Committee of the Whole

Receive permission.

So we did that about six weeks ago.

So that's all we're waiting for.

We've got a design, we've got a contractor in line.

The minute we get the go-ahead from the ministry, then we will uh be building it.

Okay, thank you.

The other one I have, Tom was I I emailed you about it.

The the LED lights, I had thought when we we sort of re expanded the area that we were going to do.

I thought we had included, and I know as soon as I mention Burnside, everybody thinks of after my street, but it's it's it's a very stretch.

And I thought for some reason that we had included the stretch of Burnside from Helmcken to the Saanich border.

And you told me in an email that those were BC Hydro lamps, I think.

That's correct.

That to my knowledge, we don't have any that we actually own ourselves, and BC Hydro hasn't got to that area yet for um changing over to the LED lights.

So I guess I'm confused then.

What why would the ones on Watkas Way say be ours?

But the ones on Burnside would be BC Hydro's.

I could find that out for you.

Okay.

Well, it'd be good to know.

I mean, especially if we're thinking of a conversion, because I think there's a desire on council to see the the town in general switch to those lights.

So I guess it would be good for us to know which ones we have jurisdiction over and which ones we don't.

We do have a um POS form for the five-year capital or five-year financial plan that'll be coming forward for discussion with regards to uh converting the town's LED lights over on a phase system over the next 15 years.

Okay.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, um, and I I realize that we're phasing our our all our street lights, and and you know, when we had that discussion at the last when this came up initially, we did say to go all the way to V World Boundary with Sanage.

Uh I remember that, and uh you know it seemed like one continuous flow.

And um so how far did they go?

We got to the intersection, I think our last light that we own is at the on Helmcken, uh just south of uh Burnside.

Just south of Burnside.

So I think I think to the intersection of of Helmcken and Burnside basically.

How about that?

But I mean, what is to prevent us from doing the hydro ones if we chose to?

Because presumably they're never gonna do it.

Uh no, there's no prevention other than uh I'm not sure if we actually have those types of lights ourselves or have that availability to us, but if it's council's wish to uh move forward regardless of ownership and uh us uh providing that uh cost, then certainly we can take a look at that and see what that cost would be and get back to council for sure.

Well, we'll leave it with you if it's coming forward in budget, but it would be good, you know.

I like why would say a street light I say I mean, would that be ours or would it be a BC hydro one?

It would be good to know that sort of distinction and what we can do and what we can't.

Yeah, typically the um the wooden poles that have a metal davit arm off of that pole is a hydro-owned BC pole.

Anything else like the Watkiss Way that are on that corridor but are more of that Cobra style steel pole is generally ours because they're ornamental in some type or form.

I know how much staff loves it when we compare ourselves to other municipalities, but I would also point out that all of Sanage's lights on Burnside or LED until it hits the V-Roll border and then it stops.

So something happened that that happened.

Your worship, we're we're happy to compare it to other municipalities because we generally look better.

But in this particular case you could be correct.

So I will definitely take a look at it and see what we can do to make that happen.

I'll stop going on about it.

Thank you.

We could get Sanjay to do ours.

Are there any other questions on the capital project update?

I just had a I'd have a quick question.

Oh, you can hear me there?

Great, thank you.

What's happening on Island Highway with all the median work?

Are we just we're not just changing plants, are we?

It seemed like we ripped up all the existing plant plantings and are now doing something else.

So if you could just clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it.

For John Rosenberg, I guess.

Uh yeah, that that's actually twofold.

We are actually changing out plants just um as part of the process, but more importantly, with the rain gardens, um, the material themselves, because it's used as a filter, that natural filter actually gets clogged over time with various sediments.

So you do have to rejuvenate that program, pull it all out, get rid of all that mud and sediment that's sitting in there about every five to seven years, depending on rainfalls, and then uh kind of start that process over.

That is part of the long-term maintenance of a rain garden.

So the medium was changed and the plants are being changed as well during that process.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so receipt was moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have the Canada BCE Safe Restart Grant allocation.

Don, did you want to give a little bit of background on this?

I I certainly can if you wish your worship.

And while certainly there are many more than two options available to View Royal, we've kind of focused on a couple in part to try to keep it simple in terms of the public understanding where the money is going and for you know for us to track where the money is going.

So the first option that we thought of when we were thinking of this grant funds is really what is hurting View Royal the most under the COVID pandemic is the is the loss of the revenue, as you well know, I'm sure, uh, due to the casino shutting down.

And uh, you know, that was $1.6 million dollars in 2020.

And and if the casino isn't open in 2021, that's going to be an excess of $2 million.

So very significant.

The the Canada BC grant that has been given to us in 2020 is is that $2.6 million.

So to me, that was a very good match, is one of the things that we could do is just say, well, those grant funds replace the lost casino revenue.

We would contribute those funds to the casino reserve and then treat them as if they were casino revenue.

Um, and fund the projects that we originally had planned to do that were deferred because of COVID.

Um, now those those projects, to the extent that that they are a priority to get done sooner rather than later, could be funding from those grant funds in the place of casino revenue.

Alternatively, if council was to choose option two that we presented, what we would do then is put it in a discrete specific reserve and then basically track every dollar out.

We could fund projects that had originally been funded from casino revenue, we would fund potentially any related cost, costs related to COVID or any other thing theoretically that due to the loss of revenue could be funded from that grant, as long as it falls within the eligible costs as outlined by the province.

Staff is recommending option one that these grant funds replace casino revenue.

And if we were to do that, it does mean that those COVID costs would be funded from surplus to the extent that surplus would be required to fund those costs.

And that would be if we haven't already made adjustments in other areas of areas of our expenses to accommodate them.

But of course, this is an entirely up to council.

Certainly, I can ask any questions if and ask, I can answer any questions if council has anything at this time.

Just a little bit of background from me as well.

Thank you, Don.

I I talked to Don about this last week and I I suggested this route, the the number one route.

And part of the reason for that was in in our mayor's calls, which we're still having every two weeks.

The other municipalities are actually having a difficult time because the money has to be used for things that are revenue shortfalls.

