Council Meeting

Good evening, V Royal.

I'd like to call the special council meeting Tuesday, May 13th to order and begin with a territorial acknowledgement and that we recognize Lakongan speaking people known today as the Kwotsum or Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

To provide comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during the question period, you will see a QR code for the thousands of you online now, or a URL and live webcast stream screen or URL on the town's website under live Webcast.

Uh scan the QR code or type the URL in and through the pop-up uh form, uh type in your comment or question to be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

You will need to provide your name, the street name, uh, on the form.

Uh if you are speaking in council chambers, you'll just have to provide your name and your street name.

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

Question period is open to any questions um uh for the council, but limited to two minutes each.

You'll be timed.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Um, can I get a move?

Well, motion to approve the agenda, and that includes uh a late item as well.

A letter.

Uh, can I get a motion to approve, please?

Yes.

Sorry, I just I'm reading this late item to council, and I'm a little bit concerned that it's not on a closed agenda.

It's kind of uh dealing with well, it's mentioning staff there, and it's a public meeting, and I'm not really feeling that comfortable with having it in the open meeting.

I don't know.

Um, you know, I don't know it's a late item, so I probably just got kind of got slipped in, but I'm a little uh I appreciate some of the concerns, but that we're talking about staff, and it's an open meeting, and I'm not really that comfortable with that.

I don't know how others feel.

Thank you.

Um just gonna go to uh staff with this.

Do they have a chance to review the letter?

And is there anything concerning in it that would require a closed meeting?

Um staff haven't had a lot of time to review the letter.

Um that's kind of the downside to receiving late items, but uh you know there there's a little bit of criticism in there, but um that's I don't think there's anything we can't handle.

Anybody else comments?

Yes, uh I I've read it as uh being more the uh concern of the consultant's report.

And um so I that's that's where my focus was.

Councilor Mattson.

Yeah, and I thought we should have that item as an action item as in rather than an information item, depending on how the meeting goes today.

Yeah.

Just concerned about its quality to be understanding.

Okay.

Uh Councilor Brandon, you satisfied.

Uh no, but that's fine.

I obviously I'm not in the majority, but no, I'm not happy with it at all.

I think it should have been dealt with in camera.

I understand the intent uh about the report.

That makes that makes sense.

However, when you start uh criticizing staff in public, then then i do have a problem with that.

And that's maybe that's just me.

I don't know.

Taken, then uh I think we can put that, let's actually break that out into a vote before we go to the agenda in the sake of fairness um if there are any uh concerns about uh receiving the late item uh because of potential um concerns for staff um then you can vote against it but all those in favor of accepting the late submission in everybody in favor of supporting the late submission all those opposed just wanted to clear that up to make sure that um uh if it was just your concern that but give uh others an opportunity to speak up, Councillor Brown.

Yeah, thanks for that and then of course, dealing with the uh issue about the report, I mean, uh that could be dealt with in close as well.

So um yeah, it just again it um rankles me just a little bit to see that um in public dealing with um uh criticizing staff.

And it may be justified, it may not be justified.

I'm not going one way or the other.

I'm just saying it just I don't feel that comfortable with it.

Fair.

Uh all those in favor uh or can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Do we already have that um moved by Yeah?

I wanted to have this well, given this item is germane to tonight's discussion, I certainly wanted to have it available for discussion at the end of the meeting.

Question I had was the South Island divisions of family practice are slated to come next week to petitions and delegations.

Uh and we have the uh that notice of motion on.

And so my only question is like from my position, it's it should be simple to support without having a lot of discussion.

Uh, but since we're having the division come next week, I just want to know whether uh you feel that we should have it on tonight or wait a week.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Council Maslow.

And speaking of that, I would actually prefer to um consider the motion in light of what um um you know your resources have to say when they come under petition as a delegation.

So you know if if we can have it uh in that tomorrow or next week's meeting, uh the petitions and the allegations and then speak to the the motion.

I think it would be very timely and and probably very helpful.

Um and it's possible that you could read it in, provide the information so uh council knows about it and we could defer voting on it until after the presentation.

Sure.

We did I I I did spend ten minutes reading out last week.

I don't think you need to read it out again, but uh and people have copies, but I'm happy to read it again.

Whatever you think when it comes time to do that.

Could we just table it till next week when it comes to it?

Because uh I think we would deal with that at the end of the agenda again well after the presentation next week.

But that's just my thoughts.

So it might be good to formally get it on the table this week.

Anyone have other thoughts?

Um so we had a mover for the agenda.

Um moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor of approval for the agenda.

Any opposed to the agenda.

Uh and I think that brings us to the mayor's report.

Normally I'm very concise, but I've got a few things to say tonight, so I'll exercise my liberty to do that.

Um today I brought up the issue of a bright light to uh the base commander, Captain Whiteside, who lives in View Royal.

He is going down tonight to see which light is bright and we'll take care of it.

Um or let me know tomorrow about what it uh it's wonderful to have a good relationship with neighbors.

Um also want to congratulate and thank uh Counselor Brown for his hard work in advocating for award system for School District 61, uh, given the challenges the uh school district board has had over the past uh term.

Uh that has looked uh favorably.

Uh it was a topic of uh discussion for the regional mayor's lunch that we hosted on Friday, and that there's a meeting being set up by the province and the caretaker, I guess, for the uh school district uh for later this month to explore options for a ward system that would include um uh Sanitz, Victoria, Squimalt, of course, uh, and us, as well as the two First Nations.

So thank you again, Councillor Brown, for that.

Um at that regional mayor's lunch as well.

Um I became aware of two bills that are past their first reading um right now with the provincial government.

Uh both of these bills, uh, bills seven and fifteen, um are expected to move very swiftly uh through.

Uh the Green Party's already stood up against it, and it would looks like it will have to take the speaker to call a tie if nobody on the NDP steps out of party lines.

So Bill 15 grants the provincial cabinet unilateral power to designate infrastructure projects as provincially significant, allowing them to bypass municipal power planning, override local bylaws, and fast track approvals without consultation of any kind.

Bill 7 retroactively validates ministerial interventions that sidestep municipal authority, including contentious housing decisions imposed without local in section two of the BC's community charter, which recognized municipalities as an order of government and calls for meaningful consultation on matters of mutual interest.

Um, deeply disturbing about this is the use of non-disclosure agreements that have uh been used with UBCM president and staff, and the province asked the president and staff to sign non-disclosure agreements, even to discuss these bills.

This is the same tactic that they used for the housing targets.

Uh, and there's always um the uh the issuance of uh we'll use it prudently, we'll consult, and this is only in matters of emergency, but that didn't work out for the housing legislation.

I don't think it's gonna work out with these two.

Um, so the implications are pretty clear that we'll find out about them in in uh regulations.

But it is my intent um to push out a press release in opposition uh tomorrow uh with council's approval.

I didn't want to go ahead because of council's approval.

Most of the mayors were not aware of it.

I did bring it up with the regional mayor's lunch.

Of course they weren't aware because there was no engagement being done.

The implications for this is are vast.

We've already seen some of the implications of provincial infrastructure projects that have really caused a rift in the town, including Handy Turk, even when they were consulting us.

And the way out of that was really solid engagement that should win them an award for the amount of engagement in turning that project around.

This now gives them the opportunity to do none of that whatsoever.

So it may be kind of out of order, and I'd be happy to take a challenge to the chair, but I would like to raise a motion in support of our opposition in the form of a press release to at least educate the public and get it out there for tomorrow.

And I'll move the motion if I can get a sex access.

And uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you for uh for doing this.

It's uh you know vitally important, it's highly contentious and shades of the White House.

Um so um I hope that we would also be sending copies to ABICC, UBCM, and um CRD and other mayors in the region.

Bring up the uh the awareness and and hopefully gain uh additional support.

Thank you.

And uh yeah, we can absolutely do that.

Councillor Rogers, my concern with this is that it seems like they've uh already cut the law or or attempted to uh use the UBCM and use a non-disclosure agreement on top of it.

So the the power, and they did have considerable power uh in their day when you get all of the regional municipalities both on the island and then together for the province, uh it it meant something different than it does today.

Um right now I just see your list of resolutions building with very little action being done on the other side.

Uh so that in itself is a concern.

So thank you for your support in that, and I will uh I will do that.

The last thing I wanted to just note on um uh for mayor's remarks is Thursday.

We're getting together with the rest of the mayors to discuss uh kind of a governance model um uh for our agreement with the RCMP kind of collectively.

Um we've we've done our governance kind of um a bit hit and miss, but it's worked for West Shore Parks and Recreation.

Uh and we haven't spent that much time on regional policing uh for for um the municipalities.

It's a weird setup, right?

There's no other uh RCMP district in the province or or or likely even Canada where you have this many municipalities with one RCMP.

So they've they've got their work cut out, so we have to be able to um uh do everything that's within the contract.

And one of those things in the contract is setting service levels, um agreeing to when things change, like for our what they call a cop-to-pop ratio, but on what data are we using?

What year does it change after that data is released?

All of those things are not really summed up.

So that's what the attempt is there.

We'll make no decisions, it'll come back to council leader, but it'll be a first pass at uh what we think might might work.

Uh just for the public, the RCMP are not responsible to a police board.

They're different than um uh normal municipalities.

So uh it will be an effort in uh negotiation and not that the service is bad, and we're very supportive of the RCMP and the work that they do here.

So, having said that, I think we've got a petition and delegation up and ready.

And I see Chief Hurst is here, and I think uh Monica Niederend is online from Blackwell and Associates as well.

Oh.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Yes, I just wanted to introduce Monica Nederand from Blackhole um Blackwell and Associates and also our fire smart coordinator Ryan Eason.

Uh brief presentation on where they've been the last couple of months, updating our 2006 wildfire resiliency plan for View Royal.

You'll find the information quite interesting, and it builds on some of the other work that uh Firefighter Eason has been doing in securing uh nearly a half a million dollars in grants to uh better protect the community.

