with our environment and all our environmentalists in town.

Remember, I couldn't even get a second.

Uh okay. So uh with no second or that motion fails.

Do you have any other uh things?

And uh Council McKenzie, did you have some?

Certainly.

Uh yeah, two hopefully quick ones.

Um the first one to my comments earlier, I would propose that staff add in where into the context where the province's legislation like Bill 44 and anything to do with parking, for instance, uh limits council's decision-making authority.

Good one.

So really spell out the fact that this is the stuff we've had to do because of legislative direction, the stuff like Western Gateway was stuff that council chose to do for these reasons.

Okay. Is that clear stuff?

Uh so we got a mover and a seconder.

Did you want to uh move counselor rogers?

Love it. Okay, all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Next up.

Um the other one, and I appreciate um seeing the reconciliation piece up front.

However, I um I wondered if we could combine the two reconciliation sections.

So the one at the front and the one down and the um what's it called?

Yeah the other one uh together mayor um we we could uh the reason that they're outlined the way they are now is just the forward section of the OCP kind of frames the context of how to read the route read the document um so it's kind of keeping in mind that reconciliation uh component when looking at all policies and then the specific reconciliation policy chapter speaks to uh more specifically uh how reconciliation uh can be achieved so if if we uh made the change to move uh reconciliation into just one location um we just maybe be mindful of how that's read in terms of understanding the entire document it's context is important in in in this uh in understanding that chapter yeah uh um seconded by counselor moutsen go ahead counselor so i uh i appreciate what you said and again i i liked seeing that it was a big part of this um this document however when i read it i did uh think to myself immediately well what are we doing about it like this we have the history of our neighbors and um it but it it it felt a little bit um actually disingenuous because it felt like okay so what that piece for me was missing and i think it was the later on information around the actions that we're going to do that tells the real story.

Yeah and in terms of my motivation, uh slightly different unrip is most people haven't got a clue what it means, and we've included that we're gonna endorse it and support it.

And it's basically sort of window dressing rather than it s outlining what we plan to do with that uh UN declaration.

I do. Uh Leanne.

Um through the mayor, it's also a question we can ask um the the Songis and CassEpps and First Nations too, like how how what their thoughts are on the flow of it by incorporate having the reconciliation section at the beginning, you know, because it's part of our history, and then having you know our specific policies.

Um when we look back in terms of presenting the project scope, um, back in I guess it was in um um October of 2024.

Um, you know, we we um you know, the the project scope that that was um endorsed was you know looking at the OCP with that reconciliation lens.

And so um so we can go back and ask the the nations um like you know what their thoughts are on on on that.

Is it disjointed or you know what's you know missing?

Do we need to align um sort of um there needs to be a bit more of a synergy between that context and the policy?

So we can we can have like ask those questions.

And I'm sure those comments will probably come back to us when they're reading the document.

Counselum.

Possible too to obviously you have to do that, but just to have a that that at the end of the first section, say, you know, for you know, actions on page such and such section such and such, right?

We still have a motion on the floor.

We got a bit of an explanation, possibly a way ahead.

We um are we gonna maintain the motion seeing uh we are gonna get First Nations feedback?

Sure.

Okay, I'll withdraw the motion.

Or you could maintain it and if it's fine with First Nations and staff, could go ahead and make the change.

That could already be.

No, I think it uh my yeah, my preference would be to hear their opinion on it.

Maybe we could ask them specifically if um they would agree with combining it, but I would prefer to go with what their opinion is on it.

Okay, thank you, counselor. Uh so that motion is withdrawn back to you, uh Council Rogers.

So back to page seven on this document.

Just a matter of um so um the motion is to um you know, you know, when we uh address the Atkins area, um I hope we I'd like to uh move that we are consistent uh when we make uh reference to that, as we are we do show on page 12 um of where we show the Atkins neighborhood village just like we show the hospital neighborhood village and um and so that we're um not using the term park and ride.

So the the motion is to uh be consistent in in our um referencing uh the you know the um Atkins if it's a mobility hub fine call it a mobility hub but not a park and ride so that's that's the motion that's I I I'm talking to Mart recently and they've even taken park and ride out of their repertoire or referring to that area because mainly because all the pressure from housing they would get beat up by the Minister of Housing and the Premier if they designated that area uh the park and ride vice uh transit area development, which it might have to be both if it's gonna be successful.

There's gonna have to be some underground parking or whatever stuff on top of it.

But anyway, so uh staff here is that clean for you.

Okay. Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, go ahead.

Uh page nine policy B at the bottom.

This was uh with respect to the Western Gateway Employment District Court or Policies B.

Um it um um I I see can I can I um yeah, no, I'll do with this one right now.

So it talks about um uh lands designated to promote uh medium density um with the emphasis on commercial, light industrial arts, hospital use, hospitality use, and so forth.

To that list of possibles.

So my motion is to uh add uh seniors complex uh care facility um to the possible uses of the um within uh Western Gateway.