So they actually have to you know they're actually working in some cases to find revenue shortfalls of where to where to apply the money to.

Whereas with us with the casino, I mean it it's clear the casino is easily going to be lose that much revenue.

So we can put it in there without any fear of.

And of course, I mean we can use surplus, we can also bend our casino policy slightly too, given their exceptional time, should we wish to access some of the money.

So in many ways, it's it's it's a very clean way of doing it that meets the provincial guidelines, it meets the reporting because there's a clear going to be a clear two million dollar loss at least this year of revenue from the casino.

Um, and so that money can just be funneled to that, and the remainder of it can probably be funneled in 2021 in the same thing.

Counselor Madsen, you had a question?

Or comment?

I guess a couple I now that in in terms of your statements you just made, I guess one of the concerns I have is one of us, you know, doing projects that we wouldn't otherwise do at this point in time just because we're short of um because we never know what's gonna happen in terms of casino funds in the future.

So that's one of the reasons I liked option two, because it was more specific to uh COVID nineteen.

But I agree with the point you made in terms of it's you know, there's that direct link between the casino shutting down and you know, the loss of revenues and it's uh certainly common or certainly a direct link to COVID nineteen.

What I'd hate to see us do is actually go into a s spend money on a number of projects that we wouldn't really spend them on if we knew we weren't getting another two million dollars the next year from you know the casino, which I'm really doubt that's gonna happen.

So uh I guess what if I I name I'd like some sort of assurance that this money is just not going to be spent on projects that we thought we were gonna spend them.

That that was a good spend when we had lots of money coming in each and every year.

The other question I had was how long can we keep this money for?

Is like do we have to spend it within any certain period of time, or can we do it over like a three-year period, two-year period?

Well, that's one of the benefits of doing it the way that we are, by putting it into the casino reserve fund is essentially then that's it.

That's we don't have to report back to the province in in terms of dates.

Um I think what what's the what's the date by which is it the end of next year, Don, that it has to be accounted for?

So, your worship, the way that I understand uh what the province has has uh stated for us, given us the guidelines, is that they haven't put an end date on it, but we are required to report annually until the money is gone.

So if it takes us five years to spend it, we'll be doing a report every year for five years.

Right.

And to your other point, Councillor Mattson, I mean, those are going to be council decisions, of course, in terms of what we fund, but I'm with you 100% in that I don't think we're gonna be doing any or many discretionary projects until we see what the future brings and when the casino is going to reopen and you know, all those good things.

So putting the money there just essentially means that we have it in our casino reserve and it's augmenting what is what is already there.

Yeah, I just to follow up quickly, so I guess what I'm just your your last comment.

I I just want to make sure that we have a second sober look at each and every project that's going to cost any money at all.

Make sure that we want to spend that given, you know, in our time of COVID, we may never get any more uh or we might be a number of years before we get casino revenue.

Yeah, well, definitely in budget.

I mean, any spending out of casino has to be approved by a council.

So we would be we would look at all those expenditures during budget.

Not to belabor this, but didn't we already agree to a whole bunch of projects during this fiscal, you know, based on what we thought we were going to get.

So I guess so in theory we've we've already council's already approved that those in budget.

Well we've approved items in our five year financial plan for sure, but none of those will go ahead unless we approve them in in our budget meetings coming up in in February.

And the ones this year we did actually defer quite a few and and some of them like six mile road that we were just talking about we did continue on with but a but a lot of them were deferred.

Councillor Rogers yes thanks um yeah I I appreciate uh the point and and I was kind of leaning towards uh you know like 75 going into one and 25 percent into two but that might be complicated um but certainly I think the the two things uh that I'm most um what's we're concerned about covering through the casino is the West Shore parks and rack and uh the borrowing costs, which is I think about 200,000 a year.

So those uh in that sense, um uh the two million would definitely be covering uh revenue shortfalls that are essential to um um to the residents and and to to the town.

Uh question staff um any sense of how much um COVID operational costs have been in uh this fiscal year.

Uh and through your worship, uh I do not have a final tally on uh you know what might be considered COVID related costs.

Um part of that question mark is about um whether or not EMBC will fund everything that we've claimed.

We we have yet to receive funding for our first claim from MEMBC.

Um and while most of our claims were supported by pre-authorized, uh, you know, or pre-approved um authorization, um, not everything was.

And you know, so there is some question mark about that.

So that's that's still outstanding, you know, getting that number.

And I I guess the other thing too about um um this this this funding, it also helps uh uh at least cause me to uh uh have what uh a greater peace of mind and greater flexibility on how we're going to afford um essential hardware and and equipment like firetrucks.

So I'll just leave it at that.

Option one.

Any comments on my left?

Um, I you know, I the dialogue with counselor matts and um answered my questions.

So thank you, Councillor Matson.

So I guess staff just need if if option one is the general one that there seems to be consensus, then staff just needs um a motion to to work towards option one.

Okay.

So move by counselor rogers, seconded by counselor Kowalewich.

You're good with that, Don?

That's what you needed.

Not notwithstanding, of course, the fact we're going to talk about West Shore in a little bit, right?

So certainly that that could have some small bearing on it, I suppose.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'll call the question on that all in favor.

Thank you.

That's carried.

And God, we seem to have got to our CAO update awfully quickly today.

It's not even five to four.

Yeah.

And here we are at here we are at the CAO update.

Kim.

Thank you, Your Worship.

I I only intend on highlighting a few parts of the report.

Umce again, COVID is a uh is foremost in our minds, and of course, we made changes to our operation with our staff.

They you probably seem they're wearing masks now whenever they are in transit.

They're not required to wear masks at their own workstations, but they do wear masks when they're in any common areas.

Uh we have had some um some more activity at at Town Hall with the business license renewals being sent out.

We are pleased, however, that a lot of the customers are making contactless payments.

And so that that is a success all by itself.

This year we have United Way campaign, and we have done very well in terms of the participation of our employees.

I think we are reaching the highest levels that we've ever had since we started the uh participation with United Way.

In terms of the community climate action strategy, we have made application for a grant, and hopefully, we will see the results and get some funding to take advantage of the opportunity to make some changes focusing on climate action and a new plan.

