Committee of the Whole

Well, I think we can call the committee of the whole meeting to order.

So this is we're actually starting at 7 tonight as opposed to 3:30.

So we're doing everything this evening because there was a light agenda for this afternoon.

So welcome everybody.

And I'd like to recognize the Lakwan speaking people known today as the Esquimal Nation and the Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

The public opportunity tonight will come up very quickly under public participation period.

So if anyone is thinking of calling to speak in to an item that's on the agenda tonight, you probably want to do so fairly quickly.

And you're going to call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID number 493-107-101 pound.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will announce the last four digits of your phone number.

I'll ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback ask you to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality and ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six if you could begin by giving us your name and address for the record please 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 so with that can I get a motion to approve the agenda please second moved by counselor Mattson seconded by counselor lemon.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

There's minutes from May the 10th.

Move adoption.

Thank you.

Second.

Moved by councillor rogers.

Seconded by councillor mattson.

Any comments, corrections?

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

And so we're now at public participation period.

See, I said it would come up quickly.

Do we have staff?

Do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have no callers at this time.

Okay.

I think I'll close that off.

I was also gonna welcome Sterling because I think this is his first meeting that he's gonna make a presentation at.

So welcome Sterling, and I'm sure we'll be nice to you when we get to that, because it's not contentious at all.

So moving right along, I'm gonna go to give the chair to Councillor Lemon for her packed agenda item.

Um I have no chair's report, there's no business arising.

Thank you, your worship.

What we do have is the building department report for May.

Um do we have a motion to receive we receive second second and any questions of oh the the only comment uh is uh on the uh the very bottom or shows the uh the years you know 2015 to current it'd be interesting to see those numbers adjusted for inflation.

Because you know you just have 100,000 all the way through, but if you adjust it for inflation, it might be in a different uh display.

Yeah, but just a thought.

And Councillor Matson, you had a question?

Yeah, I'm just uh I I hope we're gonna be getting more development.

Oh, this is just for the month of May though, isn't it?

Yeah, well it's the year today, but you're right, the the numbers are down for sure.

Yeah, but there are a couple of big projects coming up that presumably will so the ones on um where the hole in the ground is and the there's no building.

Until we get a building permit, they don't count.

So yeah, thanks.

Yeah.

Okay.

So um okay.

Carrie, and I'll pass the chair to you, you.

You wish.

Okay, thank you.

And so in finance and the men, we have the budget variants and projects update, which is really just here for information.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kowalewich.

Move receipt.

Thank you.

Second.

If in the text, um the first few pages, if there was anything new, um that would be worth seeing in bold.

Um, but um it's it's really to provide the two schedules to show us the update on expenditure.

Yeah, yeah.

I think if there was anything that our attention should be drawn to, the Damon would do that.

Yeah, yeah.

It's early in our house, financial houses in order.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, everyone's good.

All in favor of receipt, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have our CAO update, although we don't have I should have said that Kim sends his regrets.

He's not he's not feeling well.

Um Sarah, are you gonna do the CAO update?

Well, I can certainly do that.

I will be much faster, however, than uh than typically.

And that is your worship, a report in front of you that summarizes activities by department for the month of May.

In um in the month of May, administration had the AAP process concluded for land that we are seeking to potentially dispose of to the Capitol Regional District to put under the umbrella of Mill Hill Regional Park in the near future.

And you also received an access to memory presentation from the records coordinator and archivist.

We had a totem poll unveiling at the public safety building that was well attended on May 28th.

It was a great event, speeches and songs, and great opportunity to mingle with friends and neighbors that we haven't had the opportunity to mingle with for a while.

Also on that day, we had the annual volunteer dinner, and you recognized that last week in your comments, and that was a good event, and again, another well attended one.

We had in May the audited consolidated financial statements that came forward and a clean opinion that was provided to the town from our auditor.

And the tax rates bylaw was approved.

The financial plan bylaw for 2022 to 2026 was approved ahead of the deadline.

And also then the tax notices went out.

We had our first person coming in to remit on May 25th, and it's been a steady stream of traffic since then.

For development services, we've had four property owners come in, or not well, they don't come in, but they've applied for the top up for the heat pump rebate program for home renovation work.

That program runs till the end of September at this point.

And so we hope to see more uptake in the coming busy months and as people do some minor works around their house to make improvements.

And we have our new building inspector as well as Sterling now on board.

The community climate action strategy adopted May 17th, and we will be getting changes you'll see on the website to highlight the work and provide information to our residents.

Active transportation network plan phase two with engagement for our residents coming at the end of the month.

You'll be hearing more and more about that in the coming weeks.

And also some operating work happening and capital project work happening as well for pump stations.

You'll see listed in the report.

Also, drain drain manholes were exposed along Six Mile Road and Atkins Road, and we're doing this work in preparation for roundabout construction coming up that's planned for that area.

And on roundabouts, investigating options about reoccurring issues of motor vehicle accidents at Helmcken and Vickery.

And the report talks about potential for an anti skid.

And you've probably seen those treatments around the region, perhaps that type of anti skid treatment in that vicinity to try and see if that will help in that area as well as street lighting upgrade in the coming months.

And as well, you will have noticed the Galloping Goose Regional Trail has now been reopened, and that's up by the BC Handy Dart site.

And in the parks department, there's been a bit of work happening in our busier season now with plantings, irrigation work.

And the report talks about dumping in violation of our bylaws and a deckling program to remind people that the any garbage cans you may see around are not for their household products, but more for things while they're out and about.

Not for household dumping, nor is our town hall property for dumping.

So that that concludes the work.

A little bit of note about GIS work happening, as well as a drone flight.

But that concludes our report.

Great, thank you, sir.

Councilor Matson.

Just a couple questions.

Oh, thank you.

On the Vickery Road/Helmcken uh roundabout the incidents there.

I'm I heard that there had been an accident, but I'm just wondering if just generally we can be sort of updated on any sort of uh dangerous situations or accidents that happened just on a periodic basis, maybe during the transportation component, because I wasn't really sure that anything serious was happening there.

I don't know that staff always have that information, right?

That would be more a request of Todd, I would think.

Motor vehicle accidents.

Your worship, I think you're you're correct there.

Um, one thing about that roundabout as well as the pheasantly roundabout is that um in April, which is I believe when I first started, there was a uh a letter of the council with respect to safety around those two roundabouts, and uh currently staff are assessing that.

Um the anti skid was a an idea that came up, but we will have a more formal response to that email in the next coming uh community and that probably at the next community of the whole.

We're just currently working with um a consultant to take a look at uh other options that could be possible at those roundabouts.

Okay, so just for clarification, it wasn't that there were lots of accidents that we were aware of.

There was an email that we responded to by doing a review.

Okay, thanks.

So my one other so my one other question, and this is a GIS one.

It says on the GIS front, the dressing, oh, addressing was updated to improve the searchability of locations within the portal.

I'm not quite sure what that means.

Or how that works.

Stand by your worship.

I'm just reading this myself.

It your worship, I believe that would be our internal GIS portal, so it's merely administrative and uh operational for our team.

But I'm still just curious as to what it means.

It may just mean um solving some issues with respect to addressing.

Okay.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

Thank you for doing the uh staff the work on um the newcoming section on climate change um action strategy and going onto the website uh with the residents' guide to climate action.

Uh there were some um municipalities, and I I'm assuming they still do, but they had a um an app, if you like, that where individuals could calculate their carbon footprint.

And if that uh is uh available um to municipalities, I think it would be very useful for for our residents to um apply that as well and and just and see what um and give us some awareness of their carbon use.

So if we could add that to um to that particular resort section of the website, I think it'd be very useful.

I remember the one you were referring to when all the councils did it.

Well, they could certainly have a look at it.

Oh, Lindsay got it.

