Phase 1: How We Grow Engagement

May 2025

engage.viewroyal.ca

Table of contents

Contents

• Table of contents... 2
• ABOUT THE VIEW ROYAL 2050 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY Plan... 4
  • Process... 4
• Phase 1 Engagement... 5
  • OVERALL OCP ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES... 5
  • AUDIENCE... 6
  • ENGAGEMENT APPROACH... 6
  • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMITMENT... 6
• WHAT WE DID: ENGAGEMENT TOUCHPOINT 2... 7
  • Engagement Touchpoint 2 Objectives... 7
  • How We Spread The Word... 8
  • PROJECT PAGE ON ENGAGE VIEW ROYAL... 8
  • TOWN’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE... 9
  • SOCIAL MEDIA... 9
  • INSIDE VIEW ROYAL E-NEWSLETTER... 10
  • POSTERS... 10
  • STAKEHOLDER EMAILS... 10
  • NEWSPAPER AD... 11
  • NEWS RELEASES... 11
  • POP-UPS... 11
• WHAT WE HEARD: ENGAGEMENT TOUCHPOINT 2... 12
  • Community Growth Survey... 12
  • OVERALL THEMES... 12
    • Major Themes... 12
    • Major Themes... 12
    • Major Themes... 13
    • Major Themes... 13
    • Major Themes... 13
    • Major Themes... 14
    • Major Themes... 14
    • Major Themes... 15
    • Major Themes... 16
  • WHO PARTICIPATED... 16
  • SURVEY RESULTS... 17
  • SOCIAL MAP RESULTS... 51
  • OPEN HOUSES... 53
  • WHAT WE HEARD: MARCH 13 (AFTERNOON)... 69
  • WHAT WE HEARD: MARCH 13 (EVENING)... 73

ABOUT THE VIEW ROYAL 2050 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY Plan

The Official Community Plan (OCP) is a blueprint and will help define what we envision for View Royal over the next 20 years. As a key municipal document, it reflects community values and guides decisions on land use, housing, transportation, parks, environmental stewardship, economic development, and more.

The OCP is a living document, updated periodically to stay relevant as the community evolves and grows. View Royal’s last comprehensive OCP update was adopted in 2011. While the current OCP has served our community well, there are opportunities to review what policies, objectives, goals, and guidelines within the Plan are working, what isn’t and what we need to do to prepare for our future needs and wants.

Process

View Royal 2050 is a multi-year process with three phases. The review and update of the OCP began in January of 2025, and is expected to conclude in 2027/2028. In each of the three phases, there will be a focus on key topics and content that will be reviewed to update the OCP. During each phase there will be consultation that includes both in-person events and online tools. This approach balances technical analysis with community feedback to shape a long-term vision and policies that reflect residents’ needs for the OCP.

We are currently in Phase 1, which focuses on: the vision statement and goals, land use designation and policy, housing policy, and special planning areas.

Phase 1 Engagement

Phase 1 of the OCP update includes four engagement touchpoints. The first touchpoint (Phase 1: Visioning) took place from January 24 to February 18, 2025. What we heard during this engagement period is summarized in the Phase 1: Visioning and Guiding Principles Survey What We Heard report.

The second touchpoint (Phase 1: How We Grow) took place from March 7 to April 4, 2025. This engagement period focused on the existing 2011 Community Growth Framework, which guides how and where View Royal will grow over the next 20 years. Community members were invited to share their perspectives on land use, housing and future development through a series of engagement opportunities, including open houses, workshops, and an online survey.

The following section provides a summary of the Town’s Communications and Engagement Strategy for the OCP review and update.

OVERALL OCP ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The guiding objectives and principles of the OCP review and update include the following:

• Inclusive: offer multiple methods or platforms for engagement, including online and in-person;
• Educate: provide and share information to educate and inform the community to help them understand how their involvement shapes their future community;
• Engage: identify, engage, consult, and listen to a range of stakeholders;
• Establish: objectives, guidelines, and policies that are measurable and actionable;
• Demonstrate: active listening by staff and Council, by incorporating feedback;
• Transparency and accountability: open dialogue between stakeholders and decision makers;
• Address: challenges that pose risk to our community and opportunities that pose a reward;
• Communicate: clear, concise, communication which avoids the use of jargon to ensure all those involved understand and participate in the process; and
• Adaptability, learning, and improvement: openness to learn and improve with the understanding that stakeholder and community interests and needs and wants change.

AUDIENCE

• View Royal residents
• View Royal business owners
• View Royal community organizations
• View Royal staff
• View Royal Mayor and Council

The project team also encouraged people that may not live in View Royal but work and play in View Royal to participate in the process. This approach recognizes that View Royal is located between many neighbouring municipalities and serves as both a corridor and destination for those that live outside our municipal borders.

ENGAGEMENT APPROACH

The consultation process was designed in alignment with the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum and core values. For more information on IAP2 visit: www.iap2.org

The engagement process for View Royal 2050 aims to engage at the “consult” level on the IAP2 spectrum of engagement. Council has previously endorsed the use of IAP2 principles, which will guide public engagement through the OCP review and update.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMITMENT

The project’s communications and engagement strategy identifies the need to engage with the community across three levels of public participation, including “inform”, “consult”, and “involve”, which follows the IAP2 spectrum of public participation. The project team is committed to ensuring that participants in this process are informed and are heard, and that concerns raised, and feedback received will help inform the review and update process moving forward.

WHAT WE DID: ENGAGEMENT TOUCHPOINT 2

The second engagement touchpoint focused on the existing Community Development Framework (CDF) from the Town’s 2011 Official Community Plan. The CDF includes high-level land use concepts, including: Neighbourhood Centres, Community Corridors, and a Town Centre. Together, these land use concepts serve as a guideline for growth and development in the Town and are supported by policies and objectives to ensure that they are built out as intended.

Updating the CDF ensures consistency with our long-term vision over the next 20 years. It allows our community to revisit these existing land use concepts, determine their effectiveness and suitability for our community, as well as identify new potential areas of growth and development. Revisiting the CDF also allows us to determine if there are areas we wish to see preserved and retained, or that may not be suitable for development. Given the importance of the CDF and its role in land use and development, it is important to revisit to assess its relevancy now and into the future.

During this phase of engagement while we revisited the CDF, we also explored topics such as housing diversity, land use, building height, and neighbourhood character. Community members were invited to participate through a range of opportunities, including two open houses, three facilitated workshops (one in-person and two virtual), an online Community Growth Survey, and an interactive online social mapping tool. These activities provided residents with multiple ways to learn about the project, ask questions, and share their ideas for the future of View Royal.

Engagement Touchpoint 2 Objectives

The objectives of this engagement touchpoint included:

• Providing information that is relevant and easy to understand, particularly about what an OCP is and how it will be used in the future;
• Raising awareness of the project and of opportunities to provide input;
• Sharing the existing Community Development Framework to gather feedback on the existing growth area concepts and policies and identify other areas suitable for growth and development;
• Inspiring dialogue and participation using digital and in-person methods of communication; and
• Demonstrating that the project team has listened and incorporated community input gathered during the engagement period.

How We Spread The Word

Multiple methods, both digital and print, were used to inform the community of the OCP update during this engagement touchpoint. A list of all methods are included below:

• View Royal 2050 webpage (engage.viewroyal.ca/view-royal-2050);
• Town’s official website (viewroyal.ca);
• Social media (Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky);
• Inside View Royal e-newsletter;
• Engage View Royal subscriber campaigns;
• Posters;
• Project ‘business cards’;
• Stakeholder e-mails;
• Newspaper ads (Goldstream Gazette); and
• Pop-ups (Portage Park and View Royal Park).

The following section provides a summary of the outcomes from the tools used to promote this engagement touchpoint.

PROJECT PAGE ON ENGAGE VIEW ROYAL

The View Royal 2050 project webpage was first updated on February 26 to share details about the second engagement touchpoint, including key dates and upcoming activities. A second update was posted on March 31 to announce the extension of the Community Growth survey deadline until April 4.

Following the close of the survey, the webpage was updated once more to thank community members for their participation, outline the next steps in the OCP update process, and highlight newly added resources—including the What We Heard report summarizing input from the earlier Visioning and Guiding Principals survey.

During this engagement period (March 7 to April 4) the webpage was viewed 930 times by 563 visitors. During this period, there were 234 contributions (community growth survey and social map) by 163 contributors. During this period, a total of 18 new project page followers have been added, increasing our total number of project page followers to 99.

Since the project launch on January 24 and the close of the second round of engagement on April 4, the project webpage has received 2392 view by 1356 visitors. The project has received a total of 366 contributions (survey responses/questions) and a total of 265 contributors. The webpage can be found at: engage.viewroyal.ca/view-royal-2050

TOWN’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

During this engagement period, the OCP update was prominently featured on the Town’s website, viewroyal.ca, homepage. In addition, four “What’s Happening” notices were sent to subscribers to support ongoing promotion and awareness:

• February 26: Announced the focus of the second engagement touchpoint and promoted upcoming opportunities to provide input.
• March 7: Launched the Community Growth survey and highlighted upcoming in-person and virtual engagement events.
• March 28: Issued a reminder to encourage participation in the Community Growth survey before the March 31 deadline.
• March 31: Announced the extension of the Community Growth survey deadline to April 4, to provide additional time for input.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Between February 26 and April 4, posts were shared on the Town’s social media accounts to promote the project and encourage public participation.