We have a new employee in our engineering department.

Our engineering department has managed to hire an asset management technologist.

That position has been vacant for well over a year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kim.

Any questions for Kim?

Councillor Rogers?

Yeah, yes, thanks very much.

Um I'm looking at the the pictures of the Thetis Lake Pump Station, and it looks uh really pretty.

Is it uh uh uh an option where individuals can go down and have access to the pump station?

And does it have any views that are available?

We might want to refer that question to uh Mr.

Rosenberger, Director of Engineering Director Rosenberg, I think Counselor Rogers is hoping to get a better view of the pump station.

Um I'm not a hundred percent sure of the question.

If the question is, is there uh possibility for a viewing platform for the public uh between the pump station and the water?

There isn't.

Um it's actually kind of forested and it's not heavy, but it is forested uh between the pump station and uh the water.

So it wouldn't really be a good place for people to to walk down public-wise.

It is safe.

Um, you can walk down, you can't drive down.

Um, there's no infrastructure with regards to benches or anything like that that would encourage activity down there.

We generally don't like to have people down there because there are things that uh um might have uh uh consequences if people were to decide they wanted to break into our kiosk or something like that.

So we tend to not encourage public access.

John?

Yeah, thank you for that.

Um but we have so many pump stations, uh like down at the bottom of Stewart, and and um goodness, I can think of a whole many pump stations that uh people have access to already.

Um, and I I do recall many years ago, and this is maybe a pipe dream, but uh certainly the residents had an interest in having stairs going down to uh the beach from that access point.

Is it does that mean the uh any future vision of stairs is uh no longer possible?

Um I I wouldn't know if it's possible, uh Councilor Rogers, through your worship.

Um, I can only tell you that if you asked me my opinion, I would say I would not want to encourage that.

Um again, the the more we can keep the public away from our infrastructure of that kind of nature, the better.

And I do understand we do have other areas.

It doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer not to.

Uh it just means that they're already there and it's part of what we have.

Um, I would be concerned about all the regulations that would be required and hoops to jump through to get stairs down there after uh going through our shoreline boat launch uh escapade with the province.

I would think we'd be in for a fair amount of uh pain and suffering if we try to put some stairs down to that water access.

Thank you.

Counselor Mattson.

Yes, just uh I wanted to again express my appreciation and gratitude to staff for the uh amazing job on the stairs down from into Portage Park from Town Hall.

It uh it looks great, and everyone has nothing but nice things to say about it.

So thanks again.

Good.

Counselor Lemmon.

Oh, once again, counselor Mattson is channeling me.

Um I also wanted to express express my um appreciation and regular enjoyment of those stairs.

And I'm I'm there almost daily, and almost daily somebody comments on them.

I have a question up regarding the the Christmas light up.

Do you are are we partway there or are we there?

Do you ask that, John?

I can't.

Unfortunately, we're there.

I do know we've got quite a few calls about uh centennial Helmcken Park.

Yeah.

Um, because we didn't do all five trees this year.

Um, and we're having issues with regards to the size of the tree and access.

We we access those trees with a man lift that sits um fairly far away.

I think we currently use a 40-foot lift, um, and we're having issues because the trees are getting so much bigger, and we can't leave the lights in place because they strangle the trees.

So generally we'll leave the lights in place for a couple of years and we have to remove them all, put them back in.

And we just can't seem to find a method.

We can't get ladders big enough to get up into the trees, and we can't get a man left that's long enough but small enough box wise to get in there.

So if it's specific to that park, that's all you're getting.

Um, with regards to um the roadways, we are done.

We've got the baskets that light up, and we do have the seasonal banners as well, but uh we are complete.

Okay, thank you.

Now the town looks great.

Yeah.

I'm done.

Okay.

Uh just one last point since we're saying thank you.

Thanks very much for on behalf of the children for fixing the uh zip line, the 18 That was a tough one.

That that uh we waited a long time to get a contractor in there to uh to help us um to get that work done.

That it was um difficult to make sure.

We're hoping this time around that that the torque, because unfortunately some of the kids seem to be in their 40s that go down that zip line.

And um that wasn't the intended purpose, but we can't stop that from happening.

So we we took some extra care in making sure that uh the the torque that occurs when uh you get off of that line, uh it shouldn't happen again, is our hope.

You can you make me laugh, John say that, because my four-year-old granddaughter, when she comes over, loves that zip line, but she loves it even more when I go on it.

So I might be part of the part of the problem.

We'll send the bill.

The um on that topic, I've I've had a couple of notes from people who are thrilled that it is it is up and running again.

But and this has been an issue for a long time, it it's such a swamp to get into that playground at this time of the year.

Did we have any plans in in budget possibly to bring forward some recommendations of some sort of fix for that?

Or are we waiting for the Centennial Park master plan?

That's exactly correct, Your Worship.

We are waiting for the master plan.

We're well aware of it.

Last uh couple weeks ago there we had some pretty high tides.

Yeah.

And we get some high tides in the hydrostatic pressure within the the playground area there and out in the ball fields, you can just see the standing water and that's not actually from precipitation.

That is a hydrostatic pressure from uh inland water coming in and just saturating that area.

So uh that'll be certainly part of the conversation when we do the Centennial Park master Plan uh with regards to whether we want to look at you know raising certain areas of the park up to uh make it a little more uh fun and enjoyable at all times of the year.

Hi, Kim.

Right.

Kim.

Any other questions on the CAO report?

Such a good report.

Yeah, okay.

Actually, can I just make a say I'm I'm really impressed with the uh the GIS um application.

It just brings everything up to uh up to speed and and being able to quickly identify issues and and maintenance.

So that's great.

Well done.

Um good, thank you.

Councillor Matson, did you did you have something or are you good on this?

No, that was my only comment.

Thank you.

Okay, so hang on, someone's just driving me crazy here because they're really trying to get me.

Um I just need to do this.

So we're going on to correspondence then.

Well, actually, I don't think we moved receipt at that.

Did we?

Did we move and second it?

Move receipt.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Thank you, Kim.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Um and next we're on to the correspondence from West Shore.