So I'll turn the presentation over to Monica.

If you have any questions, Monica's available as is Firefighter Eason and myself to answer those questions.

Thank you.

Hi there, just checking in again.

We can hear you fine, Monica.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry.

Um are you able to see my PowerPoint as well?

Sure I can.

Okay, right on.

Okay, well, thank you so much for having me.

Um as Chief mentioned, I'm a professional forester with Blackwell Consulting, and I'm one of the contributors to the community wildfire resiliency plan.

We're a forestry consulting company based in North Vancouver, and we've been completing wildfire plans for communities around the province since 2005.

Um I'll just jump straight to some of these project phases that we've completed for the CWRP.

We started with a background review and field work that was completed in October 2024, and we took the information that we gathered from those project phases to develop the actual plan.

All of that is now complete, and we finalized the plan in January of this year.

The plan itself has two main functions.

It identifies wildfire risk in the community and the consequences of wildfire, and it lays out an action plan to reduce those risks.

You might be familiar with the term wildland urban interface or WUI.

This is a general term for the area where structures meet with undeveloped wildland fuels, but for the CWRP, we have a more specific term, the eligible WUI.

This is defined by UBCM and the BC Wildfire Service to describe the study area for all the CWRPs written in the province.

So all the fieldwork and spatial analysis for this project was completed within the eligible WUI, and an important note is that it does not include private land.

Here we have it mapped out.

It's the area within the bold black line.

Next, we'll discuss the local wildfire threat assessment process.

This was the process used to assign different wildfire threat classes.

So, for example, low, medium, high, or extreme threat to different areas within the eligible buoy.

These wildfire threat classes are shown on this map here.

We obtained these results by taking several different key inputs and analyzing them all together.

So there's four main inputs.

The first one is updated fuel types that we obtained from our field assessments.

So a fuel type is different kinds of vegetation that are associated with different fire behavior characteristics.

Another input to this was the distance of fuels to the community with a higher weighting given to fuel types that are closer to structures and a lower weighting given to fuel types that are further away.

A third input is topography.

Very generally speaking, fires may travel faster, more easily on steep slopes compared with flat terrain.

And the fourth input is information about climate conditions.

So when we put all these inputs together, we can map local wildfire threat.

And the results of our assessment show that most of the municipality is associated with a low wildfire threat, with some areas also of moderate threat.

So some of those areas around Thetis Lake you can see highlighted in yellow.

We did find that most of the conifer forests throughout the regional parks were associated with lower hazard forest fuel types, especially these mature well-spaced second growth forests with shady understories, a herb and deciduous shrub layers below that represent some of those green highlighted areas.

Finally, it should be noted that on private land where analysis wasn't possible, this overlaps about 45% of the eligible wooy, and it emphasizes the importance of engaging with homeowners and residents to reduce their risk.

Next, we had key recommendations made for each of the seven FireSmart disciplines.

This included education, legislation and planning, development considerations, interagency cooperation, cross-training, emergency planning, and vegetation management.

All of the recommendations that were produced in the plan have been drafted with consideration for activities that can be funded through grants from UBCM.

So we're focusing on grant-funded activities here.

Started with education.

Smart education initiatives already.

We recommended maintaining and expanding on these activities, specifically continuing to fund that FireSmart Coordinator position.

We also recommended some new initiatives that could be considered.

So, for example, the FireSmart Education Program working in collaboration with local schools and educators, and the FireSmart Plant Program with local nurseries.

Recommendations for planning and legislation are about using policy tools to reduce wildfire risk.

So here we recommended updating local plans and bylaws so that they reflect current conditions and issues.

This included updating the tree protection bylaw to allow for a qualified professional to designate a hazardous tree and recommend its removal for FireSmart purposes.

Next, we had development considerations.

This is about improving the resiliency of residential neighborhoods and community infrastructure.

An important recommendation under this section is including a wildfire development permit area in the official community plan update.

So as part of this CWRP, we reviewed the wildfire DPA policy that was part of the 2022 draft official community plan, and we found the guidelines in that to be robust and in alignment with most other communities in the province, and as such, we recommended adopting this policy.

Next, we made recommendations for interagency cooperation, and this is about linking local government, stakeholders, and First Nations together to share knowledge.

A key recommendation here is continuing to participate in the Greater Victoria Community Fire Smart and Resiliency Committee.

And we also recommended pursuing a collaborative grant application with Esquimalt Orcosap and Songies First Nations.

It might be noted that this will require a longer time frame to implement because this year's grant application has already been submitted.

Next, we have cross-training.

These recommendations are about ensuring staff who might be involved in emergency or wildfire response are appropriately trained.

So we recommend that View Royal Fire Rescue members continue to attend the Wildfire Resiliency and Training Summit, and that the wildfire training that is already offered to View Royal Firefighters is maintained or expanded upon.

Key recommendations for emergency planning include installing water cisterns and a wildfire equipment cache at key locations in the north end of the municipality.

Will help maintain water sources in known locations outside the hydrant network.

We also recommended the municipality evaluate funding sources to install more pullouts and signage along Barker Road to improve access for emergency vehicles, and additionally evaluate funding sources to add staff resources to emergency management and the fire prevention divisions, as a lack of department capacity was identified as one reason that emergency operations center staff had not met training requirements.

Finally, we made recommendations for vegetation management in a number of different areas.

We recommended continuing to work with volunteer programs to remove scotch broom and other invasive plants throughout the municipality.

So there's an example of a successful partnership like this that's recently occurred in Lankford, as you can see in that photo.

We also recommend continuing to host community chipping days to help residents remove green waste and fire smart their yards.

This has been a successful initiative to date.

And finally, we recommended engaging with BC Hydro to promote vegetation management on their rights of way.

So I'll just finish up there and thank you very much.

We didn't go over time there, but uh if any questions I'm happy to answer.

Thanks, Monica.

Uh any questions for Councillor Lemon and then Councillor Rogers, please.

Thank you.

Um Monica, could you explain what a wildfire development permit area is?

Yes.

It's a uh policy tool that allows municipalities to regulate building materials, um construction and design of individual developments or um significant renovations within a designated area in the municipality.

So this is a policy tool that's been adopted by a number of communities throughout the province.

I would say of varying sizes, but um it allows for additional regulation on top of, for example, the building act.

Does that yeah paint the picture for you?

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

That's a rogers.

Yes, thank you and um thank you for the uh the picture of the old man lake fire that was um I'm on the uh water commission was a great concern to us because it was a park and uh a fire in CRD parks burning towards uh our essential infrastructure um in in around the um uh Souke Lake area so um a good example uh a more relevant example um that um uh Chieferson the department uh worked on was the Mill Hill fire and that was a huge uh concern to all the residents down in the valley of Choco and and um uh through the good worker of the fire department, we managed to sort that out.

The similarities in and of course at theus lake, endless fires in Atheist Lake.

One time I was in Theus Lake when the Mars water Bomber came in to put that one out.

So years of that kind of stuff going on.

And the concern is that when you work with the government agencies, I see that we've not included the CRD parks.

And it seems to me that that is a vital agency to work with.

And I'm always a mystery uh what um what level of fire smart practice they may have in their parks.

I haven't been able to find out.

Were you able to find out anything?

Um we did speak to them in the preparation of the document.

I would say that um I'm in agreement with you, and that's like a recurring theme in some of the plans that I've produced for municipalities on the South Island and and other locations that that kind of collaboration with other land managers that will you know influence the land management practices within your municipalities incredibly important.

We we didn't find opportunities for fuel management that we thought um should be pursued either by CRD parks or by um View Royal of of any size or scale or significance.

So I could I could say like generally speaking and at a landscape scale um the regional parks.

We were not a location where hazardous fuel types of significance were identified.

But I would suggest that obviously, as you continue to see brushfires in these locations, they're an important organization to continue to work with.

Thank you.

My other question is one of the concerns of the FireSmart program is that some may deem it as an excuse to cut down a tree and thus reducing our tree canopy.

How do we strike a balance on that?

Yes, I think I think that's a that's a completely relevant concern, and that's an important consideration when you're you know like looking to encourage the adoption of FireSmart principles and also balancing a lot of those urban forestry concerns.

Um I would say the working with um someone like Ryan, who can be a represent representative in your municipality, a wildfire mitigation specialist.

He has the training to be able to go individual to individual, residence to residence and explain to those homeowners, to those property owners, to those residents what where the relative risk is on their property and make a recommendation as to um, you know, the risk that one individual tree poses versus some of the alternative activities that residents can be encouraged to uh take action on.

And usually there I usually there's many other options for fire smart landscaping.

Removing the tree is the last step and working on some of the other activities is what we encourage first.

Thank you, good to hear.

Um I must say that I'm I'm most impressed with the the recent example where um uh in uh north rue we had an example of a fire development um uh permit area with the the fire smart analysis that was really excellent very helpful and of course the great work that our fire department is doing in in terms of uh ensuring the road and and an exit plan uh should an emergency arise uh as well as uh necessary equipment so all in all uh really excellent thank you for your help thank you thanks monica i've got a couple of uh questions they might be for Paul or Brian uh first question would be um I brought up the issue of standing dead with uh CRD perks, I think last year, and I think they're still in the process of doing an inventory.

Just can you talk a little bit about the relationship between I know it's in your or our AOR, um but it's managed by by the CRD?

What's the breakdown?

Yes, yeah, for sure.

So that that's that's kind of a tricky piece, as and I think as if your previous counselor alluded to as well.

So there are regional parks managed by CRD parks, they're within that eligible wooy, that study area for the View Royal CWRP.

That doesn't change the fact that they're managed and they're the jurisdiction of that other agency.

So there's that interrelationship of risk.

They um they're there's they influence the risk of the neighborhoods that they surround.

Um at the same time, they're managed by another agency.

We did assess those parks.