INSIDE VIEW ROYAL E-NEWSLETTER

The February 2025 edition of Inside View Royal, the Town’s monthly e-newsletter, featured an article introducing the OCP update and highlighted opportunities to participate in the second engagement touchpoint of the OCP review process. A follow-up article in the March 2025 edition focused specifically on encouraging residents to complete the Community Growth survey.

POSTERS

Posters with information about the second engagement touchpoint and a QR code linking to the website were created and posted at 17 community boards, parks, and bus stops throughout View Royal. Members of Council and the Town’s OCP Review Advisory Committee also received the updated Engagement Week posters to circulate in the community. A total of 2 posters were prepared for each member.

The posters created for the first engagement touchpoint remained displayed at 19 locations across the community.

STAKEHOLDER EMAILS

During this engagement touchpoint, two emails were sent to a list of approximately 250 stakeholders. The first email provided information about the second engagement touchpoint and opportunities to participate, while the second email announced the extension of the Community Growth survey deadline to allow more time for input.

In addition, the project team reached out directly to school administrators at View Royal Elementary, Eagle View Elementary, and Shoreline Middle School, requesting their support in sharing information about the extended survey deadline with caregivers and staff.

NEWSPAPER AD

A print ad was placed in the February 26 and March 5 editions of the Goldstream Gazette. The ad raised awareness for the OCP update and encouraged participation in the upcoming open-houses and workshops.

NEWS RELEASES

During this engagement period, the project team issued four news releases (February 26, March 7, March 28, and March 31). Each was distributed to local media and published on ViewRoyal.ca.

The February 26 and March 31 news releases led to earned media coverage, with the Goldstream Gazette publishing articles on February 26 and April 2.

POP-UPS

During the engagement period, Town staff hosted two pop-up events, one at Portage Park and one at View Royal Park and engaged with 16 individuals. At the popups, staff provided a business project card that included a QR code and the project website. Staff also encouraged participation in the online Community Growth Survey.

WHAT WE HEARD: ENGAGEMENT TOUCHPOINT 2

Community Growth Survey

The Community Growth survey was launched on March 7, 2025. The survey focused on the review of the Official Community Plan’s existing Community Development Framework (CDF) and invited participants to share their thoughts on topics such as housing diversity, building height, land use, and future growth areas. Designed to support long-term planning, the survey aimed to better understand community preferences around how and where View Royal should grow over the next 20 years. The survey was originally scheduled to close on March 31 but was extended to April 4, 2025, to allow additional time for participation.

In total, 176 survey responses were received.

OVERALL THEMES

Question 1: To facilitate future growth over the next 20 years, would you support expansion of our existing Neighbourhood Centres to provide additional higher density residential and mixed-use development (residential and commercial) in these areas?

Major Themes: Overall, respondents supported the expansion of each Neighbourhood Centre:

• 78% of respondents support expansion in the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 16% do not.
• 70% of respondents support expansion of the Atkins Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 20% do not.
• 62% of respondents support expansion of the Lakeside Village Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 24% do not.
• 59% of respondents support expansion in the Burnside Corner Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 29% do not.

Question 3: To facilitate future growth over the next 20 years, would you support expansion of our existing Community Corridors, to support transit use and transit-oriented development?

Major Themes: Overall, respondents supported the expansion of each Community Corridor:

• 83% of respondents support expansion of the Western Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 12% do not.
• 82% of respondents support expansion of the Eastern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 14% do not.
• 76% of respondents support expansion of the Northern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 17% do not.
• 61% of respondents support for expansion of the Helmcken-Harbour Community Corridor, whereas 35% do not.

Question 5: The Town’s existing OCP includes policy that supports the concept of developing a Town Centre, a compact, high-density transit-oriented development areas that would include a mix of residential, commercial, civic, and cultural uses, including mixed use buildings up to 4 storeys, to provide a centralized activity hub for the Town. The Town Centre concept was never developed. Do you still support the development of a Town Centre in View Royal?

Major Themes: Overall, respondents indicated that the Town Centre concept is supported. 63% of respondents support the development of a Town Centre in View Royal, whereas 24% of respondents did not support the development of a Town Centre in View Royal.

Question 6: Do you support the development of a Town Centre at the Fort Victoria RV Park site location?

Major Themes: Overall, respondents indicated that they support the development of a Town Centre at the current Fort Victoria RV Park site location. 52% of respondents support the development of a Town Centre at the Fort Victoria RV Park site, whereas 29% of respondents do not support the development of a Town Centre at the RV Park site.

Question 9: What types of businesses or services would you like to see included in mixed-use developments?

Major Themes: Overall, respondents see demand and an interest in mixed-use development and additional commercial and services in our community.

• 87% of respondents indicated that Restaurants or Café are desirable.
• 82% of respondents indicated that Health Services (Doctors office, clinic, labs, etc) are desirable.
• 64% of respondents indicated that a Grocery Store are desirable.

Question 10: How should the Town’s Western Gateway Community Corridor develop in the future?

Major Themes:

• 51% of respondents indicated an interest in mixed-use development, with a focus on commercial, light industrial, and some residential uses.
• 18% of respondents had identified an interest in only commercial and light industrial uses.
• 10% of respondents identified an interest in having only residential development.

Question 11: Please complete the table below, indicating your support to increase the height of buildings within the Town’s existing Neighbourhood Centres?

Major Themes:

• 82% of respondents indicated that they supported an increase in height in the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 16% do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 82% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre, 35% support 10+ storeys, 29% support up to 10 storeys, and 18% support up to 6 storeys.
• 76% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Atkins Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 26% do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 76% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Atkins Neighbourhood Centre, 18% support 10+ storeys, 29% support up to 10 storeys, and 29% support up to 6 storeys.
• 68% of respondents support an increase in height in the Lakeside Village Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 20% do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 68% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Lakeside Village Neighbourhood Centre, 14% support 10+ storeys, 19% support up to 10 storeys, and 35% support up to 6 storeys.
• 64% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Burnside Corner Neighbourhood Centre, whereas 26% do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 64% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Burnside Corner Neighbourhood Centre, 16% support 10+ storeys, 20% support up to 10 storeys, and 28% support up to 6 storeys.

Question 13: Please complete the table below, indicating your support to increase the height of buildings within the Town’s existing Community Corridors?

Major Themes:

• 78% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in the height in the Western Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 17% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 78% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Western Gateway Community Corridor, 21% support 10+ storeys, 33% support up to 10 storeys, and 24% support up to 6 storeys.
• 77% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Eastern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 19% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 77% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Eastern Gateway Community Corridor, 22% support 10+ storeys, 24% support up to 10 storeys, and 31% support up to 6 storeys.
• 73% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Northern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 20% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 73% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Northern Gateway Community Corridor, 21% support 10+ storeys, 25% support up to 10 storeys, and 27% support up to 6 storeys.
• 61% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Helmcken-Harbour Community Corridor, whereas 32% do not support an increase in height.
  • Of the 61% of respondents that indicated support for an increase in height in the Helmcken-Harbour Community Corridor, 13% support 10+ storeys, 14% support up to 10 storeys, and 34% support up to 6 storeys.

Question 15: The Town would like to know what factors may influence your decision in permitting taller buildings. Please provide a short explanation or bullet points to detail what other factors may influence your decision to support an increase in the maximum permitted height of a building. Factors that you may think about are the buildings proximity to transportation, access to on-site or off-site green space and amenities, environmental sustainability, or inclusion of affordable and below market units.

Major Themes: A total of 97 responses were received, of which a range of comments, suggestions, and ideas were provided. To better understand the sentiment of the feedback provided, the responses have been grouped into major themes.

The top 10 themes are:

1. Building and Site Design & Building (33% of responses)
2. Density (29% of responses)
3. Building Character/Height Transition (23% of responses)
4. Affordable Housing (16% of responses)
5. Preserving Existing Form and Character of View Royal (16% of responses)
6. Proximity to Transportation (14% of responses)
7. Traffic Flow/Congestion (14% of responses)
8. Preserving Existing Single Family (14% of responses)
9. Proximity to Services (14% of responses)
10. Infrastructure Capacity (12% of responses)

WHO PARTICIPATED

• 93% of respondents are residents of View Royal
• 20% of respondents are between the ages of 40 and 44 years old; 40% of respondents are between the ages of 25 and 44 years old
• 69% of respondents live in a single-detached house
• 83% of respondents own their home whereas 11% are renters
• 25% of respondents or someone in their household is a caregiver
• 23% of respondents or someone in their household has moved to View Royal within the last five years
• 34% of respondents learned about the project through social media and 30% learned about the project through the Town’s Website.

SURVEY RESULTS

The following section provides a summary of results for questions 1 to 22 in the Community Growth Survey. Questions 2, 4, 12, 14, and 15 were long-form open-ended responses. Questions 7 and 8 were mapping related questions where respondents could provide a comment associated with a pin they placed on the map. The verbatim responses for these questions are included in this section.

Question 1: To facilitate future growth over the next 20 years, would you support expansion of our existing Neighbourhood Centres to provide additional higher density residential and mixed-use development (residential and commercial) in these areas?

Findings: The majority of respondents indicated that they support the expansion of all four existing Neighbourhood Centres to provide additional higher density residential and mixed-use development. Of the four Neighbourhood Centres, respondents identified that the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre was the most popular (78% support) to see expansion, and the Burnside Corner Neighbourhood Centre was the least popular (59% support) for expansion.

