Letter from D. McDonald, 217-290 Island Highway (Jan 21)

Re proposal at 298 Island Highway

January 21, 2021.

Further to my letter dated January 15, 2021.

Can you please clarify exactly what if any windows will face the Lions Cove side of the 298 Island Highway proposed building?

Drawing Number A230, pages 30 – 35, seems to be showing quite a few windows. It was my understanding that there would not be any windows on this part of the building.

Also, it was my understanding that there would not be any opportunity to invade the privacy of residents of Lions Cove in the West Wing from balconies, decks or terraces built as part of this proposal. The attachment drawings on pages 30 - 35 seem to show that the roof decks on levels 2, 4, 5 and 6 and a rooftop garden terrace will make it possible to invade our privacy.

If this is not the case, please provide a detailed explanation of why it is not the case because the plans seem to be saying otherwise.

A third question is why consideration does not seem to have been given in the Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA’s) of the following factors:

• Significant increase in housing currently and planned increases for many regional communities that will add traffic load directly or indirectly to Helmcken and Island Highway.

  Why should the provided TIA’s be used when they do not seem to consider broader regional and more localised factors?

  For example, shouldn’t there be a study that at least anticipates the extent of future development of a Town Centre and the impact it will have on traffic caused issues? Would there be an increase beyond the level of traffic attributed to the current Victoria RV park or not? The answer to this would add significant context to the studies conclusions about this proposal.

• Is there or is there not a possibility of new townhouses on 2 or 3 of the properties on the south side of Eltham that currently back onto the 298 Island Highway property? If so, then shouldn’t this also be a factor to include in the current review?

• Is View Royal satisfied that the conclusions reached in the TIA’s is based on defendable data? I ask this question because the only actual observed data appears to be the data referred to in the 2017 study done by View Royal in 2017 that focused on Helmcken only. All other data is based on assumptions and procedures to estimate appropriate factor adjustments. It is not clear to a lay person how reliable such a process is. What is the accuracy of such a procedure (statistical variance)? And why isn’t the data presented including this information?

• As briefly mentioned above my observations over the last five and one-half years are that traffic load is not only increasing but that the effect of this is different than the conclusions reached in these TIA’s.

  For example, there currently are times when traffic is backed up going west in the pm all the way to before Tillicum Avenue. When you pass through all intersections the back-up is still present. I was sitting in my vehicle in these crawls.

  I find it significantly faster to drive between 10 am and 1 pm and after 6 pm locally and regionally.

  The acceptability of traffic flow at much slower rates between 6 am and 10 am, 2 pm and 6 pm seems to be considered acceptable using the information provided in the TIA’s. My non-scientific assessment differs from the reports that seems to focus on peak periods. Good to know but better to have a more comprehensive report that includes broader core time periods. There is no good substitute for good data. I think the result of such a study will produce quite different conclusions now and in the future.

• I also think many citizens would appreciate the addition of a lay person explanation rather than solely the jargon and reference to various standards used in the reports especially when citizen observations differ from results of study reports. There is reference made about following prescribed standards but what people want to know and need to know is what does it mean especially when it seems to differ from their first-hand observations. A conclusion that there is not a problem is not good enough.

A fourth question is regarding the retaining wall between Lions Cove and the proposed building. What precautions are going to be taken to ensure that the trees in the green buffer between properties will not have their root systems compromised?

Trust, confidence, and understanding are especially important when one tries to comment on proposals. It is even better when visons are also aligned in a fast-changing world.

Thank you for your written response.

Dan McDonald 217 – 290 Island Highway.