Um we didn't find opportunity for significant vegetation management.

Um, I I'm not to not to dispute that there may be standing dead in those areas, but generally the position of the CWRP and the recommendations that we make is that a platform like that community fire smart and Resiliency committee that um Ryan does attend and that View Royal has participated in, like, that's the appropriate platform to start those conversations and to invite people to work together in collaboration because many municipalities are in a similar situation, especially on the South Island.

There is various land managers, everyone's working together.

There's different people with different responsibilities.

So yeah, does that kind of help uh explain that?

Yeah, thanks, Monica.

Paul, you had a point.

Yeah, and that's a good point, Mayor.

The there are two separate landlords with conflicting priorities or philosophical views on how to manage the risk.

CRD is an entity on itself.

Our previous plan in 2006 uh was a joint plan with the CRD, because of course that's our largest forested area.

And the concern is either a fire starting in View Royal and spreading to the forest or a forest fire spreading into View Royal.

We're we are at we are at odds on philosophies of fuel management.

The CRD parks, um, and I think it's fair to say they have a philosophy of of leaving the forest as is, where our philosophy is to try to clear out some of the the fuel loads.

Um so there is opportunity in high-risk areas like the roadways and the and the and the areas just off the road where we see a lot of public interaction.

The forest itself, as Monica brought up, has areas that are they're not as a significant concern.

And and the other issue is is you're surrounded, you've got 13 fire departments surrounding Thetis Lake Park.

So there's a there's a robust response capability that we don't see in the interior.

So that's one of our advantages is a small fire in Thetis Lake tends to remain small, uh, where in the interior no fire department it'll spread and it's larger.

But we're working with CRD.

We're just we're trying to balance our um our philosophies and priorities on fuel management versus uh you know clearing out the forest.

Understand.

Uh one question, uh another question for you, Paul.

Is it possible uh that we organize um perhaps a joint um uh opportunity for grants with the First Nations and uh us for next year?

Absolutely.

Uh as Monica alluded to, that the cycle uh that we just finished um has been approved.

And I mentioned to Mayor and Council that was upwards of $400,000, which is exceptional for the town of Uroyal.

That's good work by Ryan.

We do have an opportunity to engage our two First Nations, and we've already discussed that with them and bringing them into the mix because they have a vested interest as well from a cultural perspective, as well as how we manage our forests and how they interact with that.

So absolutely that they'll be engaged in the next process.

Great.

Thanks, um uh can I get a motion to receive the um the briefing moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Not opposed.

Thanks again, Monica.

And I think that brings us down to public participation.

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the room first if anybody would like to address council on anything on the agenda.

Twice?

Three times.

Carl, do we get anybody uh online that has submitted a form for uh for the public participation period?

Mayor Tobias, we've got no messages so far.

Thank you.

Uh I think that brings us down to our staff reports, and that's uh I think we'll start with Stephen for the consolidated financial statements.

Here at the town.

I'm here today to present the draft 2024 consolidated financial statements.

The community charter requires that the financial statements be prepared by the financial officer in accordance with public sector accounting standards and presented to council for acceptance, uh, and that they be subsequently submitted to the inspector of municipalities by May 15th of each year.

Next slide, Carl.

There we go.

Attached to the staff report are the draft 2024 consolidated financial statements, which include various components prepared in accordance with standards established by the public sector accounting board, as well as the 2024 audit findings report.

Corey Vanderhorst from our council appointed auditor MNP is online and will be speaking to his audit findings once I'm done discussing the financial statements.

Next slide.

So first off, to review the roles of management, mayor and council and the auditor.

It is management's responsibility to prepare the financial statements in accordance with the applicable accounting standards.

It is mayor and counsel who oversees management and to whom the auditor reports.

And the auditor is appointed by council and has access to all records affecting financial reporting by the town.

Okay, so jumping into the numbers here, I'll start off with highlights from the statement of financial position.

So this is a snapshot of the town's assets and liabilities at the end of 2024.

And we've seen growth in our financial assets at the top there, which is all the cash we have and the cash that is owed to us, an increase of $4.2 million over 2023.

When we look at our liabilities, excluding our MFA debt, which is paid out over paid out over a longer period of time.2 to 20.3 million, resulting from an increase in developer securities held by the town as well as development cost charges received in the year.

DCCs are treated as liability until such time as they are used to fund projects and then are recorded as revenue.

You can see we're chipping away at our long-term debt relating to the public safety building down to 3.7 million.

In 2026, the debt relating to the land will be paid off and will be we will have about $2.7 million left outstanding on the building.

Our net financial asset position of 31.4 million, and that number represents if we paid off all our obligations tomorrow.

What would we be left with to continue to deliver services to the community?

And that is up about three and a half million from 2023.

Tangible capital assets increased slightly from last year as the amount of investment in new and existing assets was about a million dollars greater than the rate of depreciation in 2024.

This slide looks at our revenues comparing budget to actual to 2023.

Total revenues came in at just over $26 million against the budget of $24.7 million dollars, down slightly from 2023 due to the one time $4.6 million growing communities grant payment we received in 2023.

And the first is investment income, which came in at over $2 million against the budget of $465,000 and up from $1.9 million last year.

Interest rates were much higher than expected, resulting in the increased investment income.

Sales of services came in at $5.8 million against a budget of $5.4, mostly attributable to higher than expected permit revenue.

And cash in lieu of parking to the tune of $504,000 relating to the Canadian Tire project contributed to a total of over $1 million in developer contributions versus a budget of $634,000 and up slightly from 2023.

In terms of where we fell short, government grants came in under by about $1.2 million, and that reflects the value of grant funded projects that were carried forward to 2025.1 million dollars in revenue, and we can see that property taxes for municipal purposes made up almost half of that amount.

Then we have government grants and transfers and user fees and sales of services like permit revenue making up about one third combined.

Carl, next slide.

Okay, so over to expenditures.

This slide looks at our total expenses of $21.4 million, resulting in a positive variance of approximately $2.1 million against the budget of $23.5 million.

As mentioned in my report that I'll highlight here is protective services, the bulk of which is RCMP related expenses, where we were under budget, around a million dollars in 2024.

About half of the million dollar variance was related to operations funded from tax.

And per the town's reserves policy staff transferred that portion of the surplus, an extra $454,000 to the RCMP operating reserve for future use.

The remaining variance was spread over the other departments.

And since the budget includes strategic non-core projects, when those projects are carried forward, we experience a positive variance on the expenditure side.

Next slide.

So this slide just presents the breakdown of the various types of expenses in their share of the 21.4 million dollar total with labor and benefits in the green making up a little more than one third of that.

Next slide, Carl.

So after all said and done for 2024, we ended up just shy of a $4.7 million surplus.

What's important to remember is that this is a surplus for accounting purposes.

When we prepare the financial statements, items like capital projects, which are an expense in our budget, show up as assets on the financial statements.

So there's a bit of a disconnect between how we budget according to the community charter versus how we report in the financial statements.

We've got the surplus of $4.66 million.

This slide here will help us see how we did against our actual budget.

And if we remove those non financial asset transactions, so deduct the capital projects at $4.7 million, add back our amortization and other items like the change in proportionate share of West Shore Parks and Rec.

We come to a net change in our financial assets of $3.5 million.

We discussed what contributed to our favorable revenue position versus budget, as well as where we came in under budget on the expenditure side.

And together those are what drove the surplus for 2024.

Next slide.

Okay, so lastly, we'll review the town's accumulated surplus.

If you look at the first statement of the attachment, the statement of financial position, it does display an accumulated surplus of 154 million dollars.

I do need to highlight that what is included in that number is equity and tangible capital assets of 119 million.

Like calculating the equity in your home, this number represents the total historical cost of all the assets in the town, such as sewer pipe, roads, and drains, minus uh accumulated depreciation and any related debt.

Outstanding.

When we separate that out, the remaining $35 million in cash surplus includes $7.7 million in appropriated surplus.

This includes casino reserve, community works funds, and provincial grant money.

Although there was an increase in provincial grants of over $500,000 in 2024, that amount was offset by the use of casino and community works funds to deliver projects and services to the community.

Council may recall, we used about $175,000 of this unrestricted surplus to help lower the tax increase in 2025.

And then there's the restricted surplus of $19 million.

So next slide, Carl.

The $19 million is statutory reserve money, and this slide displays the breakdown of those reserves.

So what stands out to me is the jump in capital renewal, which is directly linked to our asset management planning efforts, the increase in developer contributed reserve money, which is cash in lieu of parking and community amenity contributions in 2024.

The use of growing communities funds to finance about half of the six-mile roundabout project in 2024, and the growth in our police operating reserve that I touched on earlier.

I hope you found it helpful.

So that was a high-level review.

With that, it's staff's recommendation that council accept and approve the 2024 consolidated financial statements.

Happy to take any questions before we turn it over to our auditor.

Questions.

Council Matson.

Actually, not so much a question.

I just wanted to thank you for a very comprehensive and clear and understandable presentation.

Thank you.

Councilor Matson and Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

And um one of the uh the questions I had with we the amount of uh amazing interest that we had accumulated and unexpectedly show.

Um when we get that 1.4 million, where do we put it?

Do we just reinvest it, keep it in the bank for further as it as the interest grows?

I'm trying to think of the 1.4 million specific.

Oh sorry, that's um um that was you know the amount of interest, the bank interest.

Um, you know, we got uh oh the the uh the variance.

Yeah, exactly.

Uh that gets re reinvested in in high interest again.

So so we keep it fairly conservative, strictly interest bearing um investments.

Yeah.

Right.

With the current investment market being so uncertain, um are we likely to get the same kind of interest or lose money?

We've seen the interest rates sort of stabilize and and not we're still being conservative forward looking.

We did bump the budget in 2025 by about 200,000 up to the 600 range.

Yeah, good, thank you.