Question 2: If you selected “other” please leave a short comment to help explain your answer.

Findings: Respondents had an opportunity to provide an “other” response and provide written feedback in Question 1. Those responses are featured below:

1. No, VR council is anti-car / human behaviour and has been for over a decade. Arrogant!
2. Lakeside Village is developed. No further development. Same as Burnside & Hospital.
3. Burnside Corner is characterized by newer single dwellings with very little undeveloped area.
4. I think expansion along Watkis way and the Atkins area could be useful if traffic was addressed 1st
5. Should have another one at Helmckin and Old Island Hwy and all along Admirals.
6. LOW DENSITY BUT PLEASE UPDATE!
7. In Atkins Centre area there are structural objects to consider but more buildings could fit.
8. Lakeside, Burnside, & Hospital zones have been developed since the 2011 OCP & cannot support further
9. Lakeside, Burnside already completed. Hospital is in middle of new transit density area. WTH?
10. Having a neighbourhood centre located at helmken and island highway would be preferable
11. How far would you expand? An inch? A mile? What do you intend? Same as last time.
12. We need better infrastructure first
13. your maps are VERY hard to read. the hospital would make sense but the traffic is horrific

Question 3: To facilitate future growth over the next 20 years, would you support expansion of our existing Community Corridors, to support transit use and transit-oriented development?

Findings: The majority of respondents indicated that they support the expansion of existing Community Corridors to support transit use and transit-oriented development. Of the four Community Corridors, the Western Gateway Community Corridor received the highest support for expansion among respondents (83% support), and Helmcken-Harbour Corridor was the least popular for expansion (61% support) among respondents.

Question 4: If you selected “other” please leave a short comment to help explain your answer.

Findings: As a follow-up to question 3, respondents who selected “other” were able to provide written feedback to expand on their sentiment. The responses are shown below:

1. Didn’t you take OIH down to two lanes?? “We want you to bike.”
2. East Gate already developed to appropriate scale. West Gate could support higher value develo
3. I think the Helmcken Corridor is built out with recent development or planned development.
4. Corridor blobs are too small are the corridors not longer? Is not most growth to be in the corridor.
5. Need to resto four lanes of trafffic on Helmken(2 each side) if there is going to be more develment.
6. Traffic in all those areas is already a nightmare! Plan development area roads for more cars.
7. Helmcken is sooooo busy. Like density near transit and hospital & EC only if traffic is managed.
8. A new elementary school may be needed first

Question 5: The Town’s existing OCP includes policy that supports the concept of developing a Town Centre, a compact, high-density transit oriented development area that would include a mix of residential, commercial, civic, and cultural uses, including mixed use buildings up to 4 storeys, to provide a centralized activity hub for the Town. The Town Centre concept was never developed. Do you still support the development of a Town Centre in View Royal?

Findings: The majority of respondents indicated that they support the development of a Town Centre (63% support), whereas 24% of respondents do not support the concept.

Respondents could provide answer ‘other’ and provide written response, if desired. The following is the verbatim feedback received:

1. Admirals Walk and Eagle Creek already serve as town centres. That is suffice
2. I believe 6 storeys is now allowed with wood why not add more density if we can.
3. I picked other because I love the concept EXCEPT it needs to be buidings way larger than 4 storeys. That is too tiny. Think longer term. Plus no developer is going to do 4 or 6 storeys as not financially viable. Give your head a shake!
4. Believe it already exists at Eagle Creek
5. Only if it’s owned by the ToVR. Can’t be on already congested corridor (1a)/Helmcken. Already have 4 new residential developments and no traffic solution
6. Use the Admiral Rd Centre as the "town centre". It is already there and has good access to the Rail Trail and to transit and it is not right in the middle of an already congested area. View Royal is the "hub" of the wheel and all traffic in and out of town passes through. Commuter times are a mess especially when they occur just as the schools let out.
7. View Royal is well supported by neighbourhood centres. A Town Centre is a nice idea but time has passed and other centres have become de facto small Town centres.
8. We could operate on smaller neighbourhood centres.
9. View Royal already has its town centers. Each area has an area which has naturally evolved into a town center ex. Admirals walk, eagle creek.
10. Only if affordable housing options are available for the displaced resident currently residing at the RV park
11. difficult question to pose without options for where.
12. Would depend on were you are going to place it burnside is over maxed lack of prper traffic ambulance stuck cant get through vechiles turning into walkers multiple times a day at helmecken and watkiss.you cant turn from burnside to helmecken due to traffic being backed up so going through orange and red lights. Before any more expansion traffic needs to be studed and a soln worker out

Question 6: Do you support the development of a Town Centre at the Fort Victoria RV Park site location?

Findings: The majority of respondents indicated that they support the development of a Town Centre at Fort Victoria RV Park site location (52%), whereas 29% do not support the location.

Respondents could provide answer ‘other’ and provide written response, if desired. The following is the verbatim feedback received:

1. The RV park is a good contingency if they ever sell it. Develop Helmcken Harbor because if the RV park sells the two areas are close enough that infrastructure built during the waiting period won’t be a waste as it will still tie in.
2. on a modest scale with many supports for all the people living affordably ther
3. This area provides key low income housing. Helmcken and Old Island Hwy would more a more ideal space.
4. That’s not the center! Feels like a weird location with weird access.
5. I would developed the helmcken harbour corridor as a town center, it joins to RV park, so if the RV park ever becomes available they connect and you can expand the town center into the RV park. But I wouldnt put all my marbles on the RV park alone because you dont know when that property will be up for developing.
6. I don't believe the purchase of land that currently hold 10s of realities low income ownership options is acceptable. Even when replacing with higher density. I would rather see an area of SFH's being purchased at a higher cost, that can be recapped with high density. All this site will do is force low(er) income homeowners out of the market.
7. The village can continue to grow from Helmcken/Island Hwy in all driections including to the water creating a nice vilage feel. Fort Vic may not come to be so this may provide a nice central village.
8. See above comment. To increase tax base makes sense but corridor will struggle with more traffic.
9. This is somewhat out of town control, being private land. We have a number of excellent commercial districts - Eagle Creek and Admirals Road being places that have really grown since 2011. The RV park isn't pretty, but it's needed affordable housing at present. Keep your eye on it, but encourage development in the current places experiencing commercial growth
10. I would support another community oriented development on this land. Examples include a centre for seniors with associated services. Maybe this is another form of Town centre, but specific use. Any development would need to be strategic and purposeful.
11. Already have neighbourhood centres. Senior living centre and such services.
12. Perhaps we could put conditions on the development here ie seniors housing, Dr and Dentist offices.
13. Only if the land use is developed with a very specific and strategic plan incorporating various housing (seniors center and associated services)
14. The RV park houses many year round residents where will they go if the RV park is turned into a town centre? View Royal is already so close to Esquimalt and Juan de Fuca and WestShore services it doesn’t make sense to potentially displace people living at the RV park. I would personally love to live so close to the town centre but it would be irresponsible to turn this site into a town centre without accessible affordable housing options for the existing residents of Fort Victoria
15. We need to fix the traffic problem first

Question 7: If you do not support the existing proposed location of the Town Centre at Fort Victoria RV Park, do you have an alternative location that would be better suited for a Town Centre? Please place a marker identifying the alternative location.

Respondents were able to place multiple pins and provide a comment if desired for where they envision an alternative location for a town centre. Pins are categorized by neighbourhood.

Map 1: Wilfert Neighbourhood

• 2: Here
• 5: Pretty much anywhere along the island Highway. The small strip mall area would also work. The RV site I would recommend for a combo of housing, park
• 17: Make this part of the Island Hwy more appealing, e.g., more light commercial that is locally-owned and/or more sophisticated in terms of culture (no more fast food chains), green space for public gathering, surrounded by townhomes and condos
• 20: 1600 Island Hwy block as easy access to the galloping goose ad bus service
• 25: Already a popular corridor with many mixed use properties primed for redevelopment
• 29: So much more potential than fast food drive thru and auto dealerships
• 43: so much growth potential in Atkins Village - it'll be nice to see this developed over the next few years
• 52: logical location but far for conveniences.
• 59: This is a backup option.