Oh, Lindsay.

Thank you, Chair.

Um the the you may recall that we discussed this earlier on in the in the uh climate action strategy process, and at that time we made the decision that we would uh direct people to the District of Saints' uh calculator, um, in part because they have very similar characteristics to the town.

So it would it would allow people to at least pro uh get an estimate of uh their their GHG contributions.

There are we are aware of other apps that are in development stage at this point.

We continue to monitor that, and should they become commercially available, we will uh let council know and bring forward a budget request for such a thing to be added to the town's website that includes more specific information based on uh the town's characteristics.

John, yeah.

So yeah, thank you for uh reminding me and and directing the Saanich in the meantime.

That's a great idea.

The um the dumping of household garbage and so forth, um and has there been a recent increase?

Do you think that might have been um or this might be um the homeless um making use of our garbage cans?

Is that a um uh a possibility?

Uh because I do note that in South Kona Park and Victoria, their garbage can actually has a depth of like five feet.

You know, it's not just the turf top surface, but there's uh a portion underground with long garbage bags, and and um, you know, if the problem persists, that might be uh I know it's a it's it's at least an option to consider, but or else more garbage um containers.

But um, yeah, I'd be curious to know if the homeless are are making use of our facilities.

Thank you for the question, Chair.

Um, at this point, we couldn't find a direct correlation between the two.

Um, what park staff have noticed though is that there has been a substantial amount of yard waste and um waste with respect to uh renovations.

Um a good example is that in uh in Portage Park, uh there appeared to be um what it's almost like there's like square glue-on carpets.

And it looks like uh someone distributed a few of those in a garbage can there and then went to the next one, distributed the same thing there, and it's almost like you can you can find breadcrumbs.

So uh we have noticed that.

Um there has been an increase this year, but uh we haven't really correlated to with respect to um the ongoing issues that meet the present in Victoria.

Okay, thank you.

Everybody else is good.

Okay, and so I just need a motion to receive.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by second.

Thanks.

Councillor Levin, all in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

So next we are the new business, which was the island corridor motion.

I've had a couple of mayors contact me and because they've seen the motion and say that they would like to support it and that we should officially send it out.

It's a little bit odd to do that because it's going to UBCM anyways, and everybody is going to be able to support it there.

Um, but it may get it more coverage.

Um the more municipalities that endorse it.

So I think we should just have a motion to send it.

So we Vancouver Island municipalities.

Second.

Yep.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

I also note that the matter is coming up on the transposition committee tomorrow.

It is, yeah.

That's right.

Advocacy for the yeah.

It's a good report.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

It is a good report, but it doesn't really have enough actions tied to it.

No, the advocacy, right?

Yeah.

That's what the CRD does best.

Yeah.

So that's it for finance and the min.

And there is one item on the parks agenda, thanks to me.

So that's you, Councillor Rogers.

And back to you, Mayor Free.

Thanks.

So the Crane, Crane Road or Crane Place Access is.

I I took a photo of it.

This has been bothering me for a little while because we we went to the trouble of putting a nice little access down there.

There's a nice winding, for those who aren't familiar, nice winding path down there through the trees and a bench at the end.

And right at the top, it has private property, beware of dog, and nothing to suggest to the public that they're welcome to go down there and enjoy the water.

So I'm just at wondering if we have a plan to put some you know public viewpoint, public access to the water or something there, so that they can clearly see where it is.

This one I find particularly galling because most of that driveway in that photo is actually on town property.

It's not actually their private property.

But regardless of that, um sir or Ivan.

Uh maybe I can uh give a little bit of background as well.

Your worship, yeah.

So it I think Crane Place was one of the first road end projects that was done, and I had to go through some files and make some calls.

Um the reason why there's no sign there currently is because after uh engagement with the local neighborhood, um, a decision was been made to not install a sign at that time um due to a myriad of uh myriad of uh concerns from the neighbors.

So at that time, staff has had agreed in principle to that, but it was conditional to should in the future staff or council wish to put a sign there in the future, or if uh the neighbors um uh install such signage that may cause a nuisance then uh the town can install signs so thank you very much for that photo because it clearly shows um those signs that are detrimental to access to uh the road end there or in our park so uh staff will write a letter to the resident and also will install a sign there shortly okay great thank you yeah you don't need a motion eh yeah they well if you don't need a motion no because later on you just blame staff that's crazy that's right yeah that's right when we tell you to take it out after they all strew the job, we'll play that.

Thank you.

Okay, and with that I'll or John will hand the chair over to Councillor Matson.

Go on.

Uh so thank you.

We have a uh I have nothing under the chair's report.

The first item of business is the energy step code bylaw.

Stop, take her away.

Hello.

I'm gonna do this remotely.

I I believe there will be a slideshow.

Can help me drive that.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Avi Wu.

This is uh the third time I'm pres I'm presenting this issue to committee uh with some new information about the energy step code.

So when we were here last time in March, we indicated we would come back when we have more information to present to committee.

So I'm here to present what we know to date, including some recent survey results, and we'll present recommendation on how to implement the energy step code into bylaw.

Next slide, please.

So this just gives a bit of background on uh the various events that have happened.

We came uh in February and March with a committee report on indicating what uh what we're doing.

And uh since then we have had some regional stakeholders workshops, uh, which is follow up by uh a very long extensive surveys uh done through CRD and uh ourselves in the township we also did some targeted survey with and the survey results actually attach to this report uh lastly there was a um stakeholders workshop regional one on June 3rd um which uh in terms of timeline the report uh that you're seeing uh took place prior to this so um there was a final survey that followed this uh June 3rd uh workshop so some of the work uh going forward may shift depending on the final survey results.

Next slide, please.

So this slide is just a reminder uh to committee on what the various steps are for the various building types as presented by the province before.

So as you can see, the upper steps for commercial buildings are either step three or step four.

There's no step five for other than residential buildings, partner and residential buildings, which are mainly houses and duplexes.

Next slide, please.

So this is a slide on the Clean BC initiative timeline that council has seen before.

I just want to point point out the two different paths of compliance.

One is for low carbon standards, which measures the carbon or GHG, the greenhouse gas emissions, and the other one is for energy efficiencies, which are the steps that we're referring to in the step code.

We indicated before we're anticipating a co change by end of this year in December, where we're anticipating the stepping up from the current step one to step three for part nine buildings and step two for part three buildings.

Next slide, please.

So this table uh was in one of our previous presentations as well.

It's it is just indicating what are the current steps in Victoria Sanage and Central Stanage.

And these are the same local governments that we've been working with together with CRD on the regional initiative.

So as you can see from this report at the end we're recommending that we catch up with the regional efforts by January 1st 2023 as our first phase in adopting the energy step code.

So again this for um part nine buildings and um part three residential up to six story we're looking at step three and uh step two for part three building next slide please um this is a slide uh and the next one is what was presented uh by the local governments uh with um the low carbon option when they did the workshops for uh part nine and for part three the next slides for part three so the dates on this table uh was just presented really as a first point of discussion the dates will become more apparent once we know what provincial targets is going to be by end of the year so in terms of the adoption date and the this table and the next uh we're not really fixed on that yet.

Um, especially with the last survey going out to stakeholders by CRD, we may see some changes in those dates.

Uh next slide, please.

So this is the one for part three residential and that's for six stories and less.

Um there's a lot of discussion on how to achieve the low carbon designs and also to achieve the higher steps.

Um, we indicated in the report that some issues raised include increased costs, availability of required expertise, and design impact relating to building forms.

Uh, we indicated the increased costs will have an impact on housing affordability, which is already a substantial issue throughout the region.

Next slide, please.

So we're proposing a two phase uh approach where the first one we're gonna step up to be the same as Sanage, Central Sainage and Victoria by January of 2023.