Um in the actual uh report, um I I see we have um the is it the auditor's report from M NP?

MNP, right?

Right.

Um there was uh a question from page 36.

I don't know if you can and it was with respect to audit and reporting matters.

That's page 30, that's 36 on I'm not sure.

That's my number.

Document page is page two of the yeah.

And I'm not I'm not sure if you can can assist, but uh and maybe the auditors can pass this on to the auditors for for explanation.

But um I note that um on changes from audit service plan, uh they they noted that over the course of our audit two deviations were made from this plan, property tax revenue and government transfers were removed as significant risk areas any any comment on that right uh that's we did not engage with him on that that was strictly decisions made uh by the auditor basically so so i can't really speak to that i'm sure corey will yeah yeah he he will be here online he's waiting in the wings oh yeah absolutely yep sure any other questions for steven i think you can segue into the um auditor's presentation and then we'll um vote to um accept.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, thank you.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Uh and thank you for inviting me to uh attend your council meeting tonight uh and for giving me the option to be uh remote.

I have several several counseling meetings this week and uh this works out quite well.

Um and thank you to Steven for going through the financial statements.

Uh that was a really great summary.

So I do have a short presentation that I'll take you through and then I'll be happy to answer the the counselor's question and and then open for for any other questions if there are some.

Let's get that.

Apologies.

So we are happy to be providing what we call an unqualified opinion.

That's a you know auto language for a clean audit.

We are satisfied that the financial statements that Stephen just gave you a summary of are prepared accurately in all material respects, uh, in accordance with the Canadian public sector accounting standards, which is the the appropriate standards for municipalities.

We're ready to send the report.

We have all of our uh audit work completed, uh up right up to including today.

Um so the last steps would be approval after after the discussion, um, and I will be able to send um uh the final audit report through.

When we go through our audit process um so just a little bit of what we do we look at the controls uh that are operating um make sure that you're getting accurate financial results we sample transactions when we're doing our auto work we don't we don't look at every transaction and to do that um and calculate how many samples we're gonna do and how much uh work we're gonna do to to be get get comfortable with financial statements we use this number of materiality so it's calculated as uh 1.1 million dollars that is the same number as as was used in the prior year.

It's calculated as a a percentage of your annual revenues, about five percent and this means that we're looking at everything that's over $1.1 million.

So that's usually large grants, capital projects and and the property taxes.

And then for any transactions below $1.1 million, we're sampling to get comfort over the balances.

If there's any differences that we discovered in the course of our audit, I wouldn't be able to give you a clean audit opinion if they were either individually over $1.1 million or if they added up to uh uh a $1.1 billion or larger than that.

Um, so the good news there is we don't have any significant items that were bringing the council's attention tonight, a very clean audit.

Um, and it goes very smoothly.

There was no limitations placed on the audit work.

We had access to all the documents we want to see, all the people we want to talk to to satisfy ourselves that the financial statements are accurate.

There are no significant unadjusted items, as I mentioned earlier, to bring to your attention, and we didn't find any irregularities or unusual transactions.

We're not specifically looking for fraud when we do a financial statement audit.

The main focus is are the numbers accurate.

But if something came to my attention, I would be required to report it out to council.

So I don't have anything to report out tonight, and that's a good news.

Review the annual report when it's available to ensure that the financial statements are going into the annual report and uh you know not missing any pages or not having any any items that are transposed and and aren't telling the full picture of the the financial statements again.

Uh a big thank you to uh staff uh and uh in the finance department and all through uh all of your staff.

It's not just finance that we're bugging and asking questions, um, but everybody you know answers promptly, gets us the information that we're asking for, and it goes very well.

I will confirm our independence.

We didn't do any other projects with uh View Royal from January 1st, 2024 to May 13th, 2025.

That would impair my ability to give you an independent audit opinion.

And I will pause there.

I'll I'll uh I'll turn off the sharing.

I I do want to quickly address the one question from council and and thank you for for bringing it up.

Um the change in the audit plan.

So in the initial audit plan that was the provided in the fall, property tax revenues and government transfers would have had been identified as high risk for audit purposes.

Uh so there's um in prior years, we had treated almost all of your revenues as high risk and spending more time in them.

Um so as we get more comfortable with with the town and your finances, we've taken the property tax revenue and the government transfers and essentially reduced our assessment of the risk.

We're still doing the same amount of work, we're just not flagging them as high risk areas anymore.

So for property tax, for example, we're doing a full recalculation based on your your budget bylaw, um checking that all the rates are applied to the property assessment values properly, you know, checking that the flow through taxes are are are clearing out.

And government transfers we still spend time looking at any new uh grant funding, significant amounts, what year are they gonna be spent in um do they meet the accounting standard rules for what's going to be deferred or what's gonna be recognized in revenue.

So there's still a significant amount of time spent there.

We've just lowered the the risk rating for audit purposes.

Hopefully that's uh that provides an explanation.

Yes, thank you.

Great.

Thanks.

Uh counsel, do you have any questions for the auditor?

No questions for the auditor.

Anything more from you, Stephen?

Okay.

Uh so I think that the um staff recommendation is that uh council accept and approve the 2024 consolidated financial statements, including the auditors report.

Um can I have a mover and a seconder, please?

Moved by counselor Rogers, seconded by councillor Lemmon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you, Corey.

Um and I think that brings us down to Sterling or Leanne to the official community plan review and update what we heard report number two and the gross survey engagement week number one.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you for the introduction.

Yeah, presenting tonight the uh summary of what we heard for our second uh what we heard report as part of our official community plan and uh there we go.

Sorry for the technical difficulty.

Um so like I said, uh presenting on the what we heard report uh number two for the official community plan review and update.

Uh this is specifically looking at uh how we grow and covers the uh engagement period between March 7th and April 4th, which included an online survey, a social map that was online, uh several open houses, some workshops, and a pop-up event.

And what we were looking at specifically during this period of time was a review of our major development and growth concepts that are existing in the official community plan, uh including the uh the community development framework.

And um, that includes the concept of the town center, the urban neighborhood uh or sorry, neighborhood centers rather, uh, and uh community corridors.

Go ahead, Leanne.

Yeah yeah um, our apologies.

Um, one of our computers is having some technical difficulties this evening so the webcasters is is going to share the presentation for sterling thank you we could go to the second slide thank you um so the purpose uh we discovered that the um uh kind of scope of engagement that we covered through this phase so we did a community growth survey uh and a social map these were uh available online through the project webpage engage view rural and uh like i said they're open from uh march fourth or sorry march seventh to april fourth uh the community growth Survey had approximately 176 responses uh the uh social map had 54 uh responses.

There was a range of questions including mapping and like Likert scale questions, open ended questions.

The social map was an opportunity for respondents to place pins on a map showing where development was of interest or not of interest.

Participants could place uh little stickers uh indicating their support or not support for uh the questions uh provided, uh and they could also place sticky notes uh providing comments for uh staff.

It was a almost mirror uh of the community growth survey, but we did have to make some slight changes to the formatting just because they were on these large panels.

So a total of uh 60 uh 68 uh participants at our open houses.

Finally, we had our workshops.

Uh we had one um workshop that was uh held on the um uh the 8th, actually.

Sorry, that's a a typo on the PowerPoint slide.

So the 8th uh of March at the Victoria Scottish Community Center, and then we also had uh two that were held uh virtually both on the 13th between 12 and 1:30 and in an evening session 7 to 8 30 these were um kind of a cons uh consolidated version of what the uh the community growth survey was and asked three questions um in a group discussion format participants could uh discuss with the uh staff that facilitated this uh workshop and it generally asked um about areas of growth uh our neighborhood centers our community corridors and uh the town center as a as a concept uh for future growth and development in the town.

Next slide, please.

To promote all this uh engagement, we had uh we continue to use our project webpage, uh Engage View Royal.

We had uh approximately 930 views, uh 50 563 uh visitors and a total of 234 contributions.

Those contributions would include the uh the online survey uh discussion uh webpage forum um contributions and uh uh comments provided through the uh social map staff uh continue to use our uh social media accounts so facebook we had uh 19 posts uh approximately 700 or sorry, 7600 uh views, and we continue to push notifications through uh our viewer e newsletter, our email uh and news release.

And then we can uh also use newspaper advertisement and posters.

Next slide, please.

So like I said, the focus of the survey was to uh look at our existing community development framework.

This is an existing concept, uh, existing policies within the official community plan.

Um this map shows what that's uh what that is in the uh in the document.

It is a simplified version of what is uh shown in the 2011 uh community plan, and this is what was provided in our uh panels uh via uh the open house, the the workshops, and the community growth survey.

And what we were really trying to do was trying to do a temperature check with uh this existing uh concept, these existing concepts.

So project team was really interested in uh identifying is this still valid moving forward?

Um are these still areas of interest for growth?

Um, are these areas still uh of interest to uh see develop?

And what's interesting is that some of these areas have developed uh as envisioned in the 2011 official community plan, and some areas have not.

Um, a couple of instances where development has not happened would be the uh Atkins Neighborhood Center and the uh the Fort Victoria site, which is uh located uh uh on Island Highway and is uh shown here as a town center.

Next slide, please.

So over the next couple slides, I'll provide a brief summary of what uh the feedback we heard through the community growth survey was um I would encourage uh council to take a look at all the feedback the uh staff report provides a summary and then attached to the staff report is a uh a full comprehensive review uh via the what we heard report um there is uh verbatim comments in the uh in the what we heard report for each of the questions uh that respondents answered via the community growth survey uh as well as through the workshops and the uh open houses um it's really interesting to see uh the the diverse and uh uh uh uh amount of comments that we uh we received so in in the community growth survey and in the panels we had asked uh respondents to consider the existing neighborhood centers concept and whether this would be an area that they would uh envision seeing or these areas envision seeing uh further expansion and growth to facilitate development and uh we asked uh for feedback on the uh the four neighborhood uh centers uh as we can see here there was uh support for uh expansion of all of these uh neighborhood centers and um we um can you go to the next slide please we then asked whether there was uh support for uh increase in height for these uh neighborhood centers.

