The Corporation of the District of Saanich

Supplemental Report 2 To:

From:

Date:

Mayor and Council

Sharon Hvozdanski, Director of Planning

September 22, 2015

br("~ClD ~: ./ ~~:../ ~. M,goe.:. v'"

¥ Ctu.:l; : v

Subject: Development Permit, Subdivision, and Rezoning Application File: DPR00543; SUB00717; REZ00515 • 4247, 4253, and 4255 Dieppe Road

BACKGROUND

At the August 10, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council considered an application by de Hoog and Kierulf Architects to rezone three adjacent properties from A-1 (Rural) Zone and M-5 (Food Processing) Zone to a new CD-4DR (Comprehensive Development Dieppe Road) Zone, RS-4 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone, and RS-6 (Single Family Dwe"ing) Zone and to subdivide in order to construct a mixed-use development comprising a 3,630 m2

commercial/industrial building for a food processing use, 33 attached housing units in eight blocks, eight bare land strata lots, and one fee-simple lot for single family dwelling use.

At the meeting, Council resolved that a Public Hearing be called to further consider the rezoning application. The applicant was asked to further explain the benefits and amenities associated with the project and give further consideration to the community contribution prior to the Public Hearing. In addition, the applicant has responded to questions about Caen Road vs Dieppe Road as a priority for sidewalk improvements and made a change to the site plan to provide for a future pedestrian connection to Kincaid Street should the opportunity arise in the future.

This Supplemental Report is intended to provide details and confirmation of the following items: 1. Proposed community contribution; 2. Proposed Environmental and Sustainability Standard; 3. Site plan and zone schedule revision; and 4. Sidewalk Improvement priority.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1. Proposed Community Contribution The attached September 3, 2015 letter from the applicant highlights what he believes are the economic, environmental, and community contribution benefits of the proposed development.

The applicant has agreed to increase the Saanich Affordable Housing Fund contribution from $1,250 per residential unit to $1,500 per residential unit. The total Community Contribution attributed to this development is now $168,500 or $4,011.90 per residential unit as indicated in the table found on the following page.

~~©~O~[g[Q) OCT 0 1 2015

LEGISLATIVE DIVISION DISTRICT OF SAANICH

SUB00717; DPR00543; REZ00515 -2- September 22,2015

Table 1: Proposed Community Contribution Breakdown

Proposed Community Contribution Estimated

Value Full curb, gutter, and sidewalk upgrades extending beyond the parcel

1. frontage along the east side of Dieppe Road to Caen Road and then as

$90,000 far up Caen Road as funds allow in accordance with Saanich Engineering specifications

2. Two additional street lights on Caen Road $3,000 3. Contribution to the Saanich Affordable Housing Trust Fund $63,000

4. Contribution to Saanich for Gabo Creek environmental

$12,500 enhancement/awareness

Total Community Contribution $168,500

2. Proposed Environmental and Sustainability Standard The April 14, 2015 Planner's Report noted that, "the residential component would target BU I L T GREEN® Gold or an equivalent environmental and sustainability standard", however recommendation "d" of the report referred only to the attached housing component. The attached letter from the applicant confirms that all of the residential, including the single family dwellings, would target BUILT GREEN® Gold or an equivalent environmental and sustainability standard. The recommendation at the end of this report has been revised accordingly.

3. Site Plan and Zone Schedule Revision The applicant has revised the proposed site plan by adjusting the boundary of the common area in the southeast corner of the site to provide for a future footpath connection under the hydro transmission line to Kincaid Street through two adjacent residential properties to the east, should the opportunity arise and the community is supportive. This change reduced the area of the proposed attached housing site by 10m2 from 15,440 m2 to 15,330 m2• As a result, the proposed CD-4DR (Comprehensive Development Dieppe Road) Zone schedule has been adjusted to permit a maximum of 1 unit per 460 m2 (was 1 unit per 465 m2) for Development Area B. This change is inconsequential in that the maximum number of attached housing units that could be constructed on the site would remain at 33. There would be no change to the permitted FSR of 0.45. A copy of the revised zone schedule is attached.