Map 2: Atkins Neighbourhood

• 6: This is largely unused area with existing road a trail infrastructure. It could be a decent destination for mixed use development
• 15: There is less displacement for current residents in this location
• 28: Connected to trails and centrally located
• 32: This area is under utilized
• 34: Under utilized area
• 36: Here
• 44: Near the roundabout
• 45: Close to bus, highway, bike lane
• 46: Not sure if there is space. Near highway, bus, bike

Map 3: Burnside Neighbourhood

• 9: Supports the growth in this area

Map 4: Hospital Neighbourhood

• 7: Helmcken and burnside area...anywhere close to hospital area..
• 11: Somehwere around the hospital area. I think a city center at the rv site will back traffic up considerably in an area that is already jammed up.
• 13: Suggested town centre location
• 14: Eagle creek would be the best if it had some eating / pub choices.
• 16: Reimagine the Eagle Creek development to have more light commercial that is locally-owned and public gathering place
• 24: Eagle Creek is already the town centre
• 26: Across from quality foods
• 37: NEAR VGH
• 38: VGH
• 39: Across from VGH and Eagle Ridge - need a hotel and other "town centre" amenities
• 42: another great location with good highway access, also servicing all of View Royal north of Hwy 1
• 48: Proximity to hospital, galloping goose, transit hub and existing development momentum at Eagle Creek and properties on SE side of Helmeckn

Map 5: Craigflower Neighbourhood

• 21: This area with school, shopping, Scottish cultural centre and Songhees Nation all nearby would be a great town centre.
• 22: Town Centre
• 23: View Royal already has a town center.
• 27: Already commercial activity and development happening
• 30: More suitable
• 40: Admirals Walk area
• 41: Great location. Not central to View Royal as a municipality but it services View Royal, Esquimalt and Saanich
• 49: This area already has land to increase development with better road infrastructure. Creating a town centre where Fort Victoria is would be extremely challenging because of increased traffic along island highway. Island highway is not designed to handle increased traffic. While new condos are going up in that cooridor it is very challenging to get in and out of apartment buildings. The fort victoria location provides more green canopy and helps maintain view Royal's quieter culture.
• 57: none
• 58: Best place

Map 6: Helmcken Neighbourhood

• 4: Good transit service, connection to the highway, and access to parks and school.
• 31: Town Centre Concept - while the current owners do not plan on development at this time, there will be a time in the future that development is desired by the then owners. The town should be ready for this with a concept and planned zoning, or else it will be a hodge-podge of developer-led construction with no or little control by the town. I would prefer a planned, cohesive

Map 7: Harbour Neighbourhood

• 1: It makes the most sense to develop Helmcken harbour because the RV park is many years from development and once it becomes available, any building can be tied into the Helmcken harbour corridor. There is already towers, a market space, and medical services in Helmcken/harbour area. In addition, there are several land assemblies in the main area waiting for development.
• 8: Better location
• 10: Near town hall
• 12: Expand existing centers.
• 18: Major transportation unction with 2 regional trails, rapid bus route, E&N transportation Corridor. Becomes part of the Western Gateway corridor to Colwood border. Centre would extend both sides of E&N, with high rise along TCH and mid rise along water side of harbour. New traffic light already installed, with Atkins access to Six Mile Road.
• 19: Centralized corner. Needs development. Still near school, goose, parks, on main road.
• 33: This area is under utilized.
• 35: I tried picking an address in the Western Gateway area. This whole area is underutilized and I could picture housing, shops, outdoor seating areas - town centre :)
• 47: Island Highway between view Royal Ave. and Helmcken has opportunity to be the Town Centre given the number of people who drove through this area and it could showcase our Town.
• 50: Extend to the waterfront and up Helcken towards the school as far as it will reach. The village can potentially be the square area from Helmcken to View Royal, Bessborough to Stewart. Once the red motel and salvation army are developed, this will be a big step to creating the feel of the new "old town" center.
• 53: Existing townhall and lands adjacent
• 54: Support further town centre expansion through the helmecken & island highway intersection
• 55: The area is already in need of revitalising and far fewer people would be displaced by re-developing it. There's also less issues caused by the Trans Canada highway (e.g. noise, pollution) and with the condo going up on the opposite corner, density is already increasing in that area. It's also easier to get to (and from) via public transit with the #14 having nearby stops and is a frequent route. The RV location is better served by the #46 but that's only weekdays at very select times and none later than 7PM.
• 56: This is adjacent to new public safety building. Fort victoria will be decades away which is too long and fort victoria site is fraught with infrastructure issues ie hydro that will make it difficult.

Outside of Town Boundaries

• 51: With permission to lease from FN

Island Highway

• 3: Corner of helmcken and old island hwy

Question 8: In addition to the identified growth areas in our Neighbourhood Centres, Community Corridors, and a Town Centre, are there additional areas in the town that you think would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 4 to 6 storeys?

Respondents were able to place multiple pins and provide a comment if desired. Responses are categorized by neighbourhood.

Map 1: Wilfert Neighbourhood

• 14: Potential for development
• 15: Here makes sense as it is all just car lots
• 24: End of Hart Road PROVIDED that the lot 200 become PUBLIC park with water access AND public dock
• 27: This area is mostly business and mixed residential and could handle more multifamily type buildings. On transit route.
• 30: Like the Gorge in Saanich, land use along Millstream, if properly planned, can truly highlight some of the best features of View Royal
• 32: Possible location for high density - high priority area
• 33: Possible location for high density
• 34: Possible location for high density
• 45: Space available

Map 2: Atkins Neighbourhood

• 3: Here
• 8: Village area
• 29: Prime location, currently under utilized. Suitable for mixed commercial, residential and recreational (Millstream) development
• 56: Western gateway could extend further
• 64: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 68: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.

Map 3: Burnside Neighbourhood

• 9: Here
• 42: Close to elementary school
• 53: Increase density along existing active transportation routes
• 62: As a
• 69: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 79: Connect Fort Victoria to the hospital area as a growth area. Build a north south connection that does not primarily function as a commuter route at Burnett Road.

Map 4: Hospital Neighbourhood

• 6: concerns about traffic for the hospital and increasing the already bad traffic on wilkinson
• 13: Better by hospital
• 43: Great spot for hospital workers
• 47: Province has already designated this as the hub. We need to move along with this
• 48: Hospital Way - already high density area and near shops already.
• 49: The province has dictated that this area is designated high density so let's get on with it.
• 50: More medium density housing across from the hospital. Hospital workers might enjoy being able to walk to work.
• 57: This whole section to the Goose along the highway
• 70: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 71: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.

Map 5: Craigflower Neighbourhood

• 4: Here
• 23: Glentana Road two co-op housing complexes are that built in 1980s. In time replace BUT ONLY with more CO-OP housing up to 6 storeys.
• 44: Most suitable
• 52: Housing here makes some sense except it will increase the use of an already heavily used intersection at Craigflower/Admirals/Old Island Hwy
• 54: Admiral walk
• 59: Admirals Walk supports nearby growth
• 72: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 73: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 76: This area is suitable.

Map 6: Helmcken Neighbourhood

• 5: concerns about old island highway traffic issues
• 7: Just put in a mixed-use residential here to help get up to our 2889 number. There is no need to bloat the dev costs, waste valuable sq.m and create in-perpetuity lost-tax revenue opportunity by building a (some infra tax exempt) "town centre" here (or anywhere). We can/do have a virtual TC.
• 16: Do NO development here - especially a town centre. View Royal is really a bedroom community of the surrounding cities. Trying to become a city with a downtown is NOT a goal I would ever support. Fort Victoria is essentially a low cost housing facility which allows low income people to live in something affordable. No low cost housing could ever compare in terms of affordability!
• 17: Don't add development here - road infrastructure can't support it! Attempt to drive this route from the military base to old island highway on a weekday afternoon at 3 PM and you'll waste time and gas!
• 18: light commercial and walkability here based on sophisticated urban design (e.g., no more fast food, chain restaurants, or box stores)
• 19: All long Paddock Place facing View Royal Park. Walking distance to town centre, but will require a traffic light at Burnett at fire hall
• 20: Kislingbury Road is rented duplexes and suitable for re-development. The street already has a traffic light at Island Highway. The E&N trail access / transportation corridor nearby. N Also next to proposed town centre
• 21: 278 Island Highway but ONLY if it has road access out to Stormont Road
• 25: If the town centre isn’t approved here, this would be a good location
• 26: THIS IS PRIME LAND CLOSE TO VARIOUS FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT COULD SUSTAIN HIGH DENSITY BUILDING AND IT WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THE TOWN CENTRE.
• 35: Possible location for high density
• 41: Great location for growth. Lose to services
• 46: Higher density around Helmcken and old island hwy all the way to the Colwood exchange is a no brainer. High traffic, high transit and a busy corridor.
• 77: Here too.

Map 7: Harbour Neighbourhood

• 1: Build out this area as it’s already partially established and with direction the town can dictate other services required for the future land assembly builds
• 10: All along old island highway.
• 22: 205 Island Highway. Existing traffic light on frequent bus route
• 28: What a biased question. Just skipping the question if you don't want to increase density all over town is a terrible survey method.
• 36: Possible location for high density - urgently requires new development
• 37: Possible location for high density
• 38: Possible location for high density
• 51: I think VR has already okayed this area for some medium density housing. However this will increase the traffic density on an already heavily used corridor.
• 55: The harbour area has some large lot sizes that would allow for liveable density. Additionally it has a number of parks, which would be more justifiable if there were more people here to enjoy it.
• 58: CRD Offices could be built in a new development. There could be lots of room there and it’s near transportation of all kinds!
• 60: anywhere along the corridors makes sense for 4 to 6 storey buildings.
• 61: Extend existing corridors, contiguous with areas already developed and using existing transport routes
• 65: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 66: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 67: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 75: Higher density on waterfront or lots withing 300m of waterfront access points

Outside of Town Boundaries

• 2: Here
• 11: 4-6 story developments and greater density should be permissible in all areas of View Royal.
• 12: The other side of hospital
• 31: Possible location for high density
• 39: main road with transit
• 40: main road/transit
• 63: Would support additional residential and mixed-use development and density of 6 storeys.
• 74: All of island highly, high density, allow for mixed use (commercial ground level, residential higher stories
• 78: All the way along Watkiss too.

Question 9: What types of businesses or services would you like to see included in mixed-use developments? (Select all that apply).

Findings: Overall, respondents showed support for mixed-use development. Most respondents indicated that their preferred business or service that they would like to see in mixed-use developments are restaurants or cafes (87%), health services (82%), and grocery stores (64%).