And then we're gonna move up one more step with an option for low-carbon systems by June of 2024, provided uh the three municipalities uh also do the same.

So um our proposals to catch up first um with the three municipalities, as well as probably um letting the province uh step up at the same to the same step uh by end of the year.

But either way we'll be in sync with the regional efforts next slide please um so this last slide um is what uh we're proposing for council to consider a building bylaw amendment at the next council meeting for first second and third reading and uh we want to note again that the effective date for um the uh step up is going to be January 1st of 2023 which would give time for the builders and developers to um to implement this requirement into the design phase.

We will then uh have time to update the uh the documents and process and um communicate the changes to the stakeholders.

And we'll continue to monitor and engage with the local governments for their uh regional efforts going forward, and we'll bring back an update to council as needed.

So that's my short presentations, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks.

Just before I move to Jerry, just for clarification, could you describe or define low-carbon construction?

Uh it's low carbon design.

Uh low carbon, we presented this at a last um meeting.

Low carbon is using essentially hydropower for now that would drive the uh the energy using equipment, mainly the heating.

Um, there will be choices um for gas to do low carbon, but for now uh mainly it'll be hydro um so it'll be electric uh heat and electric uh heat pumps or whatnot.

Okay, now that's what I thought, but I was just confused with low carbon and then construction after.

Correct.

The construction will be governed under more the step code, so the various steps would increase that would change the insulation, um the uh the step deaths and so forth.

So that's more construction related, will be part of the step code, the various steps.

All right, thank you, Jerry.

Um, yes, thank you very much for it.

It was a short presentation.

Um what constitutes a stakeholder in this context?

Is it entirely the development and construction industries or is it people who in the real estate industry or people who simply want a place to live as well?

Yeah that's Jason I'll yeah I'll I'll I'll I'll try and tackle that one um uh Abby um in in in in our work, we have primarily focused on the development community uh because that is has been the primary um group that the CRD and the municipalities that are looking at coordinating our efforts have been have been focused on.

We recognize that they have the uh they will bear the biggest impact from rapid changes to policy and regulation uh around this area, and we needed to have a good understanding of uh where they have had capability and capacity and where they would be challenged.

Um so I know that all of those meetings were open to anyone who wished to participate, and I certainly know that there were not only members of the building community who attended the workshops that the CRD was hosting, but the primary the primary stakeholders in this have been the the the building community not even not even necessarily the the development well the the the building community for sure development community second so okay thank you and and just for clarification and you know for you know the people listening or if there are any people listening um the gosh, the recommendation would have I'm I'm looking for the part nines and the part threes.

Okay, so part nines are residential buildings, and the compliance requirement would be step three.

Correct.

Exception of small ones, which would be step two, and wood frame buildings that are six stories or less, step three, and all other part three buildings.

So part what what would the oh that could be a an office building or a commercial building or a institution, I guess, eh?

Correct.

Okay, all right.

Um okay, that I I'm I'm a little I'm a little confused on what the hybrid efficiency low carbon pathway is or does.

Can you just explain that to me?

Um this is that both tables were lifted from the regional workshop, and uh the workshop was conducted with uh a lot of building designers.

So in terms of my understanding, in terms of the various options given, is um the low carbon is the hot the highest uh reduction in GHGI, and the hybrid efficiency is kind of one of mix in between.

So if you look at option one, two, three, it's going up in the reduction of carbon.

Exactly what is hybrid efficiency, um, I really cannot tell you because it was quite technical in the uh workshop on on what that entails um on the on the actual uh mechanical design of the buildings.

Okay, that's fair.

Thank you.

And and then uh to to add to that response, staff are not proposing the hybrid uh efficiency at this point in time, in part because we are concerned about the complexity and we want to be able to make sure that we we implement step code and we do it well to begin with before we layer on any additional uh requirements for uh because there are requirements on us as well as requirements on the building community if we choose to go down that route.

Um so we're we're being we're being cautious and and wanting to make sure that we we master um step code before we before we um add additional complexity to the to the mix.

Thank you.

Sean?

Yeah.

Um goodness.

The draft options of uh part three.

This is slide seven.

Let me just go through that, please.

Producer, can you please go to slide seven?

Whoever's controlled.

Yes, please.

That's it.

Yeah, thanks.

So I'm concerned about um uh uh confused about option three, because it talks about uh step 03 and low carbon in 2023, and then the same for 2025.

So why is the same for two years, the same years in terms of adoption?

If you adopt it in 2023, why would you need 2025?

But it's low carbon and zero carbon, right?

That's the difference.

So low carbon is June 2023 and zero carbon is January 2020.

Oh well thank you.

I didn't catch that.

Thank you.

Good.

And and so when is um in 2022 the BC BC update released?

It's my understanding.

Correct.

Now in December.

We think we're we're we're not we're not a hundred percent sure at this point.

So um you're saying going to step code three is the same as the requirements of San Census Sanus Victoria.

Um is anybody else doing SCEP 23?

Stuk, for example, Esquamo?

Um that was presented in the last um the last report.

I sorry, I just don't have that handy.

There was a table presented with uh the more regional including uh SUC, Esquimol, Ok Bay, and so forth.

I believe um uh they're not doing the step code right now.

Uh Oak Bay is doing some, uh not the full um steps as as Victoria Saintage and Central Sainage.

SUK is also doing some.

Okay.

We can if we're able to maybe call that up, I'm not sure.

That was in the last.

Thank you.

You know, you you you mentioned that um uh you go slowly and you you go to um um January 2023 to allow um developers to uh to catch up.

But it seems to me that these developers um you know aren't just waiting and devoting all their construction efforts in um you know in V oil.

They're doing Victoria and SANEC and Sensor Santa.

So wouldn't you think those developers have already got um the practice downpack?

So we don't need to wait for them.

Um like I say, because they're probably doing construction elsewhere in the CRD like Victoria and Sanage.

Is that a question?

Yeah, so it's a it's a question.

So yeah, I I guess why why we haven't to um uh who we who's going to take time in in that regard?

Are you asking why is it necessary to wait until January 22nd?

Giving them six months.

Yes, yes.

Yeah.

Um in in part because buildings take anywhere from six to twelve months to actually be designed.

So if we're if if we institute step code tomorrow, that has incredibly significant impacts on the design of buildings that are currently um either approved under development permit or are being uh designed under development permit.

Um and and that that also then has a substantial cost for the developer to go to go back and redesign a building in order to meet step code.

So from from that perspective it it is um I I I wouldn't I wouldn't recommend uh moving moving that quickly we we we need to make sure that the building community has time to catch up.

I would also direct council's attention or committees attention to the survey so the survey that is attached to the staff report and that survey was sent exclusively to builders and developers who are currently working in View Royal.

And it was sent to 16 of them in total.

And I think we had 11 responses, which is a pretty good response rate.

And all of them seem to be indicating a certain amount of caution and concern around their ability to produce buildings at anything higher than step three at this point in time.

We if if you go by any construction site in the region right now, you will see renting advertisements for new trades.

And we are dealing with substantial shortages on that front, the need to train people to do work differently than they have in the past as well as the the the design of buildings and uh engaging an an energy advisor um uh etc.

So all of these are things that add up and increase the cost of producing new housing.

Um and it it it seems uh seems to me that uh not changing the rules midstream um is is a a gesture of good faith on the part of of municipalities um to ensure that uh projects aren't halted and and that developers you know uh re reconsider whether or not they're going to develop in a in a given community uh in particular if the rules are not uh consistent across municipalities and that's certainly what we're we're endeavoring to do um yes i i appreciate the judge line aspects um and in in terms of you know the rationale on on costing, well, you know, it's costing the environment the more GHGs um uh we have um committing that uh crisis um so um the question I had to was the next part um on the phase approach move uh number two move one additional step so you're saying in uh and this is on slide eight move one additional step which I'm assuming then would be step four right um correct this is this yes however, it is dependent on the low carbon um construction option being made available.