So um through through the mayor, so that would be introducing a residential use um to the these parcels that are designated Western Gateway corridor, and um from the get-go, uh you know, there was a desire to you know to preserve these lands for for our you know commercial uh light industrial uses and tax base, and we identified areas you know within the Western Gateway Corridor, like within the neighborhood village where residential uses would be would be you know supported um in the OCP.

So once we introduce sort of that residential residential use for these lands, um the chances of getting the commercial and light industrial and higher tax base uses and sort of job generation, employment generation type uses will likely be decreased if we're introducing these types of residency uses.

Yeah, I understand that we have we could second her.

Thank you. So um through throughout the province, there are these new um um uh not with the province but with other authorities where um it's a specific care facility for seniors uh with the emphasis of having in-house um medical support.

And um you know if if it's a um a development opportunity, even if it's inconsistent, you know, with the overall um sense, frankly, I think um you know having a arts and culture center isn't consistent with that sense.

But it's um uh I think it it it's offering a service, and because again, elsewhere in our in our um um uh OCP we talk about uh housing continuous for continuous so that people can live in the community, and if they're going to be living in the community but they need to care to do so, this is a one-stop shopping.

They've got it in the building.

So I I think uh unless staff can offer uh I mean if we want to put that in the hospital area, but I I have some doubts that that'll be, but um I think we offer some flexibility that if this comes along uh that uh we're not saying it's uh it's not in the OCP, you can't do it.

Go ahead, Council Brown.

You're looking at other municipalities where they have comprehensive development zoning, it does include seniors housing.

And there's a major lack of seniors housing uh throughout the whole region.

Uh and hey, if we get something there, we could pull in people from uh other communities that can't find a space for seniors.

I mean, uh, certainly I'm good to the spot where I'll be looking.

But yeah, so I understand other communities, the CD comprehensive development zoning does include seniors housing in other communities.

Do you want to come on?

Yeah, um, so uh I I think so if if we I don't know if we can um actually um Carl, could we please go to the um land use designation map on in the staff presentation, please?

On slide nine. Um thank you, Carl.

The reason um why I'm pulling up this slide is because um I think it's important for for council to know that I would say 95% of our town is um in the OCP permits residential uses.

We have very limited land base that is for commercial and potentially light industrial land uses.

Um introducing a residential component to the Western Gateway Corridor will erode the ability to ensure that these lands are preserved for future employment.

So that is a big that would be a big change actually.

Um and our current OCP, the 2011 OCP also preserves these lands as um as employment, as employment lands, so commercial and our current zoning even allows for for light industrial and hotel uses and things like that.

So um I all the other areas, like uh the areas that are currently designated, neighborhood mixed use or mixed residential or hospital, trans-oriented area, neighborhood village, all of those land use designations would support senior care facilities.

Thanks, Leanne. Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, the model that I'm thinking of is where there is a um a staff of seven or eight doctors.

These seniors aren't leaving the building.

And so this is an institutional care that's uh unique.

It's uh been employed in various other places in BC very successfully through the federal government, and um it's um in it the medical facilities are uh also possible doctor resources for um uh for the local community.

So um um I think it's new and uh innovative, and I'd like to um uh see that it's included, so we can also be innovative.

Uh counselor Brown, I think you were a secondary.

Um comprehensive development zoning does approve senior sourcing, and senior housing provides employment because you got to nurses, you got doctors, you have orderlies, uh food preparation people.

So actually it's quite a good asset to have in that zone.

Council Lemon.

I totally agree.

We need seniors housing, we need um facilities for seniors, we're all going to, or some of us are seniors.

It's just the wrong spot.

It's the wrong place.

It belongs up in within, not necessarily right on the hospital grounds, but within that area that we consider the hospital precinct, the old Helmkit Market site.

But not down on the strip.

I do have information that there is a developer that owns some land in my neighborhood that is looking for a model that I think only a couple exist in the region, and that is it's it's assisted living, but you buy your condo, right?

And you pay for the extra services.

So that is the suggestion.

That's a residential area.

I'm kind of sitting on the fence with uh Councilor Lemon with this because once something takes over, it might take that whole area over.

And is that our vision?

Like, does it is is that our vision that it's gonna be uh hotels, casinos, and old people?

Could be, right?

Uh I'm not sure, but uh it could be like Vegas, Vegas Light with uh extra wide sidewalks and stuff.

I'm I'm not sure.

But um yeah, yeah, I I'm I'm not fully I'm supportive of it everywhere else in town, perhaps except there.

Uh Councilor Brown.

Yeah, don't forget we have the uh senior center very close by that's right you have a lawn bowling very close by pickleball very close by uh you have uh swimming for seniors very close by that's true so a lot of the services are there so really to me it was close to the trails too I mean I I see seniors with uh all kinds of different carriage type things pedaling couples like seniors couples now and to me it it it would be a great spot yeah um the the edge and a squad mouth's a really good example too where these it's like the views are panoramic of California if you can get one if you can get one and it's a great business great business model uh people can can make a lot of money if if you have the money as a senior and can stay in one of those places that's a key yeah um I think the real shortage is the ones where people can't afford to move into one of those higher end places um and the government doesn't provide enough places so that those are tough.