[Chart for Question 9: Restaurants or Café (150, 87%), Health Services (142, 82%), Grocery Store (110, 64%), Services (105, 61%), Community Service (100, 58%), Childcare (95, 55%), Corner Store or Convenience Store (94, 54%), Other (20, 12%).]

Verbatim “Other” Comments

1. Spaces that can be rented out for other events and/or serve as a "Third Space" as a way to facilitate community building.
2. Markets (hybrid between a grocery store and a convenience store. E.G.: Market in Yates, Moreno’s Market in Langley (deli, butcher, produce, staples), Root Cellar- type places
3. What about regular offices like accountant, insurance, or realty offices? (or does this fall under "services"?)
4. Pub/ restaurant
5. Pub
6. A subsidized location to encourage new small business.
7. Recreation
8. Light industrial
9. Life labs, actual restaurant not take out,
10. Places that facilitate community, with outdoor seating and a "community square" place for people to go. I don't know any of my neighbours because I never see them around. I think if there were patios, libraries, and cafes around that would change. I've lived in VR for 3.5 years now. Also, hiring a doctor as a municipal employee (I believe Flowood has started this) to ease the healthcare burden would be amazing. Docs need to be able to practice, not waste their time doing payroll.
11. Seniors services
12. CRD offices
13. EV charging station, public washrooms
14. A huge medical centre at Atkins where the tire shop is would be great. We need doctors. My partner has been on the wait list for 3 years. We need to attract medical professionals to view Royal.
15. Indigenous culture centre as well as a welcoming centre for new residents or new immigrants
16. Stores that fulfill household needs, replace need for amazon, like clothes, books, household items
17. pop-up Community Market ala James Bay, Esq, Sidney etc.
18. Cocktail bars
19. FARMER'S/CRAFT MARKET SPACE OR RED BARN MARKET TYPE STORE WHERE YOU CAN GO AND PURCHASE HOME GROWN PRODUCE
20. pickleball courts

Question 10: How should the Town’s Western Gateway Community Corridor develop in the future?

Findings: The majority of respondents (51%) indicated that they support commercial and light industrial development with some residential use in the Western Gateway Community Corridor. Only 5% of respondents indicated that the Western Gateway Community Corridor should be commercial only, and only 10% of respondents indicated that it should be residential only.

[Chart for Question 10: Commercial and light industrial uses with some residential (87, 51%), Commercial and light industrial uses (31, 18%), Residential only (17, 10%), I am not sure (15, 9%), Other (11, 6%), Commercial uses only (9, 5%).]

Verbatim “Other” Comments:

1. Again as with Christie Point, council wants to wish away traffic.
2. Commercial and residential mix
3. Commercial and residential.
4. Commercial and residential
5. Commercial and residential
6. Commercial use, specially bigger business to help alleviate taxes for the town patrons
7. Commercial/ light industry with lots (not just some) residential mid-rise above these businesses
8. It's tricky as that area gridlocks on weekdays. The Northwestern side could stand to be redeveloped commercial use but it's a bad spot for businesses and residential.
9. Mixed commercial and residential. Why is that not a choice in the list?
10. mixed residential- owner occupied & services oriented to local residents
11. Should be mixed use with services on bottom floors and residential above

Question 11: Please complete the table below, indicating your support to increase the height of buildings within the Town’s existing Neighbourhood Centres.

Findings: The majority of respondents indicated support to increase the height of buildings within the Town’s existing Neighbourhood Centres.

[Chart for Question 11:

• Hospital Neighbourhood Centre: More than 10 Storeys (59, 35%), Up to 10 Storeys (49, 29%), Up to 6 Storeys (31, 18%), I do not support increase (28, 16%), I am not sure (2, 1%), Other (3, 2%).
• Atkins Neighbourhood Centre: More than 10 Storeys (31, 18%), Up to 10 Storeys (49, 29%), Up to 6 Storeys (49, 29%), I do not support increase (35, 20%), I am not sure (5, 3%), Other (2, 1%).
• Burnside Corner Neighbourhood Centre: More than 10 Storeys (28, 16%), Up to 10 Storeys (35, 20%), Up to 6 Storeys (48, 28%), I do not support increase (44, 26%), I am not sure (6, 4%), Other (10, 6%).
• Lakeside Village Neighbourhood Centre: More than 10 Storeys (24, 14%), Up to 10 Storeys (33, 19%), Up to 6 Storeys (61, 35%), I do not support increase (35, 20%), I am not sure (9, 5%), Other (9, 5%).]

Question 12: If you selected “other” please leave a short comment to help explain your answer.

Verbatim “Other” Comments:

1. This is already a built up area. Should not be included in these pro-density questions
2. If six stories than services on the first floor
3. 2-4 is a more reasonable height
4. Burnside corner suffers from terrible traffic already. Address that issue first.
5. I hear that 6 stories is the sweet spot but maybe in the coming years 10 stories will be viable
6. Lakeside Village is already all built. Burnside Corner is all built.
7. Lakeside and Burnside already newly built. Hospital lends itself to high density.
8. These areas are already built out. The other areas are transport sensitive
9. Lakeside and burnside is already newly built. Hospital is the designated mandated area the province.
10. Atkins NC has little room with the planned transit hub/parking. The others have been developed.
11. why focus on areas that are already built out? This is a bad survey.
12. I believe more 3:4 storey buildings is better than just a few with 6+ levels
13. Burnside corner is a Garry oak meadow park on a congested corner. I don’t think it should developed
14. Keeping in mind the need to improve fire department access for high rises
15. The maps are incredibly hard to read. 100% DON'T support Burnside corner being built out at all.

Question 13: Please complete the table below, indicating your support to increase the height of buildings within the Town’s existing Community Corridors.

Findings:

• 78% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in the height in the Western Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 17% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
• 77% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Eastern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 19% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
• 73% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Northern Gateway Community Corridor, whereas 20% of respondents do not support an increase in height.
• 61% of respondents indicated that they support an increase in height in the Helmcken-Harbour Community Corridor, whereas 32% do not support an increase in height.

[Chart for Question 13:

• Eastern Gateway Community Corridor: More than 10 Storeys (37, 22%), Up to 10 Storeys (41, 24%), Up to 6 Storeys (53, 31%), I do not support increase (33, 19%), I am not sure (1, 4%? no 1.4% probably 2 or 3 people), Other (6, 1%). Wait, chart labels: 1.4% and 6, 1%.
• Northern Gateway Community Corridor: More than 10 Storeys (36, 21%), Up to 10 Storeys (43, 25%), Up to 6 Storeys (47, 27%), I do not support increase (35, 20%), I am not sure (1.5%), Other (9, 1%).
• Western Gateway Community Corridor: More than 10 Storeys (35, 21%), Up to 10 Storeys (55, 33%), Up to 6 Storeys (41, 24%), I do not support increase (29, 17%), I am not sure (2.4%), Other (7, 1%).
• Helmcken-Harbour Community Corridor: More than 10 Storeys (23, 13%), Up to 10 Storeys (24, 14%), Up to 6 Storeys (58, 34%), I do not support increase (55, 32%), I am not sure (7.2%), Other (4, 4%).]

Question 14: If you selected “other” please leave a short comment to help explain your answer.

Verbatim “Other” Responses/Comments:

1. Building heights in the Helmcken-Harbour corridor need to blend in with this historic neighborhood
2. Up to 6 storeys BUT ONLY if 95 rapid bus + E&N rapid bus can prevent Island Highway from gridlock
3. 3-5 stories is aimit I'd prefer
4. Western Gateway should be more commercial use.
5. Helmcken Harbour - Four stories is adequate related to limitations of infrastructure.
6. Keep Helmcken at 4 stories. Narrow roads.
7. Best to limit height due to lack if infrastucure.
8. 4 story is adequate due to limitations of road infrastructure

Question 15: The Town would like to know what factors may influence your decision in permitting taller buildings. Please provide a short explanation or bullet points to detail what other factors may influence your decision to support an increase in the maximum permitted height of a building. Factors that you may think about are the buildings proximity to transportation, access to on-site or off-site green space and amenities, environmental sustainability, or inclusion of affordable and below market units.