So just for clarification, Lindsay, when the low carbon option, that means they don't use any, they they use electricity for heating.

Yes.

Yeah.

And and I I think I think it is important to note that the vast majority of multifamily buildings are uh being built with electricity in mind.

Um they are the it is um not uh sort of normal.

They uh systems within the buildings are normally electric.

So each unit has uh baseboard electric heat, for example.

Uh uh the the if there is a boiler system, the boiler system is likely to be um electric.

Like hot hot water is provided um via electricity as opposed to other means.

So the the this this um energy energy efficiency and car and carbon with with uh multifamily buildings in particular is i'm i'm not i'm not clear yet on what what the gains are going to be in terms of reducing ghgs um the point of step code is not ghg reduction it is energy efficiency so it's insulation um and those types of those types of improvements um the airtightness of buildings becomes very important.

Just some clarification on that very point because I I think I've got it.

But I just want to confirm.

And that's so what you're saying then is if a building is built to step three, but is all electric, does that make it step four?

Um no.

Okay.

Okay.

So what makes it step four?

Again, uh it's built airtightness and things.

Pardon me?

With energy efficiency.

Airtightness, triple ping windows.

Okay, okay.

Okay, all right.

So the the electric quotient of that is in all step three and presumably step four buildings.

Electricity is the primary source that is used here for heating.

Yep.

All right.

Good.

Thank you.

Just before we go on to do either David or no, I'm good.

Thank you.

I think Amy had her hand up earlier.

Amy?

If I can just add a bit more to it.

Um there's two separate compliance paths.

So for a long time, the province had introduced step code, and each step is a reduction of uh energy efficiency.

So they do measure your energy use.

And by the reduction is by building design, so better insulation, better windows, better equipment already has been considered and the whole air tightness, right?

So it's all about air exchange and and so forth.

So that's what the province had been proposing all along.

Recently, there's more talk about carbon emissions and the whole uh greenhouse gas um measurement.

And this is the other path that's going to come forward, which is in addition to the various steps that to do with construction, then the actual equipment being used, including um ongoing appliances, um, they're proposing a low carbon uh path or various carbon reduction paths.

Um, for now, low carbon is achieved uh better with uh hydroelectric power versus gas, and that's what we were trying to highlight last time.

Now we know more on what the province is proposing from these two tables, both for part three, part nine and part three, offering um options.

So the option, if we look at this current table that's um that's being um displayed right now for part three buildings.

If we were to move up uh the steps in energy uh step code, it'll be step four, but they are looking at proposing options where you can stay with step three, but with a low carbon construction, which is the option two, and the various dates.

Now they these are presented as information during the workshop, and I was told by um staff at CRD who provided me this information, is that that would most likely uh not be the final uh product.

So I just wanted to present this as information right now, how it's going to look like going forward, we will roll this into our proposed um phase two adoption.

So when it comes back to council as a second bylaw amendment, we will have more of the more of the information um fleshed out and known and better and better consulted.

Hopefully that helps.

Thank you.

Is that it?

That's good.

That answers my question.

Thanks for your help.

Okay.

Um just before motion, just for for staff, I mean, I I have a friend who's uh a stucco contractor and he's all about you know making the air tightness, etcetera.

His his big concern is step four is gonna cause the way step four is currently established is we're gonna get a lot of the the leaky condo syndromes with uh step four just because there's no way of getting the amount of water out of the building.

And so he just as a warning to me said, you know, step four is really problematic and even other people in the industry are are he that he talks to, he's concerned that it it may be more energy efficient, but the way it's set up it it's gonna potentially cause damage.

That may be dependent on the air exchange systems.

So if you have air exchange systems that then take it, I I understand, but he said based on yeah, because people have built to that step four and they they don't think it's gonna work.

Just just for before we go into step four in the future, you might we might want to be sure that it works properly.

Thanks anyway so probably we have a motion i'll move receive second all favor against it carried thank you staff i really appreciate the report good job thank you and now we have uh development app permit application uh number anyways for 1676971 island highway thank you, Chair uh my name is sterling scorey.

I'm the new community planner um thought i'd introduce myself.

I see i got a few introductions already, so thank you.

Uh so glad to be part of the team and uh looking forward to working with my colleagues and uh our committee and uh council in the future.

This is my first uh first report that I've taken.

Welcome.

Um purpose of tonight is to introduce a form and character development application for a five-story 82-unit condo building.

Uh also looking to seek comments on the proposal and possible variances, and outline additional information that's going to be uh required in order to move forward for council's consideration of the application.

The uh the application in question is for DP 167 to 171 Island Highway, which is a budding uh Portage Park and four-mile House.

A bit of background on the application.

It was recently rezoned from R1B to C D 27 Island Highway Portage, and it was for the intent to have multifamily residential on the site.

Through the rezoning process, details on the land use, density, block coverage, and the height and siding of the buildings were discussed.

So the intent of the development permit is specifically look at to look at the design of the building and of the site.

Bit of an overview of what the proposal uh looks like through these renderings.

Um, the building is going to use uh brick cladding, and the other portion of the building, which I'll also get to in a second, is going to be using board and batten.

Uh unit mix for the building, uh total of 82 units with studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom uh units.

This is a side profile looking towards uh Porter's Park.

Um you can see the four-mile house in the right hand corner.

Um, just a confirmation that the the strips of white is not uh aluminum or metals, it is it is board and batten.

Uh bit of a side overview.

Uh the site would be accessed from the uh island highway.

Um there is visitor parking at the front of the property, and there's an underground parking garage under underneath the building.

The underground parking uh covers pretty well the extent of the uh lock coverage outlined in red.

The uh site also makes use of uh its uh space to provide a pedestrian pathway that goes around the circumference of the building connecting into a uh community many feet amenity feature uh uh uh pavilion at the in the front yard.

There is also uh hedging uh proposed along the uh the property line uh next to the four-mile house, and then uh planters have been provided for uh trees along Portage Park.

Side profile just showing what the setback would be between Portage Park and the proposed building.

About an eight-meter setback from the building to Portage Park and four meters from the building to four-mile house.

Like I said, there would be hedging between four-mile house and the proposed building, and then there would be trees and ground cover landscaping between Portage Park and the proposed building.

For discussion, we're going to be looking at the relevant development permit guideline guidelines, zoning requirements, and then following up with some next steps for consideration of the proposal and in order to get there what would be required.

In general, the proposal complies with the mixed residential development permit area specifically for design, provides a mix of natural colors and interesting building facade that's broken up with balconies, ground floor patios, windows, and a mix of building materials.

The orientation of the building makes a clear front and identifiable building entrance for the pedestrian.

The fifth story is stepped back to reduce the appearance of the single wall face of the building, and uh an outdoor pavilion has been provided to provide residents with uh outdoor space.

There is uh proposal uh sees that the space would be covered and would have a fireplace.

The proposal has underground parking, as I mentioned, which also provides a bike room featuring uh both standard wall-mounted and cargo bicycle stalls.

All uh parking and bicycle stalls will be provided uh with uh are energized for the purpose of having a light and electric charge, and the the building uh is being proposed to have either a lead gold building standard or to the current BC uh step code, which is step code one.

Uh staff are working with the applicant to get some additional details on the design and parking, as well as safety and access.

There is uh discussion um on the landscaping that I'll switch to in a second, and that is covering the landscape plans.

There are two landscape plans that staff are seeking feedback on.

And the first one shows on our screen here an internal pathway connection on the property that provides a connection to the pavilion and has a direct access from the stairwell that's at the rear of the property that connects into the parking garage.

Cyclists could use this parking uh or sorry, the stairwell to access the pathway.