4. Sidewalk Improvement Priority At the Committee of the Whole meeting a resident questioned Caen Road vs Dieppe Road as a priority for sidewalk improvements. As a result, the applicant engaged NovaTrans Engineering Inc. to undertake a comparison of the two routes. The consultant's report confirms Caen Road as the priority for additional sidewalk upgrade due to traffic volume and speed. A copy of the report is attached.

SUB00717; DPR00543; REZ00515 -3- September 22, 2015

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Zoning Bylaw, 8200 be amended to include a new site-specific (Comprehensive Development Dieppe Road) Zone CD-4DR.

b) That the application to rezone the site from A-1 (Rural) Zone and M-5 (Food Processing) Zone to a new CD-4DR (Comprehensive Development Dieppe Road) Zone, RS-4 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone and RS-6 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone be approved.

c) That Development Permit DPR00543 be approved.

d) That Final Reading of the Zoning Amendment Bylaw and ratification of the Development Permit be withheld pending registration of a covenant to secure the following:

• $168,500 community contribution for the following:

Proposed Community Contribution Estimated

Value Full curb, gutter and sidewalk upgrades extending beyond the parcel frontage along the

1. east side of Dieppe Road to Caen Road and then as far up Caen Road as funds allow in $90,000 accordance with Saanich Engineering specifications

2. Two additional street lights on Caen Road $3,000 3. Contribution to the Saanich Affordable Housing Trust Fund $63,000 4. Contribution to Saanich for Gabo Creek environmental enhancement/awareness $12,500

Total Community Contribution $168,500

• Construction of the commercial/industrial building to LEED® Silver or an equivalent standard and the residential component to BUILT GREEN® Gold or an equivalent standard.

• Registration of a Building Scheme for bare land strata lots 1-8.

Report prepared by: 'I L:PcCJ~~c c..--0 ~eil'Findlow, Senior Planner

Report reviewed by: 7~ Sharon Hvozdanski, Director of Planning

NDF/ads H:\TEMPESnPROSPERO\A IT ACHMENTS\SUB\SUB00717\SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT _10 SEPT 15.DOCX

Attachment

cc: Andy Laidlaw, Administrator Graham Barbour, Manager of Inspection Services

ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:

I endorse the recommenda., ~)e .Director of Planning.

Andy LaidlaW~niS~

DISTRICT OF SAANICH

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

TO: Fatt's Poultry Farm Ltd 4251 Dieppe Road Victoria BC V8X 2N2

Wayne Roger Fatt 4253 Dieppe Road Victoria BC V8X 2N2

(herein called "the Owner')

DPR00543

1. This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of the Municipality applicable thereto, except as specifically varied by this Permit.

2. This Development Permit applies to the lands known and described as:

Lot 0 (002344421), Sections 11 and 100, Lake District, Plan 2611 Except Part in Plan 2395 RW. (4247 Oieppe Road)

That Part of Lot A, Sections 8 and 11, Lake District, Plan 10698 Lying to the South West of a Boundary Parallel to the South West Boundary of Said Lot A and Extending From a Point on the South Easterly Boundary of Said Lot A Distant 160 Feet From the Most Southerly Corner of Said Lot A. (4253 Oieppe Road)

That Part of Lot A, Sections 8 and 11, Lake District, Plan 10698, Lying to the North East of a Boundary Parallel to the South West Boundary of Said Lot A, and Extending From a Point on the South Easterly Boundary of Said Lot A, Distant 160' From the Most Southerly Corner of Lot A. (4255 Dieppe Road)

(herein called "the lands')

3. This Development Permit further regulates the development of the lands as follows:

(a) By requiring the buildings and lands to be constructed and developed in accordance with the plans prepared by deHoog & Kierulf architects received on February 12, 2014, May 26,2014 and September 29,2015; the landscape plans prepared by Murdoch de Greeff Inc. received May 26,2014 and September 29,2015; the Tree Plan prepared by Gye and Associates received February 12, 2014 and the site servicing plan prepared by Westbrook Consulting Ltd. received September 29, 2015 copies of which are attached to and form part of this permit.

