Correspondence from D. Foord (Invictus) - Project Progress and CD Zone

CD Zone

We discussed the draft CD bylaw that James had prepared following COTW, with consideration of how to best structure the site-specific zone to provide certainty around use and density matters, and the approach to addressing detailed design at the Development Permit stage. Two ideas we discussed were the use of subzones within the CD zone (as was done for Christie Point) and the idea of subdivision.

We support the use of subzones, particularly as they can assist with defining the building heights that are stepped across the site.

We are contemplating the potential subdivision of the most northerly portion of the site, to create two separate lots as per the attached drawing.

Our preference is to move forward with a CD zone that contains subzones, to assign building heights to each portion of the site, thereby assuring the neighbours where the heights are restrictive. That will further protect the Hidden Oaks' residents, and be reflective of the plans that we developed with their input.

The CD zone would also include a minimum lot size that reflects the 2-lot subdivision concept. This will allow us some flexibility, which is required in these uncertain times, regarding development phasing and possibly selling a portion of the site. We cannot forecast what the development industry will look like once the pandemic passes, but structuring the CD zone to allow potential subdivision would be futureproofing the plan if we were to be faced with the need to sell a portion of the site. Our intention is to move forward with the Development Permit application as soon as possible, which would establish the design for the site and therefore a potential subdivided portion of the site would be bound by the approved site-wide DP plans.

Next Steps and Timing

We understand protocols are evolving and that all local governments will need to establish a new approach to advancing development applications during the pandemic. The one thing I learned in the meeting with staff is that the Council has decided not to move our application forward in the foreseeable future, meaning that the CD Zone could not come forward for First and Second Reading, nor scheduling of a Public Hearing in the absence of Council new meeting and Public Hearing protocols. We were also advised that it is Council's directive to not bring forward any items that could be viewed as being contentious, with the focus in these immediate weeks on addressing the continuity of critical services. We understand this immediate need, but would like to share with you our thoughts on the next phase of response to ensure a continuity of development services and the economy.

Economic Impacts

We are very concerned with how long the pandemic will last and therefore the requirement for social and physical distancing. The Federal Government indicates a timeline ahead measured in months, not weeks, and they are also concerned that evidence points to a potential second wave in the fall.

Times have become very uncertain with the COVID19 pandemic affecting our economy, as well as every economy in the world. We don’t know where we will be when this is all over, however, I think it is safe to say it will be a considerable length of time before our economy gets back to normal. Many companies that have been forced to close will never reopen, making unemployment another problem. We may well be facing a recession, if not a world depression. Locally, we have spoken to the CEOs of Starlight REIT and Concert Properties in the last week. These are perhaps two of the most well-funded developers in Victoria, as well as all of Canada. Both have indicated they are not looking at any new opportunities and are in a holding pattern.

The construction industry has been deemed an essential service and we are pleased to see the responsible continuation of construction activity, following public health standards to keep all workers safe. The region remains in a housing crisis and we are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the pandemic on all of us achieving housing goals, with development processes potentially not proceeding for months. Development approvals unlock more sites for more construction, maintaining employment during these troubled times. Development also fuels local business, and local governments, with development application fees, and eventually, property tax increases. The economics of development and the benefits it brings remain important considerations for View Royal.

All we can do is be in a position to move forward and build when there is light at the end of the tunnel.

We therefore ask that Council consider how to work with us to move our application forward without delay. We have reached out to the Provincial Government Legislative Branch and to a number of other municipalities in the region to understand the options being considered elsewhere.

Continuing of Land Use Decision Making

Based on our research, we feel there are three potential avenues to explore with respect to the scheduling of a Public Hearing:

1/ Consider hosting a Public Hearing in a large venue with limited attendance to allow for physical distancing or in Council chambers, allowing only 1 speaker in at a time.

2/ Consider doing what other municipalities are doing (see notes below re: Saanich, Colwood, and Esquimalt), which is to advertise for a Public Hearing in the normal fashion and solicit written responses via email or letter or by phone calls, and then to hold the meeting without the public physically present.

3/ Consider other approaches available through the legislation, one of which allows the waiving of a Public Hearing when a proposed zoning bylaw is consistent with an approved Official Community Plan bylaw. We understand Langford is moving forward in this approach. We have been advised by staff that our application is consistent with the OCP; however, we respect there may be concerns with moving forward without a Public Hearing.

Public Input to Our Plan

We understand all land use matters require careful consideration, and want to thank staff and Council for the amount of time and effort expended on our project to date. There has been a lot of public input to our application and believe we have reached a plan that is much better than where it was when we started as a result of public input.