Yeah if you're not looking if you're 60 now or 60 now if you're not already looking for a place you're gonna have a hard time finding a place when and if you need it.

I'm gonna get us on track because it's late.

So counselor Matson uh then uh go ahead counselor I'm I'm totally against this this motion uh as someone who's been in the business of approving long-term care facilities, most of those people aren't gonna make it over to the Juan de Fuca rec center.

If they're in a long-term care facility run by the government, they're high acute high acuity and they're not gonna be using the services.

What you're talking about is some sort of assisted living or the place like Colin lives in where they can get up and around.

And that's just basically housing.

And so that housing should be in places where we like housing.

And none of those places have full-time doctors in them.

They have a doctor who goes in there periodically, and it's not part of the community.

So we're not, yeah, we're there's no benefit of this for this.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um, so staff, we you know, I'm I'm referring to um um the policy B on page nine, and I suppose that would be the gray area.

So is this um a possible option for the top half of the Western Gateway?

Atkins neighborhood area through the mayor.

The the the designation that you're referring to, Councillor Rogers, is the uh the pink, so the neighborhood village neighborhood village land use designation would uh uh allow a community facility housing, and that would be a more appropriate land use designation.

Sorry, I would amend a motion to include a uh um uh senior medical facility um in uh the upper half Atkins neighborhood area of the Western Gateway.

That's my amended motion.

Is it already allowed and is this a redundant motion?

Uh Sterling, go ahead.

Through the mayor, the the uh the bilanius don't the land uses don't need to specify use.

So this is more of a uh a specific use that council's talking about right now the the OCP already talks to having multi-unit housing and that would cover uh what is being discussed right now as a uh as a yeah so we don't have to have a specific motion for the addition to this if an opportunity came up and that's around that general location they could build it it's not prohibiting them from building it in that area correct correct we we could go further and and add uh community care facility or or community care um but it would be covered under the uh that neighborhood village land use you want to amend your motion to have the what what's it called the village uh or withdraw it or uh well number one withdraw it if you're gonna make another one but if you wanted uh staff to include uh long-term care within the village um uh community village uh designation then they could do that am I saying that right it the yes through the mayor uh it's uh neighborhood village land use designation neighborhood village right okay so uh did you want to withdraw your I think uh I'd like to add that uh to the neighborhood village as a you know uh an option and is as an example sure right just as an example for neighborhood village in the OCP uh have we got a yeah we need you need we need to withdraw your first motion on that uh and uh so that's your second one.

Have you got a seconder for that?

Uh seconded by councilor brown.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? I'm gonna do something unusual today.

And uh after having a committee and working all day, I'm out of gas.

Uh so I can no longer make good decisions anymore.

Uh not that I ever could, but uh I try.

Um staff, is there uh counselor Rogers also wanted to go through the action list as well.

When uh could we carve not tonight?

Uh could we carve uh a hunk off of our next agenda as a priority?

And that would that still meet your timelines for input uh for the first draft from council for next week, for instance.

Uh we can certainly try.

I I haven't seen a lot of agenda items for the next regular meeting, but we are in decide on those.

So let's not commit to anything on them and reserve a big chunk for uh part two of the draft review.

And of course, anything else would be budget related or whatever that would be uh a precedent and anything that we need to push back, then uh be happy to do that unless there's something pressing.

Councilor Brown.

Uh Mayor Tabaras, if you could um I just have one more motion to add two words to one sentence, if you would allow that.

It's just under the objectives.

We're starting with asset management programs to maximize the value in a lifestyle of public assets.

I'd like to include public and natural assets because public assets we're thinking, fire trucks, um vehicles, uh bridges.

Right. Have you got a seconder?

Because we're gonna make this quick.

Uh counselor Lemon.

So I think you've motivated enough.

We get where you're going, so you're just adding natural assets with with those.

Um anybody got uh any comments about that or questions?

All those in favor.

Uh good. And counselor Rogers, you had some.

Yeah, um, to to help facilitate the what I'll do is I'll uh write up the my the remaining motions and uh send it as an email to uh to staff and and council.

So if we uh can you know get a consensus and and whittle those down, that'd be great too.

And excellent.

My one thought on this is like wordsmithing and adding a few words to a sentence, which sort of doesn't really change anything.

Maybe we can just skip those motions because at the end of the day they're it really doesn't matter.

Thank you for your perspective, Councilor Matson.

But to some people it matters deeply, it gets into their soul.

Uh especially if you're an English teacher.

So uh can I get a uh motion to adjourn?

So moved and seconded by Council Brown and all those in favor.

And thanks for your diligence staff and uh and oh sorry, but before we go there, if anybody got a question, good.

Um Carl, we got anybody online with a question?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have 273 messages this evening.

It should only take a few hours.

Um no messages here, um Mayor Tobias.

Thanks, Carl, for and Elise for all your support.

Uh thanks, um Leanne and Sterling and Leia's probably in the background taking notes or something.

Uh very much appreciated.