Move staff's recommendation.

What is staff's recommendation?

It's right here that um committee recommend to the council at West Shore blah blah restart grant of a hundred thousand refunded from the casino reserve account.

So I guess my only I completely support that, and I think it's a really good thing to use the money for, but I think it has to be contingent on all the owners providing the funding.

Yeah.

So contingent on the owners agreeing that we would provide that amount.

Do you think that makes sense?

It does.

Yeah.

Damien.

I have a question.

Oh okay.

Okay, just hang on a sec, Councillor Mattson.

Damien, go ahead.

And I don't know the latest, but I can report on the last um meeting.

I think we had four five in principle.

And uh one was going back to communicate uh and look at some other responsibilities that they uh believe they might have in regards to recreation in their uh community.

So I'm we're close.

Okay.

That's the latest update.

Yeah, this it it came out of the owner's meeting that that we actually suggested to the pressure staff that this would be a fair enough way to to spend some of the funds, but of course at that meeting, unfortunately Mary Young wasn't there, it was a different um get Lankford representative.

So we do have a meeting uh tomorrow night.

Oh good.

So uh I can hopefully you know find over hopefully.

I mean it it's fair enough.

Counselor Matson, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I mean so I I do have a concern here in terms of you know, like almost seven hundred thousand dollars as a restart and it sounds as if it's for uh staff and a number of other things, which should have been included in the overall budget for the West Shore and that's what we should have been voting on as part of West Shore.

So it it looks like one of the ways you could drop the actual budget of West Shore by close to seven hundred thousand dollars.

Um to make it look like we aren't paying uh much of an increase.

But we're still paying an increase of a hundred thousand dollars because this should have all been included in the budget.

Unless I'm missing something here yeah I don't know if there's anyone here who can answer to that but I mean West Shore has managed to operate through this entire year without a loss essentially and the pool will not reopen if this money isn't provided so I'm not sure I completely follow and and when when the owners had the meeting um we we talked about the sh the the the provincial relief money we'd had, and we agreed that this was kind of exactly the sort of thing that the province was hoping municipalities might use the money for.

Yeah, so my my point's simple is if the plan was to open up the pool, that should have been all those funds should have been included in the budget that the West Shore passed and put down to us.

And this is a way of, from my perspective, just circumventing the proper budgeting process.

But the staff was not planning on reopening the pool, Ron.

If if this wasn't going to happen, the school would have remained closed because the board at West Shore did not feel comfortable with the sort of requisition increase it would have represented.

Okay.

I guess my other question would be is reopening the pool actually something that's been approved by the health authority, etc.

I mean, it this sounds like one of the the worst possible things we could be doing in a time of COVID.

We're the only one in the region whose pool is not open.

Councilor Rogers?

Yeah, just just for can uh for the point of clarification, uh we've we've already paid our our our funding for the um um for the year twenty twenty twenty.

Uh and this is over and above the COVID cost.

These are COVID costs based on uh for the restart.

Yeah.

Yeah, over and above.

Yeah.

Okay.

So extraordinary expense.

Okay, so if could just explain to me how these are COVID related though?

I mean, we closed the pool down because people weren't coming.

And now we want to open it up.

But how is that a cov how are these COVID costs?

Well I there's no doubt that the lack of revenue at West Shore contributed to the fact that there's no money to open the pool.

So it is a COVID cost, right?

Because the admission fees and everything they've they've lost all that out of their budget.

Um so I mean, to me, if we can get that pool reopened, they they said at this owner's meeting that I attended that they have more requests about when the pool is going to reopen than they do about any other item there.

So it's a relatively small amount of money for us for from out of money that we received that we weren't even expecting to get.

Yeah, I again if I may comment your worship.

Yeah.

Swimming lesson fees, all those things.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

My iPad has has gone weird, but so I can't get there in my agenda.

But basically, then if that's the consensus, we need just a motion to approve that funding subject to the other municipal owners agreeing.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

So moved.

Okay, so that's moved by Councillor Kwalowitz.

All in favor, opposed.

Okay, so that's carried.

So next we have um the but the library budget.

And I guess we're just looking for a motion of uh of approval.

Yeah, zero percent increase.

Is that how I read this?

It's zero percent increase.

I actually there there was another option.

Um and um I voted for the other option option, which was I think it was um one percent less.

I can't recall, but it was anyway.

Um but the the um consensus was zero percent.

Yeah.

I mean we could see that U role has a slight increase, but overall it's zero.

Yeah.

Are they going to come back or do we approve the the are this because it's for receipt, but um we are is there a motion to I think we could just make a motion to approve and then it's done.

Yeah, yeah, so move.

I thought during our brief period in the regular meeting we can pass a motion accepting the recommendation from the community goal.

Okay, so okay, so we've moved approval to go on up to council.

Um yeah, I mean, the only problem with zero increases, of course, is that in the long run it hurts the organization for sure.

But I I get at this point that it's that it's um a necessary evil, I suppose, but having sat around the library board for eight years, I know exactly what the harm it does in terms of the materials that are bought and and staff and all those different things.

And um, so in the long run, it is the library that hurts, which is which is too bad.

It's public appetite.

Yeah.

So all in favor, opposed that's carried.

Okay, so then so that's the end of the regular committee of the whole afternoon session.

Thank you very much.

So we'll call the evening session of the committee of the whole to order.

Um this is a continuation of our meetings that start at 3:30 and then we take a break and restart.

So we did the territorial acknowledgement earlier.

Um, but this meeting is being held under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health officers' orders.

The public will have the opportunity during public partition portion of the agenda and also question period with the chat feature.

If you do want to talk to us under public participation, you're going to call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 846-986-743 Pound.

And that'll put you through to our meeting.

And at the appropriate time, I will announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you not to use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

You'll be able to give us your name and address and then give us the benefit of your views.

And for the chat feature, we would also ask that you provide your name and address, and that'll be open during public participation and question period.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

And when you see that that is winding down, public participation immediately follows that.

So that would be a good time to get on the phone.

And with that, I will welcome Rachel Sansom.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Welcome.

Thank you so much for having us this evening.