Findings: Respondents were able to provide an open-ended answer to convey what factors they felt were important to consider. The responses were compiled into ‘themes’ to better understand the sentiments/concerns of respondents, which are provided below:

• Building and Site Design (33%)
• Density (29%)
• Building Character/Height Transition (23%)
• Affordable Housing (16%)
• Preserving Existing Form and Character of View Royal (16%)
• Proximity to Transportation (14%)
• Traffic Flow/Congestion (14%)
• Preserving Existing Single Family Neighbourhoods (14%)
• Proximity to Services (14%)
• Infrastructure Capacity (12%)
• Proximity to Major Roads (11%)
• Proximity to Green Space (11%)
• Existing Developed Areas (11%)
• Proximity/Distance to Other Buildings (11%)
• Preserving Views (10%)
• Community Corridors (10%)
• Other (no theme/not relevant density or height) (9%)
• Parking (9%)
• Mixed-Use (8%)
• Alternative Transportation Options (8%)
• Preserving Green Space (7%)
• Affordability (6%)
• Additional Commercial/Retail Space (5%)
• Rental Units (5%)
• Tax Increase (5%)
• Environmental Impact (4%)
• Developer Interest (4%)
• Family Oriented (4%)
• Sprawl (3%)
• Eastern Gateway Community Corridor (3%)
• Access to Amenities (3%)
• Western Gateway Community Corridor (3%)
• Housing Diversity (3%)
• Proximity to Water (2%)
• Proximity to Employment (2%)
• Walkability (2%)
• Privacy (2%)
• Proximity to Schools (2%)
• Unit Size (2%)
• Helmcken Harbour Community Corridor (1%)
• Crime and Safety and Emergency Response (1%)

The verbatim responses that were received for this question are available for review below:

1. Too much greenspace and too many trees have already been sacrificed for tall buildings. Especially ugly and unpleasant is any building built right out to the sidewalk, making a tunnel of the street.
2. Building heights on south side of IslandHwy (Helmcken-Harbour) should blend in with this historic neighborhood. Previous OCP stated need to respond to "valued character of adjacent residential areas" (p43). 2-3 story townhouses rather than 6 story please.
3. Increased tax base, developer interest, more people =more business opportunity
4. Prevent gridlock along Island Highway / Helmcken / WW. Must have bus on E&N. Mature tree protection. Preserving ambiance. Crime increase. DCCs must rise substantially to offset tax increases. Anything over 6 storeys only on Western / Eastern Gateways
5. Density needs to be increased but View Royal doesn't have the space for endless sprawl so building up increases density while preserving green space.
6. The province dictated taller buildings near the hospital. I would like to know why you are asking leading questions about adding unwanted density. The pro-density agenda at town hall is clear in this survey. Is this the only idea you understand?
7. I do not support permitting building taller than what we already have. I like the look of 290 Island Hiway - Lions Cove-and dislike
8. I believe the Western corridor is unique as extra hight does not interfere with existing homes. Everywhere else it does
9. Need more high density housing to support population growth. Up to 10 stories still maintains nature views/mountain views.
10. Cement structure with parking spots. Increased roadways to improve traffic congestion. Also we need to increase the services egg schools, park land,utilities to support the population increase
11. Impact on existing dwellings. Sightlines and light.
12. Up to 10 storeys allows sites that are suited for taller heights. 4 storeys is no longer enough to meet future housing needs. Any taller than 10 doesn't seem right for the town.
13. Disrupting current residence(traffic, blocking views or sun, and profit over everything else) . Builder who look at profit over residence.
14. Stepped heights ranging from lower at street level to higher at the back. Trees planted between the curb and the building front.
15. Are existing services able to handle increased population. Can public transit be expanded to handle increased population? What will be the effect on existing low, single dwelling homes?
16. Must have access to on site green space. Don't make View Royal into Langford and build towers in parking lots with no green space, shade or play space for children. These are ghettos.
17. no developer will build if they are limited to under 4-6 storeys. That is unrealistic. Also, land should not be wasted and so building up is the way to go and helps with affordability and people's changing lifestyles of low maintenance.
18. I do not support taller buildings - out infrastructure does not support more population
19. population density + existing transit in surrounding area
20. I believe rapid densification will continue to drive up assessments and increase the tax burden on families due to "highest use case" of property. This will displace middle class families living in SFDs, as has been happening in other jurisdictions.
21. Taller buildings are ok away from existing single family residential that may have a new neighbour blocking the sun or looking down into your yard. The corridors on the edges are less developed.
22. Increasing building height should only occur in areas that are already built up. So that the existing residents aren't negatively affected
23. Access to good bus service, parks, and schools.
24. The current road infrastructure doesnt support the existing new buildings so we need better planning for new buildings
25. Only where it makes sense… stop building micro apartments like erskine & aspire
26. Needs for residential and commercial spaces...View Royal is way behind..good survey!
27. Services would have to be able to carry the extra housing. Fire department would need to have ladders to accommodate the height, sewer and water would need to be updated to carry the extra load. include below market units, green space as well as parki
28. Needed to increase tax base and to get developer interest. Having more residence will also stimulate businesses because there will be be more people. Want them near transportation and busy roads -business like traffic, single detached homes don’t.
29. We need improved transit and connectivity to support increased density. A third route between the Westshore and Victoria is badly needed (any of LRT, Rapid Bus, road, bridge).
30. Increased density is supportable if the development is close to main traffic and/or cycling networks. Additional bonus density should be granted for developments willing to add affordable units as well.
31. Higher buildings along main roads,, higher density near major parks or ocea, access, use of land topography where more stories can eliminate need for blasting or changing topography of a property
32. Housing crisis, taller allows for more below market units, build tall to stop sprawl, protect the enviroment, build taller near transit, build tall near high employment areas, create walkable mixed-use neighbourhoods..
33. The effect on existing residences. Ie a blksg blocking their view or privacy
34. We need as many homes as possible. Who cares about height when there are people living in tents. Please listen to those that need help with housing and cost of living, not those that have 6+ figure equity.
35. Ensure infrastructure is ready before sale of units is allowed
36. 6 storeys in heavy residential, up to 10 if further from individual residences. Over 10 if more industrial or commercial areas
37. We're in a housing crisis. If building with more storeys can make each unit more affordable, we should do that. Businesses on the ground floor and residential above is great. We'll need to improve transit to support a higher population.
38. Things need to seriously change in regard to greater Vic's zoning. And it needs to change ASAP. The sooner the city allows changes, the sooner we can build a better city for everyone
39. Taller buildings that are on major corridors, not within subdivisions.
40. We are out of undeveloped land, the only way for density is up. Smaller footprints of higher building are easier for tree protection. Height impacts sun, views, privacy and massing and should be considered always but height itself is not an issue
41. Consider the environmental impact on the several water bodies and forests in our area. Design appropriate adjoining spaces to include native plants and walking paths to nearby parks. Buffer nearby homes so that residences can hope to have some peace.
42. The look of the building. If it's a big modern box, then I would be less likely to want to see it increased. If it had more traditional buildings with alot of character and design, then I don't care the height.
43. On major corridors where there is access to highway and adequate parking
44. Proximity to transportation, environmental sustainability (plan with natural/green space), below market housing. All these should be in walkable mixed use centers
45. Not that I want taller buildings BUT below market units, access to transit, access to shops - all of these things would influence me to consider taller buildings. Infrastructure is required!
46. Keep View Royal a community. Taller buildings don’t belong here. I would support higher buildings that are close to public transport and shops.
47. The government has forced this issue but the important infrastructure is required. We need not be a a community of come and go renters.
48. Unfortunately Provincial government has mandated this. Others areas which would influence me are below market units, adequate infrastructure roads/transit.
49. Density along high traffic roads allows for transit use, car share option and corridors built to accommodate density without touching the charming small neighbourhoods we have.
50. Six story woodframe buildings are apparently the most affordable to build. Would like to see much more subsidized housing and co-ops. Going up not out if designed well should allow for much more critical greenspace.
51. I already support taller buildings. Especially non market and rentals
52. Taller buildings MUST consider parking - yes, people don't only use buses, they still own cars! Must include cafes, restaurants or mixed use type purpsoes for light commercial and residential. We need to INCREASE our tax base - We do not need rentals.
53. To maximize the potential for a small town like View Royal, we will need a bigger, more vibrant population. This can only be achieved, given our limited land, by increasing density. Limiting height to 10 storeys allow for preservation of aesthetics.
54. View Royal should explain why the only focus is more and more density. Terrible survey.
55. View Royal has presented no evidence to support the need for higher buildings. The absence of information leads me to belive this survey is conducted to support a prepared conclusion.
56. Closer to the hospital makes sense as that is already tall also at the W gateway because it is currently not well utilized. Anywhere else should be 3/4 story to fit with existing buildings
57. Close to main transit and traffic corridors. In areas where surrounding municipalities are doing the same on border of view royal. In areas of mixed commercial and residential.
58. The Colwood crawl is already bad, an increase in height is appropriate but we don’t have the infrastructure to support high rises of commuters. I want developments to be environmentally sustainable and affordable housing to be a requirement
59. I don not support taller buildings. Asking for support multiple times seems like a bad survey method.
60. Must have easy access to transit, easy access to 4 lane highway, walking distance to shopping, buildings near shopping and the hospital should have affordable rental units.
61. View of scenery, closeness to transit, along areas that are already being developed by other municipalities.
62. You are not going to convince me. The premise is flawed. Get some new ideas.
63. Managing sustainable population growth, improving character of the neighbourhood, traffic congestion, increased use of infrastructure
64. Closeness to water areas
65. Parking spaces
66. High density with very limited parking - ie force residents to use active and public transport!
67. Access to amenities. Along existing light commercial or major roadway corridor. Area is already a high traffic area where some urbanization would be less of a change than to residential neighborhoods that have already absorbed significant development.
68. Height should integrate with the surrounding neighbourhood. Admirals and Atkinson corridors can accommodate more density and frankly revitalization with more people, near transit and established services
69. Green spaces between and amongst, pet friendly. Pretty architecture that will not date the buildings, built sustainable.Transportation access, As well as mixed socioeconomic groupings.
70. Offering more housing solutions without taking away additional precious greenspace. Higher buildings are appropriate near/on larger/busier roads/transportation lines.
71. With additional stories come more people. Need to have suffiecient transportation options and/or better flow of traffic. Already very badly congested
72. I know lack of affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing our local communities, and support any action needed to improve housing security and reduce housing costs, I also want to see our beautiful neighbourhoods continue to grow and flourish.
73. Proximity and transition
74. In urban areas where there are already business centers established, higher density would be beneficial for live /work lifestyle since minimum off street parking is going to be a huge issue. Less parking, more public transit and car share options.
75. Maximize units with smaller footprint. Allow more reasonably priced units.
76. Added height and density support great housing supply (and affordability) while limiting sprawl.
77. Keep floor heights low (8ft max). Ensure affordable. Underground parking only. In suite bike storage.
78. Adequate road infrastructure. it's gridlock in some of these areas already. also your maps are incorrect - they dont show current development at New Roads or Handidart. Burnside corner is a garry oak meadow and every pocket of the neighbourhood is built.
79. I support it only if it will not change the population density to the point that traffic will get worse. I would not like to see buildings alter sightlines.
80. Increase residential capacity with smaller lands to save nature
81. Proximity to existing grocery stores and shops, does not encroach on green spaces, has the road infrastructure to handle additional cars
82. The roads are already crowded with cars. Higher density will make more difficult to navigate traffic.
83. • traffic is the biggest reason
84. Don't need taller buildings. Town has not given any reason to seek taller buildings.
85. No "factors" have been proposed so no one could answer this question.
86. Building up is an obvious way to house more people, I would love the buildings to look nice and be taken care of and have cafes/reataurants/business at the bottom that would draw people to the area
87. I wouldn't want taller than 6 stories. I don't want to see us become like Vancouver.
88. I permit taller buildings built a significant distance from our single family neighbourhoods. They should not affect the skyline of our residential neighbourhoods. I may support them if they include community spaces for families to access and enjoy.
89. Everything should get taller except for Eastern Gateway, which is already a dense area.
90. proximity to active transportation, proximity to parks, community amenity contributions, proximity to places of work (ex. hospital)
91. Small homes and tiny houses that are Westcoast style with solar power
92. More density, more traffic, not enough resources to support increased density. Transit can’t support it, healthcare can’t support it, schools can’t support it.
93. VIEW ROYAL AND ALL OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE GREATER VICTORIA AREA CANNOT EXPAND ANY OTHER WAY. WE NEED TO GO UP WITH ALL NEW RESIDENCES.
94. I did not indicate support for taller buildings. Terrible survey.
95. I live on 244 Stormont Road and would like to stay there
96. Further densification has a negative environmental impact. This seems to have not been a consideration in any of your planning.
97. Lack of parking lack of movment on roads no road development cross walks not inplace no further development of goose trail to separate cylcist from walkers then separte for high speed skateboarde electronic ebikes unicycle ect