And what's important to look at here is that the four uh or sorry, the three blue lines actually show different varies, varying interests in supporting heights, height increases.

The light blue line shows up to six stories, the uh slightly darker blue line shows up to 10 stories, and the darkest blue line uh shows up more than 10 stories would be supported for uh the neighborhood uh center.

So in in all of these instances we see uh an increase uh for height.

And if you take all of those uh the the three blue color colors for each of these neighborhood centers uh and consolidate them, it would be uh approximately 82% support for increase in height in the hospital neighborhood, 76% increase in height for the Atkins neighborhood center, 64% for the Burnside neighborhood center, and 68% for the Lakeside Neighborhood Center.

And this would be up to and greater than six uh stories or sorry, up to six stories minimum.

Next slide, please.

We then asked the a similar question for the community corridors, and here we can see that the question asked was whether there would be support for expansion of community corridors, and respondents indicated uh strongly that there would be in the four community corridors in the community.

Next slide, please.

And again, with uh respect to height, we had asked if there would be support or interest in uh supporting greater height in in these areas.

And uh much like the the uh slide showing the neighborhood centers, uh fit similar formats to the lighter blue, uh darker blue, and uh darker, darkest blue, uh all show uh height increases um of up to six stories, up to ten stories, and more than 10 stories.

When consolidating the three colors for each of the uh corridors, we see that the eastern neighborhood uh or sorry, eastern community corridor has uh 77 77 percent uh support, uh the northern community corridor 73 percent, the western corridor 78 percent, and the Helpkin Harbor neighborhood 61 percent for up to uh uh six doors next slide please can i ask you a question uh just uh for clarification uh is this out of 100 percent i'm just wondering because you've got uh your orange line i'm just looking at helmkin harbor community corridor for instance and it says 55 55 responses 32 percent total uh but we've also got seven or two percent and then four percent, which is i'm not sure.

Can you define what other means?

Did they write something else down?

Through the through the very yes, they they would have uh written a a comment down, and that that would be available in the what we heard report.

And uh that is a good point I can clarify in terms of the differing different uh numbers.

The the survey was not mandatory to complete, so uh respondents could have responded to some of the questions, uh they could have left some of them blank.

So if you take a look at the numbers, there will be slight discrepancies in seeing between some questions you'll see slightly more responses versus slightly less.

Um, but every question uh that's shown here and in the report represents um uh based on 100%, but the number of uh responses may differ.

Uh so while we had 176 responses submitted, um, those respondents may not have answered every single question um with respect to the uh the the town center we had uh we'd asked a a very kind of broad question in terms of whether the um there was support for the development of a town center knowing that the uh this concept was envisioned in the 2011 OCP but was never uh developed it was uh kind of earmarked as a a civic uh center that would be uh higher density uh transit oriented and um it uh just never never uh came to fruition.

The uh so 63% of respondents had indicated support for this.

And uh interestingly, 52 percent of respondents uh saw that there would be support at this location.

Um, but that means there was uh a large number of uh respondents that also saw other locations for uh a town center.

And uh I've included here on the slide uh a map showing where those locations are on uh via the uh the pink dots.

So we see uh approximately three other four other locations.

Uh one of them is near the Eagle Creek uh village on Helmkin.

Uh there was some interest in uh having a town center on Admirals, uh some interest in having one at the corner of Helmkin and uh Island Highway, and then other interest on uh the uh Wilfort slash Island Highway uh over in the western Community Corridor.

The maps also show some of the responses that uh were other responses that were asked in the uh um in the the survey and uh that includes the general uh social map question uh in terms of where uh potential development or density would or would not be supported.

Um and same the same question was asked in the uh community growth survey as well.

Next slide, please.

Wrapping up, um, we'd also asked Go ahead, Council Watson.

I'm looking at the map where the red dots or little dots are, and so there's seems to be a disconnect between wanting high density along some of these corridors where on this little map it says social map, no density here.

So a big chunk of the island highway, they want no density, increased density on where the dots are versus some of the other maps I saw where we had you know densification six stories along the island highway.

So I just there's a yeah, it was a big disconnect for me compared to this document says no density, and yet in other places I've seen this density was put.

And I could talk about some of the other areas.

Staff were interested in understanding what uh, if any of the uh considerations there would be um in permitting taller buildings.

This was an open ended question.

Respondents were able to provide bullet points, full-on paragraphs, uh sentences, and uh what staff did was uh we took a look at all the responses and tried to uh break down into fairly large themes what some of the uh the input was, and from that we gathered kind of these top five factors.

Again, all the ratum responses are in the what we heard report, and uh a much more detailed breakdown of the themes are identified.

Um, but we can see here building and site design uh is certainly a big factor, uh, density, uh the character of the building and height transition between neighborhoods, uh, affordable housing uh and proximity transportation represent the uh the five uh kind of most important factors for for respondents.

Next slide, please.

We had also asked respondents to uh indicate what uh businesses and services they'd be interested in having uh with uh mixed use developments, and uh this was uh not an open-ended question, it was uh based on uh possible responses that were provided, and uh here we see that the overwhelmingly uh large support for restaurants and cafes, uh health services uh and uh grocery store.

Next slide, please.

And final slide for this presentation.

Um the the final uh question that was uh uh I'll share was the um consideration for how the Western Gateway Community Corridor was to uh was interested in being developed and growing in the future.

And um, this has been uh an interesting uh conversation in our workshops and uh in our uh in our open uh house uh sessions, and um what we see uh kind of across the board is an interest in development in this area in our uh community growth survey we see that the uh large number of respondents are interested in seeing this area develop with both commercial and light industrial and uh some residential use next slide please um that's the the conclusion of the presentation um uh the recommendation for council tonight is to receive the report and um I um I'm available to answer any questions.

Yeah, I can lead off.

So what's next for engagement?

Thank you, Barry Tobias.

Um I believe it is uh two two council agenda items away.

Uh I will be presenting on a um kind of uh an engagement week uh plan um for upcoming engagements uh that will be happening in uh May and June.

So able to get into more detail then.

Great.

Thank you, Sterling.

Uh questions for uh Sterling.

Go ahead, Councillor Rogers.

Questions, observations, comments.

Um the survey was really very interesting.

And what what uh struck me most was um uh the comments uh because when we were asking um you know, would you like uh you know more density, would you feel more density is in in this area or that area, lakeside for example?

It took me a while to figure out Lakeside.

No, you meant Choco and um the it was um already built out comment after comment already built out already built out already built out already built out the next best thing was traffic traffic traffic traffic you know congestion or you know like how are we gonna cope with that we're already uh you know under the under the gun for um um you know rush hour so that was really interesting to see as you know when uh they were and I think I heard that also from the OCP advisory committee um you know those uh those two aspects um and yeah, you know, when when I we saw the uh the height uh options, and I was really curious to see that it was um, you know ten, 10, 6, but not four.

There was no, you know, you didn't um the survey did not have an option for somebody to pick four, which was in the 2011 OCP, like keep it the same.

And so um when I was looking at this, I thought we we so we missed something.

You know, in my mind, we missed something that um where people had uh could have had the opportunity to verify uh what they were possibly happy with, because I I saw there was a um also a lot of um no no more density.

And if you combine the orange, no more density with the gray, other, and then you read the other, and they were saying, I want four.

So, you know, you put those two together, and particularly the the harbor and the island highway section.

Um, they were, um, and then as the Council Matson points out in the social response map, a blaze of orange, um, you know, opposing uh or expressing concerns uh about that intersection of uh Helmick and Island Highway.

Um and um, you know, I also noticed on page 221 a lot of concerns and and uh a plea for no density to protect Millstream Creek.

And I do find that interesting because in our two-case scenarios, we're recommending industry to go next to Maelstream Creek, a highly sensitive um fish-bearing stream.

So I'm trying to equate that with our um OCP vision of protecting the ecosystem, protecting the wildlife, protecting, you know, those kind of things.

So that that does worry me a bit.

And, you know, at least there was the question was, what do you mean by light industry?

And that was a good point.

You know, would do you support light industry and and a bit of residential on the uh the corridor?

Well, if you don't operationally define light industry, they may think it's um, as we know, our definitions have um uh cannabis grow operation, growth production plant, as well as uh auto repair.

So we haven't, we didn't really define that in the in the survey, and I guess that was that uh um that was uh interesting for interpretation so um and then then of course some of the questions remarkable feedback in the other in the uh in the comments and I really appreciate gathering that because that certainly is formating and helped me to formulate um um you know the uh the positions of where we're going on the on the uh the scenarios I think the residents even though we only got 200 or 250 I think um I think the other thing too is that the the 50 people that attended the open houses they probably had a better uh opportunity to gain some further insight and and um uh really understand what's um uh what all this could mean so uh thank you for doing the surveys and getting the public input appreciate it thanks counselor rogers uh just one um two comments one is that uh one of the favorite parts of the survey that I liked was um the uh themes for future businesses and services and that was 87% of the respondents would like restaurants and cafes I think the other school folks wanted restaurants and cafes too so I don't know if they've tainted their parents uh or the other way around uh but eighty two percent of the respondents would like health services, doctor's office, clinic labs sixty four percent of the respondents would like a grocery store.

So I think that that those are are good things.

The only thing I would ask in future engagements, because not a lot of folks read a lot of words, but if we had a picture of like a neighborhood center, and this is a town center, there is a subtle difference.

Like from when I was investigating a town center, apparently looks like uptown, according to people that design these things.

A neighborhood center looks like something like Eagle Creek or Admiral's Walk.

Um, so I arguably there's some out there, but if we could, I know I know in the big book of Bible planning for municipalities, there must be an adequate definition.