Appreciate your time.

So quickly, this is just a quick inquiry to see whether Merrin Council would be willing to receive and consider a rezoning application for the property located at 1720 Wilfort Road, right in behind the casino.

The C7 Business Park Zone was, I think, in last November, just about a month ago, was adopted, and the residential component of that zone was removed from the zone.

This property actually had a development permit come forward a couple of years ago.

I think it only went to one council meeting that did include a combined commercial and residential use.

The owner of the property would like to go forward and still be able to have that opportunity to pursue a residential use, which clearly would require rezoning of this property.

So before we spend a great deal of time and effort on architecture and staff time and of course Mayor and Council's time, we thought we would uh respectfully request a to see if that would be appropriate to come back with rezoning in light of the fact that this had just recently been zoned.

Is that it, Rachel?

Or I think so.

I mean it's so just really to see whether it would be appropriate to make an application.

Um to give us sort of a thumbnail sketch of what you're visioning or yes, I could certainly do that.

Um I you're probably all aware of this property again, being located uh right behind the uh casino on Wolfort Road.

It's a lovely piece of property.

It backs onto Millstream Creek.

Um, the reason we thought that residential would be an appropriate component here is because it's offline, it's not directly on the island highway.

So um residents of the building wouldn't be as disturbed by the traffic and commercial components there.

Um so the owner is anticipating uh two buildings, uh probably apartment use, uh condominium with an office component as well.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Are there any questions from council or councillor Rogers?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hi, and thank you very much for uh coming tonight.

I guess one of the um, you know, when you say a lovely piece of property, it is also a uh an a critical natural habitat.

You know, the uh salmon bearing stream, um, the uh peninsula streams have done a great deal of work as as the anglers and putting fish ladders there.

Um you know, and it's not just DFO, the wildlife corridor, the significant trees that you have on that site.

So um I think um you know the uh any application that's uh coming forward should really uh consider the um the uh preservation components, even uh with density uh you know uh being specific.

And I I should also point out that it's uh the the land is glacial till for the most part uh the historic um uh landslides that have happened with long mill hill i um is is a uh an issue and um so i i am you're really quite concerned about um uh what development proposal might be um and how much uh the uh the the um going to be working with strongly to uh protect the forest the trees, the wildlife corridor um um well i i think what we're being asked tonight is whether we'd be prepared to consider an app.

I mean there's we we know that there's very stringent regulation to do with the protection and millstream that would be in place for so I think what we're being asked is whether or not we would be prepared to consider a rezoning application that would see residential use on that property as as opposed to commercial use.

And I I mean I agree with your uh your comment entirely.

Um but there may be a strong argument that residential use would actually be less impactful than than commercial use.

I I guess what I'm um I'm hearing uh it's not just residential, there's an office component and uh the the the amount of vehicles and what kind of um uh um runoff uh there would be from that.

And I think the other the other aspect is um uh the casino has an awful lot of traffic, and we really don't know what's going to happen with um uh Glen Oak Ford and that uh that piece of property and how much traffic is coming there.

So I wouldn't say it's all that idyllic um uh as as far as the the commercial use that's gonna have uh could be happening across the street.

Um so um I would be um I I'd I'd ask uh staff to uh uh assess the options and come back to to council with um Okay.

Well let's go around council and and see if there's other comments and thoughts.

Counselor Matson, did you have anything you wanted to ask or comment on?

Sure, just uh a couple of comments.

Well, conceptually, I don't I don't have any problems with it, but again, it's one of those things until you sort of see it it's it's hard to um you know, s say anything definitive.

But you know, the concept doesn't sound too bad.

I mean one of the things I might suggest is, you know, once you have an idea of sort of what you want you might want to come back to the petitions and delegations again and before you spend a lot of money on design, it's just to sort of let us know, you know, more broad more specifically what you're looking at doing.

Like we don't know how big where the properties or where the uh buildings are gonna be on the property, how many units, etcetera, etcetera.

So we aren't really aware of any of that, but so just uh my suggestion is, you know, I I'd certainly be able to give a better give you a better idea of whether I'm totally opposed to it if I actually see see something that uh gives me a bit more idea what's going to be there.

I think that's probably all I have to say at this point.

Okay, thank you.

Anything on my left?

Um, yeah, thank you for coming, Miss Jansen.

Um, I I agree with my colleagues.

I I certainly would need to we'd need to know more, and it and as you know, it's it's a precious sight.

Uh do you have any idea of the kind of density that that uh is being considered?

Yes, thank you through the chair.

Um I believe the previous application contemplated six stories.

Um I don't offhand know exactly how many units per building.

Um but we would certainly be happy to come back to you with more detail with some massing.

We do have a you know a designer on staff that's pretty clever and quick with design.

Um, so I'm sure he would be able to do a quick layout for uh council to have a quick look at at another petition and delegation opportunity.

Um, just quickly, we do we have done the environmental work on the site with the previous application, and I know that um a covenant area between the buildings and uh the riparian zone had been contemplated.

I know that park was not necessarily wanted at that time.

Um it can certainly be looked at again, but there was a buffer between the buildings and the sensitive ecosystems, and of course, we would indeed have a geotechnical engineer certify any sort of activity on the site.

Thank you.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

You have anything, Damien?

Thank you, Rachel, for uh popping in on the uh video tonight.

To answer your question, yes, I would be interested in exploring the options on this site.

Uh, I do have environmental concerns.

Obviously, it's very early to commit to something, but I like the idea of uh the majority of your proposal being residential.

And actually, I quite like the area for a little bit of density.

So thanks.

And and I I kind of concur a little bit with everybody.

I'm certainly prepared to look at it.

I think there's uh some merit to thinking about residential on that site, but I obviously the impact needs to be minimized.

So whether that even means potentially a little bit more height, um that might be a better way to go and preserving more of the site.

So I'd encourage you to work with staff and um see why you can come back with.

And as Councillor Matson suggested, you can always bring it back to uh petitions and delegations if you want to get a bit better of an idea before running through the whole application.

But I'm certainly hearing a willingness to consider it.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, just uh one thought.

You know, the um indeed one of the uh key aspects of the property is the flat portion.