Question 16: What is your relationship with the Town of View Royal?

Findings: The majority of respondents (93%) live in View Royal, 45% of respondents indicated they shop in View Royal, and 36% of respondents access our parks or recreation facilities.

[Chart for Question 16: Resident of View Royal (93%), Shop in View Royal (45%), Access recreation or other activities (36%), Work in View Royal (15%), Business owner in View Royal (14%), Student at a school in View Royal (7%), Other (3%), None of the Above (1%).]

Verbatim “Other” Responses/Comments:

1. Land owner in View Royal
2. Volunteer in view royal, grew up in view royal, family built house in view royal in 1957.
3. Land owner is the community
4. I do not have access to everything I need and do
5. Future resident of View Royal. Bought a presell cond at tge
6. Resident of highlands

Question 17: What neighbourhood do you live in?

Findings: The majority of respondents live in the Harbour Neighbourhood (23%). Approximately .5% of respondents live outside of the Town, either within the Capital Regional District or outside of the Capital Regional District.

[Chart for Question 17: Harbour (41, 23.7%), Helmcken (34, 19.7%), Burnside (20, 11.6%), Hospital (19, 11.0%), Craigflower (19, 11.0%), Atkins (16, 9.3%), Thetis (10, 0.6%), Wilfert (6, 0.3%), Live in a community in the Capital Regional District (5, 0.3%), Live outside of the Capital Regional District (3, 0.2%).]

Question 18: Please indicate your age group:

Findings: The majority of respondents by age cohort, were between the ages of 40 to 44 years of age (20%), and the majority of all respondents were between the ages of 25 to 44 (50%). The Town did not receive submissions from those below the age of 25, or above 85 years of age.

[Chart for Question 18: 40 to 44 years (34, 20%), 35 to 39 years (29, 17%), 25 to 34 years (22, 13%), 55 to 59 years (20, 12%), 50 to 54 years (15, 9%), 45 to 49 years (14, 8%), 60 to 64 years (12, 7%), 65 to 69 years (10, 6%), 80 to 84 years (6, 3%), 70 to 74 years (6, 3%), 75 to 79 years (5, 3%). All other cohorts 0, 0%.]

Question 19: What type of housing do you live in?

Findings: The majority of respondents live in a single detached house (69%).

[Chart for Question 19: Single detached house (119, 69%), Townhouse/Row house (21, 12%), Apartment/Condo (fewer than 5 storeys) (17, 10%), Secondary suite in a house (6, 3%), Duplex (5, 3%), Apartment/Condo (more than 5 storeys) (2, 1%), Other (1, 1%), Housing co-op (1, 1%).]

Verbatim “Other” Responses/Comments:

1. Detached Townhouse

Question 20: If you live in View Royal, does your household own or rent your home?

Findings: The majority of respondents own their home (83%).

[Chart for Question 20: Own (143, 83%), Rent (19, 11%), I don't live in View Royal (7, 4%), Other (3, 2%).]

Verbatim “Other” Responses/Comments:

1. prefer not to say
2. Special arrangement.
3. Check census

Question 21: Please indicate if you self-identify with any of the groups below. (Select all that apply).

Findings: 25% of respondents or someone in their household is a caregiver, 23% of respondents have recently moved to View Royal within the last five (5) years, 16% were born outside of Canada.

[Chart for Question 21: I or someone in my household is a caregiver for children (42, 25%), I or someone in my household is new to View Royal (within the last five years) (38, 23%), None of the above (28, 17%), I or someone in my household was born outside of Canada (27, 16%), Prefer not to answer (23, 14%), I or someone in my household has a disability (21, 13%), I or someone in my household is a caregiver for an aging parent or family member (20, 12%), I or a member of my household speaks a language other than English as a first… (16, 10%), I or someone in my household identifies as 2SLGBTQ (16, 10%), I or someone in my household is Indigenous, First Nations, Métis or Inuk (Inuit) (14, 8%), I or someone in my household identifies as belonging to an equity-deserving group (13, 8%), I or someone in my household identifies as a multi/bi-racial person (13, 8%), Other (7, 4%), I or someone in my household is new to Canada (within the last five years) (3, 2%).]

Verbatim “Other” Responses/Comments:

1. nosey question
2. Irrelevant
3. check the census
4. have you looked at the census… not a great question here.
5. Check census and I do not see how this helps this survey
6. Long time View Royal resident and tax payer.
7. Why do they matter??????

Question 22: How did you find out about this public engagement process?

Findings: 34% of respondents found out about the public engagement process through social media, 31% found out about the process through the Town’s website, and 21% found out about the process through email. Only 6% of respondents indicated that they found out about the process through Council or staff, and only 5% of respondents found out about the process through a newspaper advertisement.

[Chart for Question 22: Social media (57, 34%), Town of View Royal website (52, 31%), Email (36, 21%), Word of mouth/from a friend, family member, or colleague (22, 13%), Poster in the communiy (15, 9%), Town newsletter (14, 8%), Other (12, 7%), Council/Staff (10, 6%), Local newspaper (8, 5%).]

Verbatim “Other” Comments:

1. School email
2. school
3. Elementary School email
4. community????
5. Town of View Royal RSS Update email
6. school email
7. Kid’s School
8. View Royal School
9. Email from elementary school
10. school email
11. Eagle view elementary sent to parents
12. Child’s school

SOCIAL MAP RESULTS

As part of the second engagement touchpoint, the Town launched an interactive social mapping tool to gather feedback on where community members would support or oppose future residential density and growth in View Royal. The question was asked outside of the Community Growth Survey so that respondents could see where other respondent’s pins were placed, to generate discussion, and spark ideas in our community.

This activity was informed by the findings of the Town’s 2024 Interim Housing Needs Report (IHNR), which identifies a need for 842 new housing units over the next 5 years and 2,889 units over the next 20 years. In response to new provincial housing legislation, the Town is required to align its Official Community Plan (OCP) with these projected housing needs.

Participants were invited to place markers/pins on an interactive map to indicate where they would support or oppose additional density and to leave comments explaining their reasoning. In total, 54 markers/pins were placed on the map, offering valuable, location-specific insights into community perspectives on future growth.

Question: In 2024, the Town was required to complete an Interim Housing Needs Report (IHNR), based on new housing legislation from the Provincial Government. The report identifies the number of housing units required to meet the Town’s current and anticipated housing needs for the next 5 and 20 years. The IHNR indicates that the Town will need 842 new housing units in the next 5 years, and 2,889 new units in the next 20 years. The Town is required to align the Official Community Plan policy, growth and land use designation with the required number of housing units over the next 20 years. Using the “add marker” icon, place one or more pins on the map below to indicate where you would support density and growth and where you would not like to see density.

Verbatim Comments from Respondents: A total of 54 markets/pins were placed on the Social Map, by 16 total contributors.

OPEN HOUSES

The Town hosted two open houses to provide residents with opportunities to learn more about the Community Development Framework and share their feedback in person. The first open house was held on Saturday, March 8 at the Victoria Scottish Community Centre and included a facilitated workshop focused on land use and housing. The second open house took place on Wednesday, March 12 at View Royal Town Hall. Both events were designed as come-and-go sessions, allowing attendees to engage with display boards, speak directly with staff, and provide input through interactive activities.