4. The Owner shall substantially start the development within 24 months from the date of issuance of the Permit, in default of which the Municipality may at its option upon 10 days prior written notice to the Owner terminate this Permit and the Permit shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.

DPR00543 - 2-

5. Notwithstanding Clause 4, construction of driveways and parking areas, and delineation of parking spaces shall be completed prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit.

6. (a) Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Owner shall provide to the Municipality security by cash, certified cheque, or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $591,925.00 to guarantee the performance of the requirements of this Permit respecting landscaping.

(b) A Landscape Architect registered with the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects must be retained for the duration of the project until the landscaping security has been released. Written letters of assurance must be provided at appropriate intervals declaring the registered Landscape Architect, assuring that the landscape work is done in accordance with the approved landscape plan, and indicating a final site inspection confirming substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan (BCSLA Schedules L-1, L-2, and L-3).

(c) All landscaping must be served by an automatic underground irrigation system.

(d) The owner must obtain from the contractor a minimum one-year warranty on landscaping works, and the warranty must be transferable to subsequent owners of the property within the warranty period. The warranty must include provision for a further one-year warranty on materials planted to replace failed plant materials.

(e) Any protective fencing of trees or covenant areas must be constructed, installed, and signed according to the specifications in Appendix X.

(f) No site activity shall take place prior to the installation of any required tree of covenant fencing and the posting of "WARNING - Habitat Protection Area" signs. The applicant must submit to the Planning Department a photograph(s) showing the installed fencing and signs. Damage to, or moving of, any protective fencing will result in an immediate stop work order and constitute a $1,000 penalty.

(g) The landscaping requirements of this Permit shall be completed within four months of the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the development, in default of which the Municipality may enter upon the lands, through its employees or agents, and complete, correct or repair the landscaping works at the cost of the Owner and may apply the security, interest at the rate payable by the Municipality for prepaid taxes.

(h) In the event that any tree identified for retention is destroyed, removed or fatally injured, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same location by the Owner in accordance with the replacement guidelines as specified within the Saanich Tree and Vegetation Retention, Relocation and Replacement Guidelines. The replacement tree shall be planted within 30 days of notice from the Municipality in default of which the Municipality may enter upon the lands and carry out the works and may apply the security provided herein in payment of the cost of the works. For the purpose of this section, existing trees identified for retention and new trees planted in accordance with the landscape plan attached to and forming part of this permit shall be deemed to be "trees to be retained".

7. The lands shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this Permit and shall comply with all Municipal bylaws except for those provisions specifically varied herein. Minor variations which do not affect the overall

DPR00543 - 3-

building and landscape design and appearance may be permitted by the Director of Planning or in her absence, the Manager of Current Planning.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Permit the following changes will be permitted and not require an amendment to this Permit:

(a) When the height or siting of a building or structure is varied 20 cm or less provided, however, that this variance will not exceed the maximum height or siting requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.

(b) Changes to the relative location and size of doors and windows on any fayade which do not alter the general character of the design or impact the privacy of neighbouring properties following consultation with the Director of Planning, or Manager of Current Planning in her absence.

(c) Where items noted under Section 8(b) are required to comply with the Building Code and/or the Fire Code and those changes are not perceptible from a road or adjacent property.

(d) Changes to soft landscaping provided the changes meet or exceed the standards contained on the landscape plans forming part of this Permit.

9. The terms and conditions contained in this Permit shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Owner, their executors, heirs and administrators, successors and assigns as the case may be or their successors in title to the land.

10. This Permit is not a Building Permit.

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ON THE

DAY OF 20 ------- -----

ISSUED THIS DAY OF 20 ------

Municipal Clerk

DPR00543

APPENDIX X

PROTECTIVE FENCING FOR TREES AND COVENANT AREAS

Protective fencing around trees and covenant areas is an important requirement in eliminating or minimizing damage to habitat in a development site.

Prior to any activities taking place on a development site, the applicant must submit a photo showing installed fencing and "WARNING - Habitat Protection Area" signs to the Planning Department.