Yeah, and that is in, I agree is a buildable location.

Um, the steep slopes, even the that right behind the casino, um, I think should be forboden.

You know, it should all all of the building, not two buildings, but one building um with with uh the appropriate heights and moving you know all that density to the one flat level.

Um I'd be interested in seeing that option come back to us.

Thank you.

So that gives you a little bit to work with.

Work with staff.

Yes, thank you very much.

That was excellent information, and I look forward to doing that.

So uh hopefully we'll see you in the new year with a little more information.

Okay, thank you, Rachel.

Thank you so much for your time.

So next up on the agenda is public participation.

Staff, do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we do not at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have anyone on the chat feature?

Thanks, Ms.

Greets.

We do not have any comments this evening.

Okay, thank you.

So we'll close off public participation.

There's nothing under parks.

And Councillor Madison, do you want me to chair planning and development?

Sure, thank you.

I appreciate that given it's pretty hard to see raised hands over the phone.

Okay.

So we'll go on to development straight down to item A, which is 335 Stewart Avenue.

Thank you, your worship.

Uh this is James Davison.

Uh I trust you can hear me.

Yes, can.

Yeah.

Okay.

I will go ahead and share my screen here and show my PowerPoints.

Uh hopefully everyone can see that now.

There's a lot of static in the background, James.

Is is that coming from you?

It may well be, yes.

That's an honest answer.

Metaphorical uh and and actual static, sure.

Um I apologize.

I apologize if it's if it's uh of any consequence, but I will try and and soldier on here.

Uh this is an application.

Oh David, is the PowerPoint actually a part of what we were what was submitted to us?

Sorry, I didn't catch any of that, so I'm not sure if it's there's a problem on one of our lines here.

Right.

Is there one of those on our council agenda?

Yes.

Okay, it must be an earlier version that I'm not on, but okay, thanks.

This is there, yeah.

Or if you watch the live stream, you can it is on the screen as well.

Okay, go ahead, James.

Thank you, your worship.

So this is uh presentation uh regarding environmental development permits uh 2020 oh nine uh for the construction of really two separate things.

There is construction on top of a in an existing dock platform, and there is also a proposed uh sunroom that is also within the 15 meter development permit setback.

The sunroom location is here, as you can see on the plan, and the boathouse uh platform improvements, which have already partially been completed and were issued a stop work order.

Um, and and you know, with with uh the applicants um statements that that it was a misunderstanding, and they've been very uh very helpful through this whole process in assisting us with um getting applications in.

So the sunroom is proposed to be built atop this this existing paver patio, which again is within the 15-meter setback.

The proposed size of the the boat, the uh excuse me, um the the sunroom is 350 square feet or three 33 square meters.

Here is a uh set of perspectives showing the design of the sunroom.

The boat house structure pictured here, uh slightly smaller, 3205 square feet, and a lot of that footprint is uh underneath that rock area.

So the real footprint is slightly smaller than that.

Uh, plans really here are to enclose the boathouse structure, mostly glass.

And again, the plans are here.

Should we need to come back to them?

There are four requested variances: variance to the setback from the natural boundary to the sea from 15 to 6 meters for the sunroom, uh, 15 meters to zero meters for the wharf accessory building, as it is in the foreshore.

Uh, variance to the length of an accessory building from seven and a half to eight meters for the sunroom, uh, and variance to that same regulation from 7.5 meters to nine meters for the boathouse.

Uh, in discussing these accessory buildings, maximum floor area of all accessory buildings cannot exceed 60 square meters on property.

This would be slightly over.

However, as per recent applications that we've had, the boathouse isn't actually on the property, so that's not exceeding the 60 square meters.

Environmental assessments have made it clear that the impact will really not be negative on the environment.

But our OCP is pretty clear on the objectives and the desires within the natural water course and shoreline environmental DP area highlighted in the last sentence here of this paragraph.

To the fullest extent possible, all shorelines and riparian zones should be kept in a natural state and restored if they have been disturbed by development, intrusions, or public activity.

So from a policy point of view, it's really difficult to support developments in these locations.

Oh, sorry.

Someone take control here.

Yes, keep going, James.

So it's it's really difficult to support these um these uh applications as far as the official community plan goes.

However, um they they are being built on existing uh disturbed areas and and as the the reports say um there there's there's really no uh negative environmental impact of any significance.

Uh the report did say that the the applicant um did not contact neighbors, but they have talked to Gary Mathies next door, and he he gave a positive email earlier on.

So the the recommendation is really to receive.

Thank you.

Thank you, James yeah thanks james um you note um in your presentation that there are visual impacts and um i can only imagine that they would be from across the bay is that right yeah i mean uh in in in writing the through the chair in writing the the the reports uh i i the the applicant hadn't talked to the next door neighbor um and and he since has said that he is he has no issue with it and i was thinking that the main impact would be on uh mr.

and mrs.

Matthews next door however there are there are um of course uh cumulative impacts that happen when uh shoreline development such as this um goes on and takes place and uh and and the the people across the the bay would certainly see the these uh these structures yes so he if if i may another question so the the sunroom which is actually kind of a sunny house um it how tall is it uh it's it's one story.

It wouldn't it wouldn't exceed the uh the um the the height of an accessory building maximum height which is four and a half.

I would say it's uh without seeing the plants, it's it's three meters, three meters at most.

Okay.

And you and you say that Gary Matthews has sent an email of support?

That's correct, yes.

Well good.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, um I I guess you know, I'm looking at the um uh aerial photograph that you've shown on page uh on the very first page, and when you blow that up, uh what's really interesting is you you can see all the other um uh and intrusions um in the uh natural habitat area.

Uh there's the uh the the two portions, the boathouse uh and the sunroom, but if you look at the very south, you can also see the um e extensive uh build there that's uh with stairs going down to the water into the island.

Uh you can also see uh another to the west of a uh a separate intrusion uh into the setback.

So um, and you know, I when I was a kid in the 60s, I played in that rock and none of those things were there.

That was um, you know, it this is when we say talk about existing disturbances, they are recent.