But I think what would really make the difference is actually showing what they look like versus a lot of text, because people will go for the yeah, I want that, I don't want that, uh, in a quick answer.

But uh thanks for engaging uh the folks and thanks for letting council know, Sterling.

I think this is uh this is great data to come in.

I mean, this will all go going to formulate some of council's opinion as we go along.

So this is good stuff.

Thank you.

And uh so we uh gonna get a mover in this or another comment, Counselor Matson.

Yeah, in in terms of a comment, I mean, one of the things I think we need, and it's like for example, I've been complaining for years that FSR means nothing to just about everyone.

Uh similarly, when it comes to do you want 10 stories greater than 10 stories or six stories?

I you need to we need to show them sort of pictures of what these things would look like in those areas and then get a reality check in terms of you know, did they just pick off 10 because it sounded interesting?

Uh, versus, you know, would you like a whole corridor of the six stories over here that that building?

And and so I just don't think that uh we we we probably didn't do a good enough job actually just explaining to residents what some of these things would look like.

Uh there was a great picture in the last draft of that OCP about six stories all along the the corridor, and which certainly led to a huge outcry from people saying they didn't want that sort of thing.

But that's because the picture was there for people to look at.

So I really think in some of these things we need to sort of show people what it looks like.

With Councillor McKenzie and then Councillor Lemon, please.

Yes, thanks for uh this report.

I just had two kind of suggestions based on um our approach uh with the engagement, and maybe we could make changes for the future engagements.

Um, I understand that you guys had pop-ups, but that was more just to tell people about the survey as opposed to getting them to fill out the survey on the spot.

So I think it would be really valuable going forward if we could have like a tablet where people could actually fill out the survey on the spot at those pop-ups, as opposed to just telling them to about it and then they maybe not filling it in afterwards.

Um, the other thing I noticed that the workshops um at the Scottish Heritage Center was that at the tables, that's where most of the staff were.

And to be honest, I recognized everyone around those tables.

To me, the more valuable information uh was the people who were just coming in, maybe a little bit shyer and just reading the boards in the background.

But if we could make sure that we're capturing their perspective as well, because they're um maybe less familiar with council and we don't know them as much, but we would like to get their opinion just to make sure that we capture all different perspectives.

So just maybe some suggestions for our future engagement.

Thank you.

Council Lemon.

Yeah thank you.

Thank you Steph.

I I note that um parks and green spaces are high priority for many, if not most of the of the respondents.

Does that equate to uh you know a a climate component of you know addressing climate concerns, um climate action within the OCP.

Would we would is there room for questions about that?

You know, um is there in in a in a workshop or a survey, is there room for a climate perspective?

Through the mayor, uh absolutely um the the the caveat being is that right now we're looking at uh land use um I think if we want to get into those uh those questions um particularly on climate change um you know and how we how we manage such a a big topic that'll be when we get into phase two of this uh of this review and update where we're actually looking at our policy um for the remainder of the OCP um that would be our general um policies on transportation environment uh sustainability and I think that's where that would be uh more appropriate to ask those questions and they could be tied in with uh what we've done through our land use uh planning and then it would also inform uh our uh development permit uh guidelines which is in phase three Sterling can you remind council what we need to have delivered by December, and that this process goes on beyond December, if I'm correct.

Um, but what do we need to deliver to the province in December?

See the mayor.

Uh, so we we've broken the project down into three phases.

In the first phase, which we're working on now, uh, we're doing an update of our uh land use uh designations uh and housing, and we're also looking at special planning areas and our vision.

Um, the housing aspect, which is legislated through the province uh through the bills, uh, is we're required to have that done by December 31st of this year.

Uh so by law has to be adopted, and that ensures that our uh land use designations are consistent with the uh housing needs report.

Um, the future phases that we're we're working on, phase two, uh, as I just explained, is looking at our general policies.

Uh, we'll follow uh our phase one.

It'll start in um this this fall and be likely be completed by next fall.

The third phase, uh I'll say rough timeline of start is probably gonna be 2027.

Okay, so if we did nothing else but take the requirements they asked us to rezone uh transit-oriented development near the hospital and some other areas was for six units for SPA, the rest of the um the rest of View Royal as SMA that was designated as SMA, with the exception of the places up beyond uh Dietas Lake.

If we delivered that to the province, that would satisfy the province's requirement, would it not for in December?

I think Leanne had a point after you, but I'll let you go first really.

Just because she's your boss, you you can go first.

No, okay.

Leanne.

Through this thank you, Mayor Tobias, for that question.

So based on the desktop calculation in of the number of uh small parcels and the number of units that could be generated, three to six units, uh, yes, uh, we would be meeting our housing need and um um associated with our interim housing needs report um we would still have to do an OCP amendment to designate those lands, um small scale multi-unit housing designation or something along those lines, um, as well as um um provide uh designate the lands within the toa.

Um however, if council goes back and looks at the the scope, the project scope of the OCP and what um council approved in terms of what um the three phases will look at is not just that.

And um and so yes, there's that component, and we can do a very quick OCP amendment, but um I understand the community is looking for more.

No, Leanne, I'm I'm cognizant of that.

I just want council reminded of what as a bare minimum we need to deliver in December, not saying that we're on the wrong track or anything like that, just saying the the reason we're doing it now, I'm assuming that um that the government wanted to see all of the small, all of the TOA enshrined in our OCP period the other stuff that we do is for the benefit of the community and the services and everything else associated but that's that's the whole reason behind the new five year cycle okay thank you uh the the last uh thing I wanted to ask was the participation rates for OCP engagement have we got anything back from any other municipal municipalities are we doing okay I know it's always a struggle to get people to fill out surveys and participate in things but we're all doing our OCPs around the same time.

Are you talking to other folks that have done something that's um that's different or got different participation?

Uh to the mayor, uh I no, I haven't uh I I don't have any numbers for what other municipalities have seen in terms of participation rates.

Uh interestingly though, we did actually see an uptick in in the number of uh survey responses from our uh vision uh and guiding principles survey to our community growth survey, uh, which typically doesn't happen.

Typically as you move through an OCP process, you typically see uh kind of a a decline as you uh move through the process.

So it is encouraging to see um in the uh the agenda item that I'll speak to uh later tonight, uh kind of review some of the uh the methods of engagement that we're gonna be coming back with for uh the next round of engagement and um you know kind of trying to keep that uptick of of numbers, you know, uh growing and trying to get more people involved uh also knowing that this is a a multi-year uh project yeah thanks truly other comments so I think councilor Matson Council Rogers please yeah just one more comment again back to this the density thing and and corridors I I'm wondering if people are talking that on certain spots on a corridor they think a a density of a certain amount would be sufficient but I have a hard time believing they would think that this that means the whole corridor should be uh of a specific height just because they've you know 50 people say in the harbor precinct put in something so I and that and the the number of 176 I mean I I would hate to see us do huge things to our town on the basis of 176 people responding but but so that's my comment in terms of that but but I've been out of the this is a question so and I really had a hard time with this one and our population increased up to 2040 based on the report you know some one of the uh population projections is 2538 by 19 or by 2040 but in our housing needs study it says we need 280 2889 units to sort of meet that and so for my my thinking and and that s we for for each individual we need a a housing unit that's what it says to me and so how does population projections increases uh fit into the whole OCP given we actually have a 2500 population projection for by 2040 and like is this something we should be working towards in the OCP or because it seems to be there's a total different way of determining how many houses we need when our population is projected to be so much less than would fit in that amount of housing I think they're mutually exclusive.

Population and the the needs, housing needs that the province has imposed or the targets are merch mutually exclusive from our projected growth right now.

I say that right, Leanne.

They're two different numbers.

They aren't they they don't coincide with each other.

But so BC stats has given us here's your projected population growth, and the government is saying this is how much how many new units you need to build.

And I think per unit you're looking at two point three something uh per unit uh for for people to live in.

But yeah, I get your discrepancy, but I don't think there's a correlation directly between population projection and but just simply and based on population, we're you know they're asking for like 1400 more units than we need, which makes no sense to me.

And why would we do an OCP on a basis of that versus population projections?

Maybe staff can answer that one.

Want to take a stab, Certainly?

I think if I understand the question uh correctly, I I think uh Mayor Tobias, you you summed it up well that there is a difference between the housing need and population projections.

Um I will also say that uh Director Taylor will be getting into the land use and uh housing capacity analysis as the next item on the agenda.

Um, do you want to add anything?

No.

Councilor Rutter.

Yeah, um if I can I come back to question three to facilitate future growth over the next 20 years, would you support expansion uh to support transit use and transit oriented development?

Um it was interesting again reading the comments uh because the uh the folks of the uh Lakeside Choco um areas were choked.

Um they've um I remember speaking to Lamona and and uh the astonishing work we put in houses, tons and tons of houses and and lakeside, tons and tons of units, and up on top of Theus Lake, tons and tons, a thousand units, and transit still has not improved the number three 53 bus.

And it's it's noted by the the residents there.

I have to walk all the way down to, you know, a long way, and it's it's a little difficult all the way down to the island highway because the 53 bus doesn't serve me.

The hours are terrible.

And so, you know, it it's kind of counterproductive.

We're saying we're gonna, you know, increase density and it's gonna happen.

Proof is in the pudding, didn't happen.

So, you know, it's it's a kind of a fallacy that I think was caught up in in the comments on that one.

And so let me speak to um um in the last OCP review in uh 2021.

Um, we were reading the draft, and staff were really clear uh that the staff in those days with the park and ride.

All right, the the uh the best kept secret, the worst kept secret.

Um, so this 200 car parking ride that's uh destined for Atkins, and staff of the day was saying poor use of land if it's just going to be a huge parking lot when it's next to the rapid bus, when it's next to, and so on and so forth.

So, you know, staff then were really adamant and hopeful that, and this council likewise, that we're going to be able to put something beyond just a parking lot there that we can do something above, perhaps.