However, there's no direct access from the pathway to the road right away unless they uh use the um uh underground parking garage entrance.

Um the proposal outlines uh trees planted along Porish Park and hedging proposed along uh the uh four-mile uh house uh property edge.

The site also has a uh a rain garden uh in the front front yard uh in between the building and the uh pavilion.

Um or later.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh yeah, if you don't mind.

Sterling, can you just identify which is the four-mile house side in that particular drawing and which is the other side?

Through the chair, the the four-mile house uh property boundary would be to the uh the top of the page.

Okay.

Okay.

Portage Park would be to the bottom.

And uh yeah, uh to the to their far right would be uh Island Highway.

Good.

Thank you very much.

Um there isn't all sorry, there is an alternative uh proposal for two pedestrian connections uh from Portage Park uh or from this uh subject site into Portage Park.

Staff are generally not supportive of this proposal because of the following.

Um existing park entrance is available um uh roughly 50 meters away from the uh front of the um subject property.

The additional maintenance costs associated for the town uh would benefit solely for the development.

And there's concerns with trespassing from public into private property.

This is an example of the alternative landscape plan.

Excuse me.

The proposed connections have been encircled in red.

So in the rear property connection and then in the side property connecting directly into Portage Park.

Would be direct access for cyclists and pedestrians through the rear stairwell connection and through an exterior side connection of the building directly into Porter's Park.

And staff are understanding that this uh there is potential benefit and a unique unique possibility for the site.

Um, that being said, uh, should the a rear connection uh should a single connection be uh considered, it would be a rear connection, and the following conditions should be met uh in order to have that.

And they would be to ensure that the um access is ability uh the access is for all ages and abilities, that the bicycle ramp be provided on the stairwell uh to provide functional use for cyclists, a license to occupy would be provided uh uh or required rather for the uh access point, and that an ornamental light would be installed to ensure uh safety and uh uh uh security would be provided.

With respect to zoning, the application meets all use, height, density, and setback requirements.

That said, there is confirmation that needs to be had with the applicant with respect to balcony projections, balcony widths, and the sighting of an accessory structure in the front yard, as well as retaining wall height.

With respect to uh parking, uh additional information is requested or has been requested from the applicant uh to uh confirm parking requirements and uh and dimensions of uh parking stalls.

Uh an outline of the variances that would be uh considered for this application um circled in red.

In the top left-hand corner is a example of a balcony projection within the minimum required siding yard.

In the bottom left-hand corner is an example of a balcony width exceeding um the bylaw requirement, which is two meters, and then the third item is the sighting of an accessory structure, which is the pavilion in the front yard.

So moving forward, uh staff are requesting uh additional technical information.

And we have provided some comments to the applicant at a summary.

And staff are looking, as I said, to hear some comments if there are any from the committee on the proposed landscape plans.

That the property owner is uh here uh tonight, and um I believe uh the uh applicant acting on his behalf is in attendance via Microsoft Teams.

Thanks, Jenny.

Just uh one clarification on what you'd mentioned in terms of uh so we've got in the report it says lead gold or step two, and in the report it says step one, and I think you mentioned step one.

To the chair, yes, though that's a discrepancy.

It is it is step code one that is that is the current step code.

Uh apologies for the uh the incorrect information.

No problem because I thought it said lead gold two or lead gold or step two, so is it like an option?

Um so how does lead gold fit in compared to that step one, step two, or or does it?

To the chair.

Uh to the best of my knowledge, and um it perhaps uh Lindsay might be able to be able to answer this better, but to my knowledge, uh step code, as we just discussed, uh addresses the energy efficiency of the building.

I believe that uh gold's lead standards um deal more with the building materials.

Um for instance, uh uh paint required for the building could uh you know be uh confirmed not to have any type of uh uh heavy heavy lead materials.

Um I would need more information um if if uh the committee uh wants that, and I could get back to them.

I got a couple more questions, but I'll pass on to my colleagues first.

Any hands risen?

John?

Yeah, thanks.

So um I'm confused with um staff what they're proposing and what you're proposing in terms of egress to uh into Portuguese Park.

So uh I don't know what what particular slide you want to show me.

Lindsay had her hand up.

Hi Lindsay?

Lindsay, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Um so staff are actually seeking seeking council feedback or committee feedback on on the two different the two different landscape plans.

So the initial landscape plan, not the one that you we're looking at right now, includes no connections to the park.

So the the only way for pedestrians and cyclists to access the site will be through the driveway and and using the bike lane that exists on Island Highway.

However in the alternative landscape plan we are we are seeking council input to understand whether or not the single pathway connection at the rear of the property which would be directly to the the trail that goes through uh Portage Park and has has uh then immediate access to the ENN rail trail is is an acceptable uh in uh uh connection point.

Um obviously we have policy that does not support uh connection from private property into parks.

However we we wanted to be able to present this to you to seek your feedback in part because this is a very unique site and part of the consideration in in this site was its location and its proximity to cycling and pedestrian amenities and this does provide a really strong uh connection for both cyclists and pedestrians and does it does make it easier um provided the other conditions are met uh for cyclists to to uh exit the building and then immediately be on a pathway uh as opposed to having to go onto the road thanks so before we move on to other items do you want let's address this one first this how do people feel about that versus no entrances I think the rear one's fine you think what the rear proposed uh to the rear I think it's quite satisfactory yeah I'm fine with that too if I lived in the building I'd want it there yeah yeah okay so there seems to be uh consensus that that would be fine.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate your your candor.

Um who is next here?

Anyone else before we get back to John in this many questions?

I don't have any questions right now.

Damien?

Just so for staff, the it sounds like the parking's not quite squared away yet, but can that we're just want to confirm that can be dealt with later?

Or is that have to be all done tonight?

Through through the through the chair, uh I should clarify the the parking calculations um would be uh meeting the the zoning bylaw.

There wouldn't be any variance to the number of parking spl uh stalls.

Yeah.

Uh it's more a clarification in the uh there's two different numbers provided in the plans provided, and it's just a confirmation in what is actually being desired.

Um and then the uh question regarding uh dimensions, uh, that should be a fairly uh quick conversation with the applicant to understand what it is that they're proposing for the dimensions of the parking stall.

Uh those would have to be compliant with the zoning bylaw.

Okay, okay.

So no variances for parking spots.

Through the chair.

Uh this time no.

Okay.

Thanks.

Gary, good.

David's sending it.

Just to just a question regarding the um the large hedge that's already there.

Um I imagine it started out as a short hedge between the four mile and the property.

That's coming out because of parking, underground parking?

Yeah, okay.

Through the chair, yes, the the the site would have to be uh fully excavated in order to uh meet the the desired proposal.

Uh if I just go back to the um the site plan, you can see that the the red line is the extent of the underground parking, and that actually butts the uh property line for the rear and uh uh side yard, which is where the four mile house is.

Um so yes, they would they would have to be removed in order to put in the new landscaping.

Okay, so the other question is once all the trees are cut and all the digging's done, I'm wondering what sort of fence or will there be fencing around the property?

And if so, what type?

To the chair, that is uh actually uh uh a question that has been asked of the applicant, and uh more information would be available uh at a later time.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

What while you're thinking walking up there, do you like to get to step two earlier than later?

Uh I guess I say my name first.

I'm Graham Mann.

I'm uh the owner of uh 167, 169, and 171, uh and the applicant for uh this development permit.

Um the construction, so it'll be your your typical construction fencing that you see during construction, which is um usually an eight-foot panels, six to eight feet high, locks together.

It uh is open so that wind can pass through and not blow it over.

It will be secured as well to prevent anyone from getting into the excavation or the construction site.

Um obviously if someone truly wanted to get in, they would probably be able to, um, like anything, but we'll do our best.