Um so it seems like um, you know, we've we've got quite a bit of an intrusion in the natural habitat right now.

And I when those uh actually went on, I don't know.

But um uh I'm I'm not certainly not in favor of either of these um proposals.

Um it's a um it's a precedent setting.

Um it's uh contrary certainly to preserving the natural habitat.

And I can see um Council Rodge, can you just clarify exactly what you mean by now?

Are you talking about the areas above the height, the yellow line?

Uh yeah.

The high tide above the high tide mark?

Uh that yellow line is the the setback, right?

I'm presuming that's the property line.

No, that's that's the setback line.

That's a 15 meter.

Yeah, so which, but are you referring to what he's done on his own property above that?

Yes, right.

See how that goes down?

Like rate when see what's going on.

On the point, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So that's that's a you know an extensive intrusion into the setback.

Well, I would say 10 meters, five, seven, ten meters into it.

So it's um uh like I say, this um uh would be a precedent setting for all the other waterfront homes um around there.

There uh we've we're dealing with the uh the issue of the uh the build out of of one boathouse already, and um you know I I think it's uh you know quite unnecessary.

It's just too much of a precedent.

I'm against.

Okay, no problem.

I I was hoping for questions, but certainly we can give opinions first.

Um Councillor Mattson, did you have any questions?

Uh no questions.

Okay, just comments later, I guess.

Well, I mean, you might as well go ahead and make them, I think, and give staff a bit of an idea of of feedback.

I I'm not a big fan of either of these um in in particular, but I guess I'm and a a lot of for me is you know what the neighbors have to say.

Whether the adjacent neighbors are people who can actually see this thing 'cause it's the visual impact that I'm concerned about.

Plus um yeah.

Anyway, it's gonna take some convincing for me to actually support this 'cause at uh at this point I don't see a good reason for us supporting it.

Okay.

Um well we've heard that the one neighbor directly next door has has sent a note of support.

Um but the other neighbors would be um I mean across the bay essentially.

Um Sarah?

Uh thank you, your worship.

The applicant is also on the on the um call if if uh and would like to have a few words if that's all right as well.

Okay, sure.

At the opportune time.

Sure.

Yeah.

Yeah, I wasn't aware they were there.

Um, but yeah.

Okay, Councillor Kowalwich, do you have any questions or shall we hear from the applicant?

I don't have any specific questions.

Okay.

Yes.

So is the applicant on the line?

Hello, Mayor and Council.

Yeah, welcome.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name's Lee, and I'm working on behalf of Brian Richards, the owner of the property.

Um, as for what I believe was Councillor Rogers mentioned earlier, um, that was before my involvement on the property.

Um, but I did see pictures from the late 90s of the property, and it was all raspberry bushes and brambles.

Um, so the obviously, the uh the owner of the property tried beautifying his property.

Um, a lot of the environmental reports are coming back that have asked us to take care of uh native invasive or non-native invasive species.

Um, obviously, some of those areas would be questionable areas to be crawling around on the rocks without um gear, and some of those areas were built with the intent of being able to adjust that.

So we've taken out a ton pickup loads and pickup loads of um invasive species and tried to clean up the area to beautify it.

Um, as for these two applications, one of them's on the existing dock at the waterfront, and then the sun room is not um a house in it by any means.

It is just an area to try to enjoy the property because the wind is, as you can see, it's a peninsula, so I guess nailed all the time.

And working on the property and being out in the elements most of my life working, I can tell you that this place gets nailed hard.

So that's the only reason for that.

As the two owners are getting older in years, they'd like to be able to go outside and enjoy the views.

And they're not impacting with where their home location is.

They're not trying to, or they don't get the greatest views in the sense because they've allowed all the natural trees that are there to still be up, obviously.

The beautiful fir trees.

More than welcome to come and take a look at some point if you want.

Uh if there's any other questions with regards to it, I'd be happy to answer it.

Okay, thank you.

So I I guess from me, I I don't have a big issue with this.

I'm I'm certainly prepared to support it going forward.

Um it's it's a large, large property.

I mean, many years ago we we approved a significant size new build on this property, um, which the owners then chose not to do and instead renovated the smaller existing house that was there.

Um so I I don't think this is out of scale.

It's mainly glass.

Um so I have no problem with letting it go through the process, and we'll see what the neighbors think.

So anybody else?

I'm I'm prepared to move stunt recommendation.

Okay, so it's moved just so that it be received.

Yep.

Yep, second.

Yeah.

To come, you wish.

I I guess it's um uh the current owners are leaving the house as it is.

The future owners, it's a whole different ballgame.

You know, they they could be uh you know quite happy to annihilate the trees and and uh put in a you know eight thousand dollar you know property.

So um uh you know I appreciate the current owners leaving the trees.

Um, you know, I really don't buy the beautification because you took out the brambles that justifies the dock and the sunroom and and a boathouse.

Um in terms of uh wind protection, uh it's it's a remarkable piece of property.

And there's actually some really fine viewpoints that are uh uh inside no i should say not in the 15 meter setback that gives ample opportunity for the applicant to to uh to build a a sunroom um out of the point without having to um um you know make the intrusion uh in the setback there this this has so many opportunities to build what they need to build but you know really a boathouse no it's it's it those days are gone in in terms of represerving the natural habitat what's that's what the OCP focus is preserving the natural habitat.

And James, can you just clarify exactly what the variances are again for us, please?

I get the impression it's not incredibly significant.

Am I right in thinking that?

Thank you, worship.

Uh the the sunroom uh is is 15 meters to eight meters.

Uh there's there's I mean the the the OCP does allow for exceptions to development permit areas uh when you're talking about building on existing disturbed areas.

Uh and it and it this in this case the uh the the patio area is is on the flat piece of of land right before it drops off so it is eight meters but uh it is a significant height and it is on it's it is on existing um developed ground yeah okay thank you okay so if everyone's good we'll just call the question on the seat the uh the applicant has to comment go ahead sorry um to interrupt.

James was banging on when he mentioned where it is.

It is actually up on top of a bluff.

And if we took the high tide mark, not the uh not the um king tide mark, but the high tide mark, it was 13 and a half meters away from that point up the bluff.