Specifications: • Must be constructed using 2" by 4" wood framing and supports, or modular metal fencing • Robust and solidly staked in the ground • Snow fencing to be affixed to the frame using zip-ties or galvanized staples • Must have a "WARNING - HABITAT PROTECTION AREA" sign affixed on every fence face

or at least every 10 linear metres

Note: Damage to, or moving of, protective fencing will result in a stop work order and a $1,000 penalty.

DPR00543

2.4M MAXIMUM SPAN

38 x 89mm TOP RAIL

r

38 x89 mm BOTTOM RAIL 38 x 89mm POST -------«-------r

'---- TIES OR STAPLES TO SECURE MESH

1= ! Ll TREE PROTECTION FENCING

NOTES:

1. FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING 38 X 89 mm (2"X4") WOOD FRAME: TOP, BOTTOM AND POSTS. * USE ORANGE SNOW-FENCING MESH AND SECURE TO THE WOOD FRAME WITH "ZIP" TIES OR GALVANZIED STAPLES.

2. ATTACH A 500mm x 500mm SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDING: WARNING·HABITAT PROTECTION AREA. THIS SIGN MUST BE AFFIXED ON EVERY FENCE FACE OR AT LEAST EVERY 10 LINEAR METRES.

* IN ROCKY AREAS, METAL POSTS (T-BAR OR REBAR) DRILLED INTO ROCK WILL BE ACCEPTED

DATE: March/DB

DRAWN: OM APP·D. RR

DETAIL NAM E: TREE PROTECTION FENCING SCALE' N.T.S.

H:\shared\parks\Tree Protection Fencing.pdf

1730.1 Development Areas

Development Areas: This zone contains regulations that apply to all areas within the zone and in addition the zone is divided into Development Areas A and B as shown on the attached plan fonning part ofthis zone schedule.

1730.2 Definitions

Definitions: In this zone: "Floor Space Ratio" means the gross floor area of all buildings on a Development Area excluding those portions located more than 1.5 m below finished grade, divided by the lot area.

1730.3 Accessory Off-Street Parking

Accessory off-Street parking: (a) The parking area shall occupy not more than

30% of the surface ofthe lot area.

(b) No portion of a parking area or driveway surface for an attached housing use shall be located within 3.0 m of any window provided in a habitable room.

(c) Any lighting used to illuminate a parking area or parking garage shall be so arranged that all direct rays of light are reflected upon the parking area or parking garage and not on any adjoining premises.

1730.4 General

General: The relevant provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7 and Schedule Band F of this bylaw shall apply.

1730.5 Development Area A

Development Area A: (a) The following uses are pennitted:

(i) Food Processing (ii) Office (iii) Wholesale and Warehouse Distribution (iv) Accessory Buildings and Structures

___ Saanich Zoning Bylaw 8200

CD-4DR

(b) The following uses are prohibited: All uses not pennitted by Section I 730.5(a) and without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(i) Slaughter Houses (ii) Accessory Unenclosed Storage

(c) Lot Coverage: The maximum coverage of all buildings and structures shall be 30% of the lot area.

(d) Density: Buildings and structures shall not exceed a Floor Space Ratio of 0.70.

(e) Buildings and Structures:

(i) Shall be sited not less than 15.0 m from a front lot line

(ii) Shall be sited not less than 3.0 m from a rear lot line

(iii) Shall be sited not less that 6.0 m from an interior side lot line or an exterior side lot line

(iv) Shall not exceed a height of 12.0 m

(f) Fences, Retaining Walls: Notwithstanding Section 6.2(f)(ii) a fence in any yard not abutting a street shall not exceed a height of2.4 m.

1730.6 Development Area B

Development Area B: (a) The following uses are pennitted:

(i) Attached Housing (ii) Home Occupation Office and Daycare for

Preschool Children (iii) Accessory Buildings and Structures

(b) Lot Coverage: The maximum coverage of all buildings and structures shall be 20% ofthe lot area.

(c) Density:

(i) The maximum density shall be one dwelling unit per 460 m2 of lot area.