We have presented at 4 Committee of the Whole meetings, 3 community meetings (advertised to 1,400 households each time) and 3 meetings with neighbours in close proximity. We have therefore had a total of 10 meetings where the public has had an opportunity to voice their concerns, and support. In addition, I personally have met with many of the Hidden Oaks residents one on one.

We respect the time it takes to achieve a good result through collaboration; however, with added time comes added costs. As background, we made our first application on October 18, 2018. In the 18 months between then and now, we have spent approximately $966,000 on interest to carry the property. In addition, we have spent about $1,000,000 on architectural fees, consulting fees, application fees etc. If we move forward without delay, the additional municipal and CRD fees will be in excess of $4,000,000 and consulting and interest another $1,000,000. So, the total cost to rezone, achieve DP and BP will be approximately $7,000,000. Our monthly carrying costs are over $50,000 so an additional 3 - 6 month + delay has tremendous financial implications that cloud the project's overall viability.

We know we are all in unchartered territory and that all industries are being asked to innovate and respond with new ways of doing business. That is why we are asking to have our application proceed to the next steps in the process, ideally so we can move forward to Development Permit with certainty before making the additional financial investment in detailed plans.

As for our development being contentious please keep in mind that there were four key challenging components, in spite of the application being consistent with the OCP:

1. The first major issue was traffic. We provided a report from Watt indicating we would have minimal impact on current traffic and Council indicated that traffic was a non-issue for our proposal as it was a regional issue that should not get in the way of the objectives of the OCP.
2. The second major issue was density, however, in our experience, much of the density concern was related to traffic concerns. We have worked to reduce the density below the 1.6 FSR OCP maximum to propose 1.49 FSR.
3. The third major issue was the loss of privacy perceived by the Hidden Oak townhouse residents, of which 5 border units our property. As presented at the March 10, 2020 COTW meeting, we have worked at length to mitigate their concerns by reducing building heights and opening up a section of the property along that property line, reduced the number of units and provided a plan that saves many of the mature evergreen trees that provide their privacy. We have increased the setbacks of our proposed building to a minimum of 4 times the distance required in the multifamily zoning. We have agreed to build a fence along the property line and offered them the funds to build a remote-controlled entrance to their site to mitigate their current problem of vehicles turning around on their property. We have also decided not to apply to use the Right of Way access to our site through their entrance for our current proposal.
4. The fourth major issue was from Saanich residents to the north, who are concerned that we are impeding their views. Please keep in mind that the Eagles Creek Shopping Centre's most northerly two buildings are several storeys higher than our proposed building, as their site elevation is much higher to start with.

Our proposal has evolved several times in consideration of the concerns of the neighbourhood, staff and Council. We have reduced the FSR, the building heights, number of buildings and number of units. We have added a plaza focal point for the corner and increased the articulation of the building exteriors. We do acknowledge that achieving consensus and full support from Hidden Oaks is unattainable, but value the input we have received to help shape the plan. They have expressed their opinion that our density should be the equivalent of theirs. We actually have less site coverage, more greenspace and less impermeable area than they do, all the while achieving the objectives of the OCP in providing greater housing choice, located in proximity to employment, commerce, transit and trails.

Thank you again for your time discussing these matters. As always, I welcome an opportunity to further explore these ideas together following your consideration of the best path forward. I trust View Royal will help us innovate and evolve under these unique circumstances to enable our project to proceed to a decision. I believe View Royal can continue to demonstrate responsible leadership by following the majority of Greater Victoria Municipalities in continuing to move development forward.

Research from other Municipalities

Colwood: Spoke to Selina Williams, Director of Corporate Services: If the application complies with the OCP they are conducting the necessary readings and scheduling Public Hearings, advertising in the normal fashion and soliciting email, letter of phone comments from the public and then Council will make the decision.

Esquimalt: Spoke to Bill Brown, Director of Development Services If the application complies with the OCP they are conducting the necessary readings and scheduling Public Hearings, advertising in the normal fashion and soliciting email, letter of phone comments from the public and then Council will make the decision.

Saanich: Spoke to Sharon Hvozdanski, Director of Planning If the application complies with the OCP they are conducting the necessary readings and scheduling Public Hearings, advertising in the normal fashion and soliciting email, letter of phone comments from the public and then Council will make the decision.

Langford: Spoke to Matthew Baldwin, Director of Planning. They are approving any applications that comply with OCP. They are requesting written or phone input if the application requires an amendment to the OCP.

Victoria: No returned call or email.

Kind regards,