Um, it's uh at the edge of the bluff looking down.

Um also was the fact that we had initially um inadvertently put this forward with the D D.

We thought that was part of the process because it was within the 15 meters um for both the dock and the the um sunroom, and the accreations came back.

Then we found out after the fact that the sunroom wasn't necessary to do that, right?

Okay.

Because I mean, that's really the only people that really see it, besides the the neighbor that is to our left, uh, Gary Mathies and his wife, niece, which are the ones that I I walked through the uh proposals today, actually talked with them about it.

Um I've helped them with some of their their work on their properties also.

So you might want to get when this comes forward to council, you might want to get those letters of support from those neighbors.

Um I it it would probably be helpful.

I forwarded the email to James, but that's well, I'm sure staff will bring it forward when this actually comes on uh on a council agenda, which will be the next step.

Okay.

I presume in January.

Yeah.

Sorry, I'm new to this.

I'm just learning.

Yeah, no worries.

No, it comes to committee at the whole first to see if there's sort of major objections or roadblocks, and um and then it comes to an actual council agenda where it's notified through the neighborhood and that type of thing.

So okay, so I'm gonna call the question on receipt.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Thank you very much.

Um, so there's nothing under public works and transportation, so we go to correspondence.

This letter was sent to me about bird strikes, and I just thought with the current number of high-rise build, well, not really high-rise, but bigger buildings were where we seem to be approving that it might be a good time to have a look at that.

Lindsay, are you able to comment on it or should we just refer it to staff?

Thank you, Your Worship.

I am able to comment.

And staff uh I believe on your cheat sheet it it suggests that referring this to the official community plan process would be um a reasonable option to consider because then we can incorporate that type of information into development permit areas as we as we revise them through that particular process.

But how many birds are gonna die before we do the the OCP review?

No, I'm I'm teasing.

I I think that's probably a reasonable reasonable measure.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, I I certainly agree with staff, and and I think it's one of those things we need to be F um and make a note of if staff can help us make reminding us of this point as um you know significant buildings of height uh do come before us from time to time.

It would help.

So is can you want to move staff's recommendation then?

Yeah.

So David, I just have a a comment on on this.

Go ahead, Ron.

Uh yeah, I I I don't think your your comment was that facetious in terms of uh setting up a building that's has has problems with it.

So I'm just wondering if uh especially for anything larger, if before that comes up when it comes to uh DPs, whether staff can provide us some information are are there quick fixes that we could incorporate even in any of the fut any of the other developments that are coming up to DP uh in terms of making more bird-friendly using some of the you know patterned glass or whatever else or external screen, exterior screens.

So maybe what you're suggesting then is is an amend and amendment that we're gonna refer to the OCP process for consideration with review of development permit areas, but also to keep in mind given the number of higher buildings that we're going to be potentially approving before the development of the OCP process.

Yes, and if they could also find us you know something that uh would potentially be fine to put forward uh you know at the DP stage to have incorporated in development, like maybe something as simple as uh patterned glass and exterior screens would would do it.

Right.

Yeah, no, I think that's reasonable enough.

Certainly we had that discussion with Christy Point.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So the motion then would be to refer to the OCP process, but also to be looking at possibilities to deal with the issue in the meantime, basically.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Everyone good with that?

Okay, so that's moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Matson.

Chair will say Councillor Matson for a change.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

And then lastly, we have from the CRD on the solid waste management plan.

You wish when's our next council meeting?

Is it the January the 8th, 3rd, 9th?

Well, that'll be committee of the whole.

We only have one council meeting in January, and it's this the third Tuesday.

Oh, is it the 14th?

Our next council meeting is the 19th of January.

Ah.

What were you thinking?

Well, I you know, I I see that um, you know, the deadline for comments by to the CRD is the 14th, January the 14th, and our council meeting is the 19th.

Right.

So, you know, clearly uh we wouldn't have time for a presentation.

But I do note that um uh in looking at the documentation that uh Mr.

Lapham has provided, uh there is um an opportunity to participate and and review um an online information, December the 14th.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think that's the uh the key thing to do is lots of ways to um to provide feedback for sure.

Yeah.

It's it's uh I know uh it's a very contentious issue with some folks like at Willis Point.

Well, unfortunately, the Willis Point, yeah, you're right.

I have to remember on camera.

The the the Willis Point issue, unfortunately, has become completely focused around the road issue and the access more than the expansion of the dump.

And that's really what the Willis Point people are very angry about.

I mean, they're angry about a few things, but it's it's the change of access from Heartland Avenue to the Willis Point Road that has created a lot of concern and angst in in that neighborhood.

So and you were to be you know clarify this to me.

Um there's a also a great concern about um is the C RD parkland, was that temporary use parkland until it would become landfill?

Yeah, I mean this, yeah.

I mean, that's another misconception that's out there is that we're actually taking part of Mount Work Park, which is is certainly completely not true, and yes, many years ago, the mountain bikers were given permission to build trails and use the Heartland property, and you know, but but it was always known that at some point that was going to come to an end, and those trails were going to have to come out.

Um, and that's what's happening now.

That the property was always designated as landfill.

Um, and so it it's upsetting to a lot of people.

And um the CRD has set very lofty goals in terms of waste reduction per capita and done actually a pretty amazing job with recycling programs and things to reduce the per capita, um, but arguably could could look at more, and maybe in five years' time there'll be some gasification or something that may really enable us to stop using the land flow in such a major way.

Anyhow, there's a lot of work there, but it'd certainly go and provide feedback and we'll see what see where it all goes.

Yeah, December the 14th.

So we just need a motion to receive.

Okay, moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So we have question period.

Something I mean, we might not be rushed.

Question.

Your worship, we have no callers on the line at this moment.

I'm sure.

Okay, thank you.

And I don't think I really have to ask, but just in case, I'll ask if there's anyone on the chat picture.

No, Mayor Street, we do not have any questions this evening.

Okay.

Well, thank you, staff, and everybody else on the production team.

And I hope everyone has good holidays and a good break.

And we'll see you back here in January.

Be safe.

Thanks, everyone.