(ii) Buildings and structures shall not exceed a Floor Space Ratio of 0.45.

1730-1 _

(d) Buildings and Structures for Attached Housing:

(i) Shall be sited not less than 2.8 m from any lot line abutting a street

(ii) Shall be sited not less than 7.5 m from an interior side lot line or a rear lot line which does not abut a street

(iii) Shall not exceed a height of 11.5 m (iv) Shall not exceed 3 storeys

(e) Accessory Buildings and Structures:

(i) Shall be sited not less than 4.0 m from any lot line abutting a street

(ii) Shall be sited not less than 1.5 m from an interior side lot line or a rear lot line which does not abut a street

(iii) Shall not exceed a height of 3.75 m (iv) Together shall not exceed a lot coverage

ofl0%

_ 1730-1

CD-4DR

Saanich Saanich Zoning Bylaw 8200

Fatt's Poultry Farm Ltd. Dieppe Road Holdings Ltd 4247 Dieppe Rd Victoria B.C., V8X 2N2

September 16, 2015

Mayor Atwell and Council

Re: rezoning of 4247,4253 and 4255 Dieppe Road

=::-:::-___ ........,.::;;...~G_ POST TO . n t-----!1~~_....L-=v::...l,...:v COpy TO -="--~-;C----- SO

REPLY TO WRITER COPY RESPONSE TO lfGISLATM DIVISION

REPORT 0

ACK:~;~-E-DG-_Ep-__ -ll.iii2.-_-tf.:--;.::-, ~-. -~-.-_,,-._-:.-

In a letter dated from ourselves to Mayor Atwell and Council dated Sept. 3rd 2015 an error was made. On page two under Additional Community Ammenities the total on the chart should be $168,500.00 not

$168,000.00.

We apologize for the error.

Yours Truly

Ian Fatt / Wayne Fatt Fatt's Poultry Farm Ltd.

Ce, District of Saanich, Planning Dept.