Uh we set up uh cameras monitored uh and it's all um monitored 24-7 with response uh and security checks.

We do that on all our projects.

It's typically a part uh of your insurance.

Okay, and when the building's all built and landscaped, yes.

What type of fence?

That hasn't been fully determined, but we we will be working with uh Brad Forth uh from Forsyth uh Landscape architect as well as our uh architect Justin Bennett from WAS from Urban West.

Sorry, I'm gonna WA on a different uh project, but from Urban West.

Um, and and we'll get that all um for the the final proposal that comes uh hopefully in about a month.

Okay.

And you're stuck on step one, you just can't sort of move.

Um as far as as the step code goes, it it is looking at a lot more in, like you say, the the energy modeling.

We will be looking at that.

Um we'll probably most likely be engaging more Scherschfeld.

We've been in preliminary conversation with Dan Walters there about it.

Um and typically speaking, I would say the last building we had performed to about the almost step three level um with our standard practices.

Uh that's common of a lot of construction.

There is merit to what you're saying in building science about the fact that sealing up buildings uh we have to be very careful and and to counselor rogers' points the air changes are important um i just did a a course in regards to just single family homes and the different styles of insulation that comes with them and there is a potential to run into issues where you essentially create a for lack of better terms a sauna inside your wall and uh so there is a lot of discussion within the building community, uh, and thankfully with um the folks that are they're making the changes within the code.

Um, so it's something that is, I think, evolving.

It's evolving um at a fairly quick rate.

Um, and as with anything, things that like this that that come along typically have a cost uh that's associated with it.

And you know, yes, that's a cost to a developer, but typically that's also a cost to the end user because just makes the cost of the overall project more thus you you do run into some of those those issues.

But I think it is important given um the state of our planet, and I have four children and I want to see them to be able to enjoy the things I enjoyed as a child.

And so I I think these are things that are all positive, and and we just need to work our way toward towards these things.

Okay, thank you.

John, any other questions?

Yeah, thank you.

Uh good point.

Um, before you go, please.

Um so your windows, are they sing double or triple clays?

Uh so we haven't gone to that extent yet.

Um, I would think that we would be considering um triple uh along the uh high island highway corridor.

We have done that on other projects that have abutted to heavier uh uh traffic routes, and it has been very successful in helping uh noise within the unit.

Um in our climate specifically, yes, there is a bit more efficiency in a triple pain, but it's not the same as somewhere like Prince George.

Um, so so there um there's you know some some pros for sure to the triple pain.

Uh, there's also things that um we can look at that are a little more simplistic, like solar shield and things of that nature, which it's a double edged sword because you want your solar gains in the winter and you want to reflect them in the summer.

So it's finding that balance and working uh with energy modelers because in a building uh of this size, there still is uh air movements within the common areas.

And um so there's different systems that are being looked at.

And right now, what we are looking at for um our our passive air as well as our heating and cooling is a and uh we don't have this fully solidified, but a P TAC system, which is essentially like a heat pump condenser that is a through wall system and they're they're quite efficient.

They're being used a lot more uh not in in our region but uh other parts of the world and um we we've just uh uh decided to put it in in a a project in a Esquimalt and uh the efficiencies on it are are are uh looking quite positive so that's what we're considering for for this project as well and then most likely the upper unit because there's the space with a bit of uh is using some more standard condensers um because they're a bit bigger on on the upper floor.

Okay thank you.

So um as you can tell we're we're uh quite s uh supportive of you having an access to the park through the rear.

Um will your cyclists are they're going to be you know using the ENN do they have a uh easy access from that point um from where they're part cycling storage is?

So uh you would run into um a stairwell at the back that is stairs so I guess it would depend on the type of bike and I guess the person that would be an e-bike good luck.

Correct e-bikes are much heavier.

Um there is a plan for that you'd be able to come out and a pathway would go around to the back if if the you know uh proposal was accepted.

Um you know we understand that uh we initially put two accesses um you know Sterling and I walked the site uh just recently to to kind of give him an overview so he could see and we meet each other and have a conversation.

Um we realized that the front has a fairly easy connection just via the sidewalk and back into the park.

Um the rear, you know, obviously that is a fair distance away.

And um I, you know, I'm pleased that council sees the the benefit uh of having that rear access.

And obviously we would provide that and provide it in a way that would work with with what staff would recommend.

And uh we feel we could make it pleasing for for you know the people that are already using the park as well as the members or the folks that would be uh be uh purchasing in the building.

Yeah.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, it would and I'll I just the reason I'm thinking of uh the rear um is because the one, you know, and I like the I the idea of the one uh through the park, but it's so close to the playgrounds.

Cyclists and playgrounds uh can be a little dicey.

So that's uh that was my factor in that one.

So your um number of cars is 93 plus um nine visitor.

So it is 102 vehicles.

Um I guess my concern, and I know this isn't forming character, but traffic egress left in, left outs on a busy highway, congestion gridlock.

Yeah, I mean there's there's definitely um that to consider.

Uh we did prepare during the rezoning a fairly extensive traffic management like um traffic study to to go through those things.

Um, you know, the the traffic changes at peak times are relatively low, according to uh Watt, who did the the study for us.

Um, I realize that everyone has a an opinion on that.

Um we're just trusting their professional opinion because that's what they do day in and day out.

Um, I do think that uh this location does uh afford many people the the opportunity to use alternative modes of transport.

Um and it is becoming more and more uh popular, especially with the e options.

People are, even though I mean foot power is a great thing, but we're seeing a lot more and more of the e solutions coming into play because people can essentially get to work just as fast and uh, you know, I guess not as much exertion.

But uh it is becoming uh and so I do I do think we have those options as well.

But you know, it's something that we're is definitely we understand and um you know there's some adjustment potentially with the entrance uh I know the fire department would like it to be the maximum amount of width I believe in the report if I remember right it I think we had it at eight they'd like it at nine um just for uh egress in and out for emergency vehicles um but uh you know our intent given the site is somewhat uh you know it's not a site where there would be uh the ability to have street parking was to provide the allotted of parking by the bylaw so that we don't run into those issues uh is is our hope.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh question to staff when do we talk about um access and e graph uh we uh to the chair we we can talk about that now um there was uh comments to the applicant to uh on on on access ensuring that um the uh possibility of having left hand turning from the site uh wouldn't cause people to start queuing in the middle of the road uh on on island highway uh the comments about the uh access for uh emergency vehicles was um provided by our fire department um their concern was that with an eight uh with an eight meter uh wide uh access um there they didn't see or see any any problems but they saw that there would be additional uh access and uh maneuvering on the site with a a nine meter wide access um uh one of the one of the requirements uh that we're asking uh the applicant for is just a uh a turning uh fire truck fire truck turning radius um uh and uh uh a few other a few other clarifications in their in their application okay so I don't know about now but in the next time we see this could you just give us some more clarification how the a left camera can I mean I always have problems with turning left onto island highway, especially if there's a substantial number of houses there.

So if you could show us how that works, and uh I guess we would like to at least I would appreciate uh you know having my concerns uh addressed just in terms of thinking that it's a hazard.

Yes, to the chair.

Um yeah, staff can come back with uh some more information on that.

Okay, thank you.

So if I may startling that my my point is uh similar to that, um, is the the vehicles that are um turning in or out, the sight lines up the hill with uh being a downhill vehicles coming towards what what are the sight lines gonna be like to make sure it's gonna be a safe left turn?

So it's the sight lines that concerns me up the hill.

So I think I'm correct in thinking the you know staff would be looking at all that when it gets to a servicing agreement more than at a form and character DP but I think staff can give you some assurances but the idea that we're gonna make the decision whether or not I'm not comfortable with but at any rate I just throw that out there for what it's worth.

I'll I'll move receipt of the report.