So that's that was a really innovative idea, and I hope that can catch because you know, when we're going in the next round, we have to inform, and transit has to permit us to inform the residents about that 200 car parking lot.

It's a terrible secret, but we know about it.

And transit should allow us, and track transit should help us inform the residents.

If you're going to go to the transit people and say, okay, you know, stop the gag order.

Let us inform the public that this is a major problem.

You know, there's going to be a lot of traffic coming in and out of that site.

There already is.

The light's constantly turning red.

So um I think we're a little bit slightly off traffic here.

So I I think um if the if we can help inform the public when we talk about the Atkins um uh town center in that vicinity, I think, uh it would help help to put it into context of what the implications and ramifications of that um um soon-to-be um additional traffic issue.

Thank you.

And I I can add the only thing that the transit-oriented development did when I've talked to transit and moti now, because of that, they're no longer considering that parking right because of housing.

That's interesting.

So just to let you know, it's it it may still be a good kept secret, but that's what I was told.

Well, that's excellent.

So now we can go 10 stories there.

Uh any other questions for staff on uh the official community plan review and update.

Seeing none.

Thanks, Trillian.

I think we're uh now we get to uh receive it.

So can I get a mover and a seconder to receive Sterling's report?

Moved by Councillor Lemon and seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Leanne, I think it's over to you for uh the land economic study update and housing capacity analysis land use scenarios memo.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Good evening, Council.

This evening I am presenting on the land economic study update and the housing capacity analysis and land use scenarios memo prepared by the town's consultant Urban Systems, who have been engaged by the town to complete a review and update of the town's 2011 OCP.

These studies have been completed based on the project scope presented to council, presented to and approved by council prior to initiating the OCP review.

Joining me this evening to answer questions is Brittany Tuttle, project lead, and Jody Ng, a land economist from Urban Systems.

Next slide.

Phase one focused on visioning and guiding principles, land use, housing, and special planning areas.

From February to April, the town led an inclusive and extensive engagement process to seek feedback from the public on a draft vision statement and goals, and community growth and development.

Next slide.

As part of the project scope, Urban Systems completed a land economics update study to review and update data and projections from the 2021 land economics study prepared by Coriolis that looks at market demand for retail, office, and light industrial uses and the viability of development with a consideration of mixed-use development.

The housing capacity analysis, also prepared by Urban Systems, assesses the community's ability to meet its estimated housing need for 2050 based on current and projected development trends, market conditions, and small-scale multi-unit unit housing provisions.

The draft land use scenarios have been developed to implement the vision and aspirations for growth and development in the community.

Slide four, please.

The land economic study reviewed four key areas, which include updates to the commercial space demand projections for V Royal for 2025 to 2050 based on most recent population projections of municipalities and relevant trade area geographic extents.

It also carried out updates to the office space demand projections for V Royal for 2025 to 2050 based on recent office development trends in the region.

Updates to the hotel demand projections for 2025 to 2050 based on recent hotel development trends over the next 25 years, and assess the development viability of different mixed use scenarios, including retail, office, and light industrial across case study sites.

Next slide.

However, I will summarize the key findings on this slide and the following slide.

The growth projections for the retail and service sector have declined since completion of the 2021 Coriolis report as a result of a decline in population growth after 2035 due to adjustment immigration due to adjusted immigration projections.

An average annual retail and service growth of about 5,032 square feet to 8,450 square feet is the total amount of floor area that could be absorbed in Review Royal over the next 25 years.

The town could absorb an average annual office floor space growth of about 3,400 square feet to 5,080 square feet.

This projection is substantially lower than the Coriolis report due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacts and office market trends.

There will likely be a demand for medical-related office space such as professional and personal services in the future.

Light industrial developments are challenging to build in this current market because of high inventory.

Stacked light industrial office buildings with ground floor industrial uses and office above approximately 63 rooms between 2025 to 2050.

The projected demand is lower than the Coriolis report based on data from destination Greater Victoria.

However, the study states that View Royal has excellent potential for hotel development due to the due to the Victoria General Hospital and the proximity to the base and the Royal Roads University.

If growth continues on a similar pace as previously projected in the Coriolis report, then up to 201 rooms could be captured in View Royal.

Next slide.

Including ground floor office retail and light industrial uses, increasing building heights up to six stories and the total floor area are recommended in the study.

Out of the three mixed use development options, office, retail, and light industrial, ground floor office has the least viable results unless mixed with retail uses.

In addition, having lower parking requirements can alleviate the cost burden of providing additional parking stalls, more addition more parking stalls than the market requires on development projects.

And then lastly, the analysis mentions that the town should focus on ensuring that new retail space emerges in quantities and locations where it is most supportable instead of a blanket retail floor area requirement for mixed-use development.

The implication of a blanket approach is the risk of oversaturating the market with unleasable ground floor space and limiting opportunities to create cohesive, vibrant, and well-anchored retail nodes and corridors.

In addition, an over delivery of ground floor retail in suboptimal locations will create projects that are economically unfeasible and can slow the pace of project delivery, according to the consultants.

It is also recommended that council consider this guidance when considering the notice of motion further in the agenda.

Next slide, please.

Now I am going to summarize the housing capacity analysis.

The analysis considers a community's ability to accommodate current and future housing needs by assessing projected demand with the available land and existing zoning regulations.

Urban Systems completed a housing capacity analysis in accordance with the OCP project scope to determine the projected housing need and capacity for the year 2050.

The town's five-year housing need forecasted from 2021 to 2026 is 842 units.

The 20 year housing need forecasted from 2021 to 2041 is 2,889 units, according to the town's interim housing needs assessment presented to council last September.

Given the OCP time horizon is to 2050, the analysis calculated the projected housing need to 2050.

The additional housing need from 2041 to 2050 was calculated to be approximately 1,444.5 units.

This number was derived from reducing the 20-year total of 2,889 units to an average annual unit demand that was then multiplied out by either 10 or 20 year as appropriate.

The projected housing need in the year 2050 is approximately 4,189 dwelling units.

Next slide, please.

The consultants compared the maximum potential uptake of small-scale multi-unit housing with a projected update based on current zoning permissions and market conditions, evaluated anticipated residential development from current in-stream development applications for residential units, and studied additional potential development from identified viable test sites with higher densities up to six stories.

Next slide, please.

Here we have the small-scale multi-unit housing map showing all the small parcels that are zoned to permit three to six units depending on the lot size and proximity to frequent transit stops.

Hypothetically speaking, if every single small parcel in the town were to develop into three to six units or maximum build-out, then the total number of small units would be approximately 9,255 units.

But we will see in the following slides that the total SMAP projections are much less.

Next slide.

As I noted earlier, the housing capacity analysis identifies test sites with development potential with higher densities, including buildings up to six stories, than what is currently supported in the 2011 OCP.

And one of these test sites is the large vacant lot with the address of two hospital way located within the transit-oriented area adjacent to the hospital.

Next slide, please.

This map shows new mixed use residential, commercial, and community facilities that have been built or currently under construction since the adoption of the 2011 OCP.

This map also identifies two townhouse projects that were recently approved for a total of 34 units.

However, the building permits have not been submitted yet.

Approximately 1,384 dwelling units, including single-family dwellings, townhouses, and multi-unit residential buildings, have been built and occupied since 2011.

There are approximately 548 units currently under construction.

Next slide.

Next slide, please.

The housing capacity analysis looked at housing need and attempt at anticipated housing development.

The province commissioned subject matter experts from the University of British Columbia to study the impacts of legislative changes aimed at increasing housing supply, which resulted in the publication of a SMA and TOA scenarios in British Columbia report.

The report suggests that redevelopment of single-family properties into SMA will progress gradually as the industry adapts to SMA development and associated zoning provisions.

The report also states that redevelopment of single-family lots into SMA may be profitable at some point.

However, it is predicted to be slow for the next 10 years due to existing labor constraints, market conditions, and the need for the construction industry to adapt to increased demand for these forms of housing.

And to give council an example, since the town adopted the SMA zoning, we have only received one application.

Given the BC SMA report's projections, it is anticipated that the town could experience a growth of approximately 2,580 to 2,703 net new SMA units, which is approximately 28 to 29% of the maximum SMA build out by 2050.

The projections indicate that SMA alone will not be sufficient to meet the housing needs in View Royal by 2050.

As of March 2025, a total of approximately 548 new dwelling units are expected to be completed within the next two years.

These units are within large multiunit residential buildings currently under construction, such as the Aspire, the Royale, Skyview on Island Highway, the project under construction adjacent to Town Hall, West Park Lane, and 7 Erskine Road.

Next, there are eight viable test sites that were identified by the consultants.

The consultant projected the number of dwelling units from these viable test sites.

The total number of dwelling units derived is approximately 2,238 units.

If actual development aligns with the densities proposed for these sites.

Based on the projected uptake of SMAP development in View Royal, housing developments currently under construction, and the selection of test scenarios with high development potential with higher permitted density than the current OCP zoning provisions, it is estimated that approximately 5,366 new dwelling units will be constructed in View Royal over the next 25 years, and that there is enough land to meet its projected housing need.

The approximate number is also subject to change, given that market and political conditions may fluctuate over the lifespan of the OCP.

Next slide.

Two land use scenarios have been prepared in response to initial feedback received from residents through surveys, open houses, and workshops.

Past direction from council and the town staff, legislative requirements, existing market conditions and development activity, and existing land use patterns and infrastructure servicing capacity.

Next slide.

The numbers on the map coincide with the colorful legend on the right with a list of proposed land use designations.

So bear with me, there are a few.

Above six stories.

However, please note it's up to 15 stories.

The next designation is urban center, which supports compact development in areas where rapid and or frequent transit service is provided or envisioned in the future and where there is a community desire for more mixed-use development with commercial amenities and services.

This designation includes the lands within the transit-oriented area and the lands near the proposed mobile, well, it's no longer mobility hub, but anyways, the Atkins neighborhood.