fR]~(g~D~~fQ) SEP 1 6 2015

~EGISLATIVE DIVISION ISTRICT OF SAANICH

~~~~~~------------­"\~(.~ \o)~©~ow~rm lnl SEP 1 8 2015 tl1

PLANNING DEPT. DISTRICT OF SAANICH

September 03, 2015

Mayor Atwell and Council District of Saanich 770 Vernon Ave. Victoria B.C., V8X 2W7

RE: Community Contribution - Rezoning Application - 4247, 4253, 4255 Dleppe Road - Fatt Poultry Farms Ltd.

Dear Mayor Atwell and Council,

At the August 10th Committee ofthe Whole meeting, the above cited application was referred to public hearing and the applicant was asked to review and further explain the benefits and amenities associated with the project. We are pleased to provide the following comments.

The benefits generally comprise economic, environmental, and community contributions; highlighted as follows:

1. The most important benefit is redevelopment of a modern, high quality, energy efficient and HACCP approved food processing facility that employs more than 100 people year round. This work force increases by 10 percent in season, a sizeable workforce throughout the year. The processing plant, in turn, facilitates and supports many more local jobs, local food production, and opportunities for future local agricultural products. Our business plan relies on the residential component of the project to help fund the planned state ofthe art processing facility. We strongly believe and view the new processing plant itself as an amenity for the community. Failure to be able to redevelop the processing plant will inevitably have consequences, as the long-term operation of the current dated facility is not an option.

2. The project will generate significantly more taxes to the Saanich. It is estimated that property taxes paid will Increase lO-fold to more than $200,000 annually.

3. A full pedestrian sidewalk, and upgrades to the roads an curbs along the entire 300m frontage of the property will be Installed, providing for neighborhood safety, convenience, and walkability.

4. Development Cost Charges (DCCs) to the municipality are estimated at $236,083, (this does not including building permit fees, street frontage fees, or connections fees).

S. More parking than is required by bylaw will be provided to safeguard against the intrusion of on-street parking into the surrounding neighborhood.

6. More bicycle spaces than required by bylaw will be provided.

7. The Garry Oak trees on the site will be retained and site planning has been specifically designed around them. Additionally, 213 new trees will be planted on the site and along the Douglas Street and Dieppe Road frontage.

8. Upgrading of the site from old and run down to something the neighborhood can be very proud of.

9. Community gardens for residents of the project will be developed to promote greater food self-sufficiency.

10. The storage of 175,000 Kilos of produce at any given time provides the Island residents with greater short term food security.

11. Extensive use of rain gardens as a significant part of the storm water and water purification management plan is planned.

12. The new processing plant will be designed to LEEOtl Silver or equivalent;

13. The residential homes will be built to BUILT GREENGI\ Gold or equivalent;

14. Upgrades to our production facilities will bring reduced greenhouse gases, enhanced energy efficiencies and support objectives of the OCP.

15. 50% of our work force currently travel an average of 3.16 kms to work. Employee's will now have the option, supported by the company to locate in this new development. This will increase the walk to work opportunities for staff.

16. Secondary suites will be permitted in the detached units within the project to promote affordable housing.

17. Island West, along with its sister Portofino Bakery has and will continue to support many community organizations and charities including long-term relationships with the local food banks. A new facility will ensure that this program can be sustained and potentially enhanced.

Additional Community Amenities

In addition to the benefits described above, Fatt Poultry Farms Ltd. will agree to additional community amenities as a consideration for the residential component of the project. We have reviewed the amenities that have already been put forward and have revised and increased the value as follows: rn

AddltJemal Amenity, Contrlbutl_on Value 1 Continuation of the pedestrian sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the $90,000

east side of Dieppe Rd. and up Caen Rd. toward Quadra St. 2 2 additional street lights on Caen Rd. $3,000 3 Enhancement to Gabo Creek $12,500 4 Contribution to Saanich affordable housing fund @ $1,500/unit $63,000 5 Total

~'~-.. -6 Contribution per residential unit (rounded) -:$4,000'

We believe that the overall project benefits, along with the additional community amenities provide very significant and meaningful contributions to ;~~!i!lborhOOd and Saanich as a whole. We note that the amenity contribution of (unit is 3.5 to 4 times what has been the norm with other rezoning applications and that the $1,500 per unit Saanich's affordable housing fund alone, is equivalent to the historic high range of

total amenity contributions of other applications according to the April 14th/15 staff report which stated that "generally Saanich receives $1,000 - $1,500 per unit as a community contribution".