A total of 42 community members attended the open house on March 8, and 26 community members attended on March 12.

INTERACTIVE BOARD INPUT: MARCH 8 & 12 (COMBINED)

Neighbourhood Centres

For this activity, participants were asked to place a dot on the map to show which Neighbourhood Centres they support expanding to include more housing and services. Neighbourhood Centres are envisioned as vibrant hubs within existing residential areas. These areas would include a mix of new housing (including higher-density buildings), shops, services, and employment opportunities. The development would typically feature buildings from 4 to 6 storeys, community spaces, walkable connections to amenities, and transit facilities.

What we heard The map below is a digitized representation of where community members placed dots on the activity board, indicating which Neighbourhood Centres they support expanding.

Building Heights: Neighbourhood Centres

Continuing the focus on Neighbourhood Centres, participants were asked to indicate their preferred building height in these locations.

What we heard

Community Corridors

During this activity, participants were asked to place a dot on the map to indicate which Community Corridors they support expanding to enhance transit access and support transit-oriented development. Community Corridors are key areas along major transportation routes that support higher-density residential and mixed-use development. The development in these areas would typically feature buildings from 4 to 6 storeys, with an emphasis on transit-oriented development.

What we heard The map below is a digitized representation of where community members placed dots on the activity board, indicating which Community Corridor(s) they support expanding.

Building Heights: Community Corridors

Building on the previous activity, participants were asked to indicate their preferred building height in community corridors.

What we heard

Town Centre

In the next activity, participants were asked whether they support the development of a Town Centre in View Royal and to use a sticky note to explain their answer. The Town Centre concept involves creating a compact, high-density, transit-oriented area that serves as a centralized hub for residential, commercial, civic, and cultural uses.

What we heard

Yes, I support a Town Centre

• Implications of purchasing of land vs long term lease? Pros + Cons?
• What kind of light industry? Green only? Agricultural - tech? Walkability throughout whole the community. More community gardens
• Corner of Helmcken + Island Highway for a town centre
• I would definitely NOT support takeover of Fort Victoria
• Partnership with CRD. Flex workspace? Own Library? Police hub? Farmer market space
• Yes to a Town Centre – perhaps site of Fort Victoria?
• Yes, I support the Town Centre idea but… Fort Victoria serious a need. Where would the replacement housing come from?
• I support the development of a Town Centre. Helmcken corridor would be a great location and more feasible than RV parks. Already had medical services, grocers, and adjacent properties that would be utilized for additional amenities like a public library.
• A Town Centre near the hospital to avoid traffic congestion getting even worse.
• Eagle Creek
• Admirals Walk and Eagle Creek are defacto Town Centres
• Eagle Creek and Admirals Walk have the capacity and services. Some more commercial for Helmcken/Harbour but not Town Centre

No, I don’t support a Town Centre

• NO CENTRE REQ’D (VILLAGES)
• No View Royal is a bedroom community. Victoria is a Downtown + Langford is shopping
• No. Make better use of existing infrastructure.
• No, to a Town Centre expand on existing neighbourhood.
• No Need for Town Center
• Not required
• No centre required
• Not the park; It really is already Eagle Creek; RV park is our low-income housing; no more traffic issues.
• No, I don’t support a Town Centre
• I am 81 years old. All the services I need are already close enough.
• No Town Centre – the traffic on Island Highway is already too bad

I am unsure

• Yes. Would like a community focus (e.g., recreation center no big business shops; only local shops :)
• Fort Victoria only makes sense if it is on the market. Let’s work with what we can control.
• Admirals Walk and Eagle Creek are sufficient.

Continuing with the concept of a Town Centre, participants were then asked to place a dot on the map indicating where they would like to see a Town Centre, either at the proposed Fort Victoria RV Park site or an alternative location.

What we heard The map below is a digitize representation of where community members placed dots on the activity board, indicating their preferred Town Centre location.

Other Growth Areas

To identify other growth areas, participants were then invited to place a dot on the map to indicate any areas where they would support additional residential and mixed-use development with building heights of 4 to 6 storeys.

What we heard The map below is a digitize representation of where community members placed dots on the activity board.

Western Gateway Community Corridor

For this activity, participants were asked how they believe the Western Gateway Community Corridor should develop in the future and to use stickers to highlight the type of development they would support in this area.

What we heard

Other

• This area has servicing that would support density greater than car lots. Develop this area.
• Green space/garden features. Accessibility features
• High Density - mixed use towers
• Outdoor seating areas, open spaces, trees

Economic Development

During this activity, participants were encouraged to place stickers to highlight the types of businesses or services they would like to see in mixed-use developments.

What we heard

Other

• Elder care
• Only allow businesses that people use frequently

Considerations for New Development & Growth

For this activity, participants were asked to place a sticker to highlight the most important factor for integrating new development into the community.

What we heard

Additional verbatim participant feedback:

• New condos and apartments should have maximum amenities as small units
• Adequate parking, ideally underground
• Availability of transit
• Affordable housing. Below market rate
• Making public transit an affordable and practical option
• GREEN SPACE, OFF STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.
• Green space, height limited, design appeal, affordable
• Affordable units, access to public transit
• Green space/trees maintained, location, transit, accessibility to services + restaurants
• Greenspace. Having parking for residents, accessibility, environmental eco-considerations (green building, fire resistant, etc.)
• Building up density while preserving neighbourhood character (green space, heritage, community places)
• 1. LOCATION, 2) TRANSIT, 3) SERVICES
• Proximity to active transportation + green spaces

Participants were then asked to use a post-it note to share any factors that would influence their decision to support an increase in the maximum permitted height of a building in View Royal.

What we heard

• Tall buildings broken up to allow views + air through. Sightlines + community. Stagger stories. No longscapers. Companion smaller buildings.
• Leading language
• The Town should do everything it possible can to prevent loss of trees from development. Replacement is nonsense. No trees over 20cm cut from any development.
• I consider infrastructure, green spaces + trees, inclusion of below market units, traffic
• I support increasing mac building heights when they're properties adjoining major roadways because single detached homes are less desirable directly abutting busy noisy highways. It’s important to incorporate design elements to prevent feeling oppressive like setbacks, varied building heights, large windows, green facades to create a sense of openness and visual interest
  • In addition to these excellent suggestions, we should giver consideration to use of grey water, natural vegetation, renewable energy (i.e. solar) and other “future proofing”
  • Agree with comments

Additional Comments

The final activity asked participants to write any additional comments or suggestions regarding housing and land use in View Royal on a post-it note.

What we heard

• The process I see here tonight is framed more by the Province than View Royal. This distances citizens/voters from participation in planning
  • Ditto
• I would love to see a Town Centre, especially at Helmcken corridor, so we can have more community events and gathering areas. Having a farmers' market or food truck day or lantern festival or View Royal tradition would be a great boost to community spirit or just better utilizing our existing green spaces to host events.
• Far above consideration of growth and development are the huge sources of carbon emissions from heating systems in established buildings. These need to be tackled first – or all else will be worthless.
• Christie Point has been identified as a Tsunami: Hazard Zone. Increased Density should NOT happen.
• INFRASTRUCTURE please consider! Also, please think about retaining the existing residents!
• Affordable housing, businesses which pay taxes, CRD Building homes on top of present building
• This event was very poorly advertised
• Housing Coops
• Housing Co-ops
• Support agricultural-tech + sustainable living. “Best value for town” in terms of investment. Local sustainable living
• Ferry service to downtown. Reduce traffic congestion near hospital. Earmark land for hospitals (new or expanded).
• Young people + families need affordable housing
• Kill the idea of a Town Centre. NOT NEEDED
• Appreciate all your hard work + different modalities for consulting + input
• Co-ops small scale
• TAX PAYING BUSINESSES (REV REQ’D)
• Small scale multi unit housing is win-win increased housing low input on existing residents
• Coop Housing
• Commercial/Public space on water (Thetis Cove area?) Anywhere really
• Improve walkability prioritize pedestrian over cars. Improve/build sidewalks
• PERSERVE NATURAL COOLING – MITIGATE URBAN HEAT

LAND USE AND HOUSING WORKSHOPS

Three facilitated workshops were held to give residents a more in-depth opportunity to discuss land use, housing, and future growth in View Royal. Each session began with a brief presentation from Town staff, followed by small group discussions focused on key questions related to the Community Development Framework.

Workshop Questions Each workshop featured three 15-minute discussion sessions, each focused on exploring the following questions:

1. How do we grow and develop in the future?
2. What kind of services & businesses does View Royal need?
3. Does the Town of View Royal need a Town Centre?

WHAT WE HEARD: MARCH 8

In total, 14 community members participated in the March 8 land use and housing workshop.

Group 1

Group 2

WHAT WE HEARD: MARCH 13 (AFTERNOON)

In total, 6 community members participated in the March 13 (afternoon) land use and housing workshop.

1. How do we grow and develop in the future?

2. What kind of services & businesses does View Royal need?

3. Does the Town of View Royal need a Town Centre?

WHAT WE HEARD: MARCH 13 (EVENING)

In total, 5 community members participated in the March 13 (evening) land use and housing workshop.

1. How do we grow and develop in the future?

2. What kind of services & businesses does View Royal need?

3. Does the Town of View Royal need a Town Centre?

Appendix 1: Question 7, 8 and SocialMap Responses

Appendix 2: SocialMap: Where Do You Support Growth?