Between Six Mile Road and the Collwood boundary.

This aligns with the desire to concentrate higher densities along this corridor where there is substantial amount of underdeveloped land to promote employment based uses and adding residential where appropriate to increase viability.

The only difference between this option, option one, and the option two on the following slide, is that option one supports a density up to 10 stories with opportunities for bonus density, and option two is up to six stories.

And in terms of uses, and just to clarify what is meant by employment based uses, so I just want to circle back to a question that was asked earlier about defining light industry, which was actually defined in the community growth survey under the question on the what uses do you support along Western Gateway?

It was in there.

And the light industry industry is defined as manufacturing, warehousing, high tech, research and development innovation, not heavy, heavy industry like was described earlier.

The next designation is general employment.

This designation is intended to support employment generating activities such as light industrial operations, like I described just a minute ago, commercial enterprises, and office spaces.

General employment lands do not support residential uses.

Proposed max density is up to six stories.

The next designation is neighborhood villages, and these are proposed in several locations throughout Vie Royal, as identified as number five on the map.

This designation would support small-scale mixed-use development that serve local neighborhood needs.

These areas encourage walkability through providing multi-unit housing forms and communities serving commercial and civic uses.

This designation supports a proposed density of up to six stories.

And council may recall that wood frame mixed use buildings are most economically viable at six stories.

The max density would be up to six stories.

The next designation is multiple unit residential designation, which permits medium density residential development such as apartments, stacked townhouses, community care facilities up to six stories.

These housing forms are also supported in the urban center, neighborhood, village, and corridor designation, which allows the market to decide whether to develop medium density as a standalone apartment or mixed use.

Several parcels designated multi-unit residential in option one and option two are currently occupied with medium density development or zoned for it.

We're also introducing a ground-oriented residential designation that supports the need for diverse housing options and allow for more gradual transition to single family housing.

This designation captures properties that are currently duplexes or town houses, townhouses that have more than three units, which is which is the proposed minimum density in this designation.

Lastly, the urban reserve designation applies to the Thetis Cove lands that the province has purchased to support reconciliation efforts with the Esquimalt and Songheese nations.

This proposed designation recognizes that the urban reserve lands are intended to be transferred to a First Nation community within the lifespan of the OCP.

In working with other indigenous communities, Urban Systems shared with staff that this has been a successful designation.

However, town staff will be consulting with our local First Nation.

And lastly, the residential and large lot resident uh the large lot residential designations in the 2011 OCP have been redesignated to small-scale multi-unit housing, and the rural parks and open space and institutional designations have remained unchanged.

Next slide.

This slide identifies the differences between option one and two, which I can go back for questions at the end of this presentation.

And next slide.

So to conclude, the next steps in this process, which you will hear more about in the following presentations by Mr.

Kiskori, is to engage with the public on the proposed land use scenarios and ask the questions Did we get it right?

The public is expecting this next round of engagement from the town in accordance with the OCP project scope, timeline, and what we heard and has been communicated to the public in previous rounds of engagement.

The public wants to know how their feedback has been translated into the land use scenarios.

Following engagement, staff will prepare a what we heard report to present to the OCP Advisory Committee and Council for their for their review, for their comment.

This and then work and we'll work through revisions and finalize a draft land use scenario for the 50% draft, which will come forward for further review and engagement in the summer, which will include the policies and um and and all the components that will make up phase one of the OCP.

Thank you.

And just to remind council, we do have urban systems on the line to answer any technical questions regarding the land economic study and the housing capacity analysis.

Thank you.

Thanks, Leanne.

I know there's probably some big feelings and some questions.

So let's start with questions only, not comments.

So if anybody's got questions for urban systems, Orleanne.

Council Lemon.

Thank you.

The test sites, and I'm trying to scroll back to them, Leanne, and I can't find them.

Carl, can you please um put the presentation up and uh scroll to slide?

Got them.

Eight, I got them.

Nine.

Now some of them are they're all identified by number, but some of them are circled.

What what what is the um those circles are the t the viable test sites that form part of the housing.

Yes.

Okay.

And so the other test sites are not viable.

So we don't actually need them on the map at all.

Well, I um out of those are all the test sites that were looked at as part of the 2021 um COILIS report.

And the ones that are circled are the ones that were viable.

Good.

Thank you.

Questions?

Yeah.

Councilor Roger.

Yes, on the uh the maps.

I'm I'm kind of confused by the three different colored blues, and it may be just me.

Um, but I see a dark, dark, dark blue, uh, which I think is the uh urban reserve for um CS Cove, so I'm fine with that.

And then I see um there's oh, there's a light blue, which I guess those are institutional.

Those are the schools and and whatnot.

Yeah, okay.

Cause I was and then four is the um um general employment and you see was rather curious okay so I guess that's um it it seems to me that the the corridor the Western corridor was either going to be all general employment so all blue or it could be blue you know some general employment and some residential um it might that's the how I was reading um the Western gateway option A and B or one and two.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um Carl, can you please go to slide uh seventeen please the uh yeah, yeah, um probably the slide before option one.

Thank you um uh well um actually, sorry, Carl, can you please go to um not the second to last slide?

So um option uh slide 18.

Thank you.

So um we have both options side by side, and then you hope hopefully you can see those on your screen.

And um there is uh in both options, um the proposed land use designation is the Western Gateway, uh Western Gateway Employment Lands District Designation.

The only different, and then there's only one parcel um uh behind um the gateway, which is um uh twenty uh on Wolfort Road that has the general employment designation.

And if you look at that parcel, that parcel um is uh abuts Mill Stream Creek.

It's pretty much very steep slopes going down.

Uh and the the site is heavily treed.

Um so it's um so, anyways, it it um staff considered that as part and and the consultant as part of the um the designation for this particular the property and also to be consistent with the existing zoning.

So right now the zone for this um for this particular parcel is commercial, so to sort of to to establish um an OCP designation that is consistent with the current zoning.

Um the the Western Gateway Corridor um is is has the same designation for both, so it's uh real um focus on predominantly employment uses and which is what we heard um from the community, and um these lands uh um are are currently zone commercial and uh and but there is support for some some residential to make redevelopment um viable.

Uh the only difference between option one and option two is option one is up to 10 stories, and option two with an opportunity for density bonusing, option two is up to six stories.

So we're gonna seek feedback from the public in terms of you know what they prefer.

And and certainly I understood the feedback for the the Western Gateway was very strong, um, with real interest on a residential perspective because of it being on you know the blank rapid uh transit line.

Um and and would that you know interesting definition of employment because there's so much employment also, in fact, I would say you know more employment um on admirals.

And as we have um, I I think as soon as transit gets the money, they'll be uh implementing the number 40 bus, which we would probably equivalent to the blink nine to five blink uh rapid bus.

Um you might be concerned about the question a designation.

Yes, my question is Yeah, my question is that it um why wouldn't we want to make um both of them employment corridors with uh you know that kind of density that would um uh benefit from that transposition corridor.

And that's really great comment.

Um that's um and I think you know once we hear back from the public, um uh and um and perhaps there'll be some feedback on that.

Um I think it's so those the the lands along Admirals are are proposed to be designated corridor, partially because um looking at adjacent uses which are predominantly lower density.

So whereas along Western Corridor, along the Western Gateway, um it's different context.

And so um there's less less heightened density proposed for the corridor designation, uh and um, but also looking at sort of the viability of of development too.

My next quick question.

Number seven is the multi-unit residential um in map one.

Uh we see the cameo co-op uh coma a lot of the housing there as uh dark brown number seven.

So I'm assuming that number seven also includes co-op housing.

Um we don't uh we uh uh it's a form of housing.

So uh yeah, I mean it's it's it's it's it was one of the questions and one of the comments uh from uh Reggie.

Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, it's a form of affordable housing.

Good, thank you.

Questions again.

Uh Councilor Matson, the councilman.

Just question.

Um, so why on earth are we going to the analysis to 2050 when the province only requires us to go to 2040?

It it would seem that the further out you go, the less accurate any of the the numbers are.

And if we have to sort of update an OCP every five years, from my perspective, you're just throwing a whole bunch of useless numbers in at the end to just confuse things.

Council may recall very early, early, early on in the on the project, and we talked about scope, um, and we talked about um how we're going to um look at the future planning of reural.

It was agreed that 2050 is sort of a nice round number, it's 25 years.

Um and um I um and I don't, you know, uh obviously we have to meet per provincial legislation, but are we planning our community just based on provincial legislation?

So um I think we need to look at um and it's quite typical for OCPs to look at you know 25 years into the f um into the future.

Yeah I understand that but again when you're redoing it every five years you're just you know by doing it to 25 years you're just adding a whole bunch of errors into the final numbers by calculating out so far.

So so I mean that's my complaint and so I I have an issue was that in the form of a question?

Well, no, there is a question.

Like why she guess she can actually answered a question.

Yeah.

But my other question I have is like you've got these two scenarios here.

Like, what would be the number of unit build-out under either one of these scenarios?

Like, because all of a sudden you've got six stories going all the way down the island corridor, which potentially could build way more units than we ever will need.

Uh through the mayor, we haven't completed a full build-out um scenario based on these OCP designations.

That's it for right now.

Yeah, I think so.

I understand comparing each of the two options, you know, if you go bit by bit what the differences are.

However, is there an overall summary of what the differences are?

Like how did they approach option one versus option two?

Um does that make sense my question?

Sorry.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's in the housing um capacity analysis um section under Lange Scenarios.

Um there's a book, there's a couple pages there that defines like the differences between scenario one and scenario two when we draft the survey um that we um we hope to um launch this Friday, um, will be clear in terms of the differences between options one and options two, so the public is is aware of that.

Yeah, I think sorry, my my question's more like is there an overall kind of similar to Councillor Mattson's question?

Like, does one result in more in less density?

Is one more focused on employment?