We thank you for the opportunity to further explain the project benefits. We believe the project has considerable merit and is worthy of support. We look forward to a continuing to be part of the economic and social fabric of the community for many years to come.

Yours truly,

Ian Fatt, Wayne Fatt Fatt Poultry Farms Ltd.

ec, District of Saanich, Plan ning Dept

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. Innovative Transportation Solutions

September 2015

Dieppe Road Holdings Ltd. 4247 Dieppe Rd. Victoria BC vax 2N2 Canada

Attn: Mr. Ian Fatt

4028 Hopesmore Drive Victoria, B.C. V8N 559 Phone: (250) 881 7565 E-Mail: marcog@novatrans.ca

Re : Pedestrian Amenities Assessment: 4247 Dieppe Road

Dear Mr. Fatt:

Please find enclosed a short pedestrian amenities report carried out by NovaTrans Engineering Inc. for the above site. The report was carried out on the basis of a comparison of two routes from the corner of Dieppe and Caen Roads, namely following Caen Rd. to Quadra or following Dieppe Rd. to the end of the cul-de-sac and then to Quadra via the short pathway available. The project was carried out generally following the District of Saanich sidewalk assessment methodology as outlined in the manual titled "Pedestrian Priorities Implementation Plan, Saanich, 2012".

We trust that the attached information is helpful in the deliberations necessary for you to achieve the redevelopment of your site. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly at (250) 881 7565.

Sincerely,

Marco Guarnaschelli, M.Eng. P.Eng. President, NovaTrans Engineering Inc.

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. September 2015

Project Description

A site traffic impact assessment was prepared for the District of Saanich (Saanich) in support of a proposal for the development of the 4247 Dieppe Road Development site located within Saanich (Figure 1 Site Location) in January of 2013. The site lies on the southeast corner where Dieppe Road meets Douglas St. between the Pat Bay Highway and Quadra St to the south of the highway Quadra St. Interchange. The site presently has access to both Dieppe Road and Douglas St. with access to the major street network either to Quadra St. via Dieppe and Caen Roads, or to McKenzie Avenue via Douglas St.

Figure 1 Site Location

As a part of the original negotiations with Saanich a sidewalk amenity in front of the site and from the site to Caen Rd. at Dieppe was agreed upon. Additional negotiations have yielded a request for a further extension to Quadra St. either along Dieppe Rd. to the end of the cul-de-sac or along Caen Rd. This short report provides a high-level comparison of the two routes.

1

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. September 2015

Methodology

The report was carried out on the basis of a comparison of two routes from the corner of Dieppe and Caen Roads, namely either following Caen Rd. to Quadra (Option A) or following Dieppe Rd. to the end of the cul-de-sac and then to Quadra via the short pathway available (Option B).

The project was carried out generally following the District of Saanich sidewalk assessment methodology as outlined in the manual titled "Pedestrian Priorities Implementation Plan, Saanich, 2012" (PPIP). The PPIP sets out a set of criteria and suggested weightings for the criteria. The criteria table and weightings from the PPIP is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Criteria and Weightings Table 14: Assessment and Criteria and Weightings

Criterion I Weighting

a. Daily Traffic Volumes

b. Collisions

c. Proximity to Schools

15%

lS%

10%

_ .. ____ .. ~.:_ .. ~~~::!_~!~.y .. !:> .. ?~!:I.i.~~.~!:~!.'.~!!=~ .. _ ..... _ ................... _ .......... .!9~ .... _._ .. Total Pedestrian Safety 50%

Pec!estrJan Demand

e. Density 15%

f. Centres and Villages 15% g. Proximity to Parks and Community Facilities 5%

h. Proximity to Transit 10%

i. Network Contribution 5% ----------------------------------------_._-----._._ .. _ .... _-_.- -.~~ .. -----------.- ---------.--------~.-

Total Pedesttian Demand 50% Total Weighting 100%

A high-level assessment of each of the criteria for each of the two routes was made with a resulting "decision matrix" provided. As pedestrian safety was of major concern a set of traffic counts was undertaken, logging pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle volumes. The counts were taken Tuesday August 25, 2015 during the afternoon PM peak period between 1 :30 and 4:30 PM with the results presented in Table 3 below:

Figure 3: Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicle Counts

Time Period eaen RCI. Dieppe Rd~ Peds Bikes Vehicles Peds Bikes Vehicles

1 :45 - 2:45 5 0 81 3 3 20 2:45 - 3:45 1 0 98 6 1 16 3:45 - 4:45 12 0 88 13 5 29 Total 18 0 267 22 9 65

2

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. September 2015

Assessment Results

The resulting "decision matrix" is provided below in Figure 4. As many of the ratings between the options are similar and consequently will not affect the selection of one option over the other a comment has been made on their similarities in the table. The remaining criteria are really the "decision" criteria and are each discussed briefly below following the matrix. The rating system is set up so that the amount of "fill" in the pies defines the relative need for sidewalks.

Figure 4: Option Comparison Assessment Matrix