Yeah second and just I'll just say how exact I think it looks great.

Thank you very much.

I think it's a really nice looking building.

Although the brick could be nicer red in my mind, but I won't argue that point.

Thanks.

All in favor?

Against carried.

The next item is the draft OCP.

And Lindsay, you're talking whoever's talking about this, could you have some clarification?

Because I think in the documentation I read that if there were suggestions or changes that council had that you would then incorporate them before you ship them out to the committees.

And that might entail us spending a long time talking about issues versus anyways.

Let us know what you have in mind in terms of that before we start the presentation.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So I uh I don't have a PowerPoint for you tonight.

I hope that's okay.

Council uh or committee has had uh an opportunity for an in-depth review.

This is bringing back the draft official community plan.

Um staff have made um some uh modifications um which obviously includes things like copy editing and making sure that the page numbers uh work now uh and I I hope we've caught all of those you'll also note that we removed all of the action items um from from the plan uh which it was was part of uh part of some conversation uh that that that was that was had regarding regarding the draft um and then in in turn in terms of other changes um I was anticipating that council might be making some motions um in in for for staff to clearly understand what uh changes uh uh all of council or committee wanted to see um as it's very challenging to respond to uh individual uh comments uh and and not being clear as to whether or not that is that is uh uh a group a group decision or or individual feedback um so i i'm certainly aware um that some of the issues that we talked about were things like um reducing the size of the community corridor on the island highway uh in and around helmkin so pulling that uh that back uh a little bit at the eastern end so uh in and around policier um so pulling pulling that more towards helmkin and focusing focusing change in that area um and beyond that i'm i'm i'm uh waiting to hear uh what other uh changes council would like to see um but i'm i am i i i did note that one and i am anticipating a recommendation from council or committee uh to make that change okay thank you um so colleagues here's i'm just in terms of just the discussions i i'd put down a bunch of notes down in terms of items but i had some and and i i passed it on i don't know do we particularly want to start talking about these issues it just in terms of timing i don't know so i mean i guess the the question is what happens from here if if we okay this going i mean it's an iterative process and this is a check in through the process it's certainly not any final decision on what the document's gonna look like so if if we are okay with this going forward, then where does it go from here?

Does it it's gonna go to the advisory committees?

It's gonna go to stakeholders, but presumably members of council can also, like counselor Matson has done, provide written feedback for staff, which would then all be considered and brought back to say is that sort of a nutshell of what would happen?

That is that is correct, yes.

And staff will also prepare for an open house as well to ensure that there are opportunities for the public to come in and have conversations with staff uh about the draft and any policy changes that they are they are concerned about.

I guess from my standpoint, I wouldn't mind seeing, for example, my comments just being included with the documentation get sent off to our advisory committees.

Because there were a bunch of points that I thought were relevant and I don't I mean I'd rather have them discussed and catch rather than us spend the next hour and a half arguing about them.

But it's be highly unusual to send to an advisory committee one members of council's viewpoint.

In fact we try to stay away from doing that even with liaisons.

Right?

I mean their job is to funnel information to us.

So I I I don't think that's fair to put the advisory committee in the position of having a member of council's opinions in front of them.

I mean I I think that is contrary to the whole spirit of an advisory committee.

I'm not discounting your your opinions because I agree with them, but I think the time for us to debate them is when everything comes back and when staff has also had an opportunity to to comment on your your thoughts as well.

Just in terms of a concern is that goes out to the community and they say well the community agreed with this and so therefore we shouldn't be making any changes as opposed to having discussions with these now and then if they're valid putting them in the documentation.

But surely we've got, I mean, John's got a whole two pages full of comments too.

But surely hearing what the community thinks about what's proposed is important before we start making radical changes when a fair amount of it was built on community input.

I'm just, I mean, I'm not I'm not saying this isn't isn't what you're saying is worthwhile.

I just do we really want to start tearing it apart now, piece by piece before it's referred out.

Yeah.

Well I thought staff initially, I I mean I don't want to be argumentative about this, but I thought initially staff said that we should be f sending out something that we're we all are in general agreement with so that if there are changes when we get the feedback, we aren't uh you know sending sending then have to go make significant or make changes and then put them back out there.

So I I just just in terms of timing, yeah.

I I just so we're not you know here you know laboring over piece by piece by piece.

Can we just um you know look at for example you've got what eight points point one, you know, accept or not accept, point two, accept or not accept.

Can can we just move through each point and and that way have them go forward with staff to go to the advisory committees?

It's just hard to I mean it'd be nice if these were passed off two weeks ago so you'd have a chance to read them but I just in any terms of you know I just given the importance of this documentate document to us to our community I just not feeling comfortable that all our views our views aren't thoroughly reviewed.

John Yeah um I'm certainly not comfortable with it going forward to the public just yet I I think there are issues.

Um, and you know, for example, on page 15, um, which is a population projections, um, I I can't figure it out.

I I think we're going to be at 15,000 way before 2036.

Way before.

We're at 21, uh, we're sorry, we're at 11.5 now, and we're not even counting Erskine Lane, which is a thousand.

So um, and and it's you see what what if I'm uh Mr.

and Mrs.

Public, how many houses are you gonna put in, you know, you're projecting to put in my neighborhood?

So I live on Jedburgh and I look at what you're gonna do there and the density, and wait a minute, how am I gonna get in and out of Jedburgh when you got all this density?

And I'm I and I can only do a write out on on the highway.

And the problem with trying to do left-ins and left outs on on the island highway, I'm sorry, on Helmcken, is that there's a hill which created the problem, which is a liability.

So and you know, if we're thinking that in the harbor we're going to put in carriage homes, you know, and you know, calculating the number of lots, that could be anywhere from 200 to 250 carriage homes, which uh theoretically brings in another 500 people, which brings in, you know, what, another 300 cars.

And um have we projected um, you know, the I really am looking forward to the active transportation plan because we know that the 2006 or 2016 transportation plan is way out of date, has no context of uh of greenhouse um you know changes and so forth, and while it may talk about sidewalks and spike lanes and transit, you know, our sidewalk master plan hasn't existed for five or ten years.

And so I I have some real issues that um and I and I worry about the parts master plan because it doesn't give uh a ratio of how much partspace there should be to the number of residents that um are going to be coming here.

And granted, we've certainly you know missed the target on on what we need need for parts space in Risk and Lane.

I would also like to see that um the you know, when we talk about the size of your oil, don't include Port Theish Park, don't include Mill Hill.

You know, that's that's irrelevant to me.

North View All.

I want to know how what's the population of that 15,000 in the core.

It's all going to happen in the core.

And how are we going to stack that through?

And I, you know, well, I appreciate the developments on the east side and the west side of those corridors.

Again, I have real problems with trying to do that kind of density on a hilly, rocky island highway.

And it it presents all sorts of uh interesting congestion changes when you're going to try and get these people, uh, all those residents, even the buses that they're doing that, um, you know, in and out and around our community.

So, you know, the the practical, I mean, we'd certainly got an OCP that addresses housing, housing, housing, but you know, I really don't get a sense of how we're going to use this OCP to really um deal with those housing efficiencies of passive heating, solar heating, all those kind of in in um you know innovations that we're gonna need is Site C Dam doesn't do it all for us.

So it's um uh so like I said, I have a real problem on page 15 on the population calculations.

And if the calculations are wrong, we're marching to 15,000, we're marching to a real significant policing cost.

And if we don't have the economic uh development, then 80% of the people, the residents, are gonna be paying a heck of a lot of costs.

And if you want to talk about housing affordability, our taxes are going to present quite a problem to them.

In terms of your comments, David, I'd be quite happy if John and I just provided our comments to staff and they could send them to and provide them to you.

Delay you, give staff a week or two to look at them, and then just have another discussion.

And then we can discuss individual points.