Criteria Option Comments A B

Caen Rd. Dleppe Rd.

Traffic Volume ~ ~ Safety

Traffic Speed ~ 0 Safety

Pedestrain Volume 0 0 Similar

Collisions 0 0 No Data

Proxinity to Schools 0 0 Schools in other directrion

Proxinity to Seniors 0 0 No demand likely Facilities

Density 0 0 Similar

Centres and Villages 0 ~ Dieppe link to Royal Oak

Proxinity to Parks and 0 ~ Dieppe link to Rithets Bog Community Facilities

Proxinity to Transit 0 0 Similar

Network Contribution 0 ~ Dieppe link to Centennial

Legend: No Need 0 Little Need ~ Some Need ()

High Need ~ Very High Need •

Traffic Volume

As can be seen in Figure 3 the pedestrian volumes along the two roadways are very similar. However, Caen Rd. has about 4 times as much traffic as Dieppe Rd. This makes sense as Caen Rd. leads vehicles to Quadra St. whereas Dieppe Rd.

3

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. September 2015

Network Contribution

From the perspective of pedestrian demand the natural linkages to the rest of the trail network, and in particular Saanich's major trails, is also important. Dieppe Rd., in conjunction with the short trail leading from the end of the cul-de-sac to Quadra St., is a more natural linkage to the Centennial Trail in the Royal Oak area. Again, though, it is evident from the pedestrian volume count that this is not a heavily travelled route with low pedestrian demand. Consequently Caen Rd. is rated as No Need and Dieppe Rd. rated as Little Need

Overall Assessment

In considering the five decision criteria identified, the ratings provided also need to be balanced with the importance or the weightings indicated in Figure 2. The Safety oriented weightings are highest at 15%. This same weighting would apply to the traffic speed, again on the basis of pedestrian safety. While the proximity to Centres and Villages is also rated similarly at 15%, as was pointed out in the individual criteria discussion, it is evident from the pedestrian volume count that this is not a heavily travelled route with low pedestrian demand. Both proximity to Parks and Network Contribution are weighted considerably lower at 5% rather than 15%.

On balance, considering the combination of ratings and weightings it would appear that Caen Rd. would be the preferred option. Increased safety for the pedestrians interacting with a greater number of vehicles travelling faster would be more important than a potential small increase in pedestrian travel demand. In fact given that the ability to walk along the shoulder of Dieppe is presently available with the short trail connection to Quadra, the benefit of the Dieppe Rd. sidewalk would be more of an increased comfort level rather than overall access and it is uncertain how much this would affect travel demand.

As a result of the above it is recommended that if a roadway is selected for an additional sidewalk upgrade that it be Caen Rd.

5

NovaTrans Engineering Inc. September 2015

is a Cul-de-Sac and would carry traffic from adjacent properties only. As pedestrian safety is based on the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians, from the perspective of safety Caen Rd. is far more important a road to place a sidewalk on than the cul-de-sac portion of Dieppe Rd. Dieppe Rd. does carry more bicycles, however, from the perspective of safety these can be considered vehicles and when added to the Dieppe vehicles make very little difference to the overall results. Consequently Caen Rd. is rated as High Need and Dieppe Rd. rated as Little Need.

Traffic Speed

Although traffic speed has not been included in the original criteria and weightings it is felt to be very important from the perspective of pedestrian safety. Particularly in the dark, the ability of a driver to see and avoid a pedestrian walking along the roadside is greatly affected by the speed of travel. As Dieppe Rd. is a short cul-de-sac vehicles really do not have time to gain any speed and would consequently generally be travelling very slowly, typically in the 20 - 30 kmh range. Caen Rd., on the other hand, is longer than Dieppe Rd. and therefore vehicles would have the ability to gain a bit more speed. Consequently Caen Rd. is rated as High Need and Dieppe Rd. rated as No Need.

Centres and Villages

From the perspective of pedestrian demand the proximity or natural linkage to pedestrian oriented local centres and villages is also important. Dieppe Rd., in conjunction with the short trail leading from the end of the cul-de-sac to Quadra St., is a more natural linkage between the neighbourhood and the Royal Oak commercial area. Having said this, though, it is evident from the pedestrian volume count that this is not a heavily travelled route with low pedestrian demand. Consequently Caen Rd. is rated as No Need and Dieppe Rd. rated as Little Need.

Proximity to Parks and Community Facilities

Similarly, the proximity or natural linkages to parks and community facilities will also affect pedestrian demand. Again, Dieppe Rd., in conjunction with the short trail leading from the end of the cul-de-sac to Quadra St., is a more natural linkage between the neighbourhood and Rithets Bog Park. Again, though, it is evident from the pedestrian volume count that this is not a heavily travelled route with low pedestrian demand. Consequently Caen Rd. is rated as No Need and Dieppe Rd. rated as Little Need

4