So, with respect, I mean, if I was staff having just listened to Counselor Rogers, I would just run from the building screaming because it was all over the map.

I I there I mean, this OCP is not that, you know, that we didn't ask for a major rewrite.

And it's not that drastic, the changes.

So I think in fact you guys need to be, you need to concisely say, I mean, the population projections are based on the CRD population projections.

They're the best guess that everybody has.

So we're not gonna all of a sudden make up our own population projections or our own OCP, right?

I'll talk about it.

Well, I mean, I'm just saying, I don't know what else you expect staff to do.

That everyone in the CRD, as far as I know, uses them.

Um I I don't know what else you would expect staff to do.

So may I address that, Your Wisha?

Sure.

Thank you.

So in a previous OCP, we had um uh staff had provided us a say a rule of thumb, just like the cops say, you know, you need one officer for eight, 850 residents.

So there was, and I found it very useful when it gave a projection that when you have a certain number of population, you should have adequate park space.

And I don't and I guess what I'm not thinking seeing here that we've recognized that.

We know that this is sort of north and south, but you know have we really um you know got the tools to address that and and I'd like again, like I'm saying, the cost of this OCP as it gets built out.

And um, one of the thoughts I had was every every house that gets built should probably have a sidewalk DCC added on because it's going to cost us 18 million.

So the um, and I guess the other worry that I have in reading this is it talks about the transit master plan.

And you know, I'm really kind of suspicious of what the transit rapid plan is because uh I remember reading it and they plan to put 400 car park and ride at the six mile.

I mean, is that is that the plan?

What is that honestly?

Well, it what that does is it reflects, you know, the you know, there there's some underlying themes here that um need to be flushed out, and we need to be honest with the residents about what all this is going to do to impacting their neighborhoods.

So we all need to get out our crystal ball and say this is exactly what's going to be happening and this is you know, we can't do that.

It it's quite possible we can't.

I mean, as long as you know, I guess one of the things that I would really appreciate having is knowing what that rapid transit plan is.

And um, you know, it's and it's not just a point of you know how close the bus stop is.

So ms Mr.

Chair, I'm just that's how frequent that bus is.

Yeah, eight eight to ten points that I think are germane and they're simple.

Well, some of them are simple.

I mean, we we'd agreed that we weren't going to limit height in the OC in the new OCP.

That was agreed on ages ago.

All of a sudden, you're now bringing it in.

I don't know that that's just a simple thing personally, especially when you only want it on one road.

Um I I don't see them.

I I think at the end, when this comes back is when we should have this debate.

I I think we have a responsibility.

We're doing this completely in a vacuum.

We need to hear what our committees say about it.

And we need to hear what our residents say about it in an open house.

That would be our normal process, right?

And take all that information, and then we should be having this debate.

Um, and staff in the meantime can provide comment on your points.

I mean, that to me is with respect to counselor rogers.

I mean, I I don't even know where staff could begin to address his concern.

One there's been a ton of work going to this so far.

Like a ton of work.

Um I don't I don't have any idea where staff could even begin to address some of its concerns.

I didn't does Lindsay have any comment?

Through through the through the chair.

Um we have we have consistently used the CRD projections for any number of planning exercises in the town.

Uh they are the best information that we have available.

Um, and and it is not those that that data does get updated periodically, and as it gets updated, we will bring the new projections back to council for for information, and you'll be able to make course corrections as we as we go.

I think it is important to remember that the purpose of an OCP is to provide a framework that will allow additional consideration by council and will help shape some of the decisions that you are asked to make in the future.

A lot of those decisions do have to do with land use.

So what this does is it establishes the policy framework that we work within.

So it provides guidance on whether or not we would consider a rezoning application to allow for a garden suite or a carriage house on a property.

It does actually on page 113 PR 1.4 identify a parkland standard that we will try to meet.

Although at the same time, I would also say that we are particularly blessed to have these regional parks and they are a ready source of recreation opportunities for those who live in for those who live in the town um and and they they they you know i i I don't I don't think that we can ignore them as as that particular source as far as the long term transit plans um we we we rely on um the plans that are published by BC Transit in order to try to understand what their objectives are and those plans are being uh updated and worked on and implemented as we as we move forward.

Planning is not necessarily a a hard science i i don't I I I cannot predict the exact outcome because there are too many variables at play that I have that I and we as the town have little to no control over.

I think that one of the things that we will see in the coming years, if interest rates continue to rise, is a likely slowdown in the number of housing units that are produced.

Housing occurs in in cycles, as we as we have seen over the past 10 years.

The OCP provides the framework that articulates the community that we want to uh that we want to see, and it provides the uh boundaries around which development applications will be considered by council.

It does not necessarily result in the immediate redevelopment of every parcel in View Royal.

It we all know that OCPs take a long time for implementation because we we we uh we don't we aren't developers ourselves.

We have to wait for the development community to respond to the OCP.

So these are the this is this is basically the playbook that council and the community is saying is reasonable for the town.

Uh and we then use that playbook to respond to development applications as they as they come forward.

So in in terms of in terms of changes, I think that you have two choices at this point in time.

I would prefer that if you are if you want to see amendments made that that be a motion of committee and or council in in order in order to be very clear on which the direction that you wish to that you wish to head in as as the as as as counsel.

So that would be one option is that you make a series of of motions regarding particular changes that you would like to see.

The other option is that we continue to gather all of the information that you and the community provide in terms of feedback, and we send the draft plan forward, and then we come forward with a strategy for how the plan could be amended in order to respond to the feedback that we receive as a as a as a as a whole.

So that would involve the advisory committees, members of the public, and our external stakeholders that we would send copies of the plan to and seek seek their feedback.

And then everything comes back and we make a series of amendments or changes at that point in time.

So there's there's sort of two two pathways in front of you, and and I'm I'm I'm happy for you to to take whichever one makes the most sense for you.

Okay so colleagues my my preference and not tonight maybe wait till next week have a it because I can certainly turn my little document to into a series of specific motions which can either be ignored or not you know accepted or not and I don't know if I want to have long think having long discussions especially if people are not in the best frame of mind at this point in time but I can certainly have a you know however six or seven specific items and you'll have the background information already and we can just make a decision on them.

And I'll uh I'll uh within the next day or two, I'll put specific motions together.

And uh yeah, likewise I will get my notes together on the individual sections that uh I'm concerned with um the um ambiguities, um, the pitfalls I think um that um communities will fall into.

This is a framework, but it's also a lock-in.

Okay, so John, but yeah, so that's I just want to take a substance of specific motions because that's what's that.

Turn it into specific motions up here though, right?

Like major governance related, not you know, whether a word is spelt a certain way that we don't right, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Well, I I think it's also um it you know the the vagueness, you know, that we think that you know form and character is going to preserve the the ambience and character of a neighborhood.

You know, I I I really don't think so.

When you know you you haven't preserved the form and character of Erskine Lane.

And um Erskine Lane is being built out with exactly what its OCP designation has been for years.

Yeah, okay.

So that see, that's the whole point.

That was the whole point.

If those if those people knew what was coming in this OCP, and that's what I'm trying to say here, you know, how many people are attending tonight?

How many people phoned in?

But that's what we're talking about, is is sending this to the public and letting them comment on it.

And you're wanting to stop that before.

Yeah, you are.

No.

But I'm saying, I'm telling you that nobody's sending coming because we have a pandemic burnout.

Yeah.

People, you know, people aren't aren't contending with this.

They can't contend with anything.

John, John, I would ask in all fairness, staff is given us an option.

There seems to be agreement that we can put down some items, turn turn it into motions, and then discuss it before we and then make vote on each of the motions.

Discuss them and vote them.

And if there are changes to the document, they will be put in before and go out.

So I I mean, I I'm happy to do that, but I don't understand why we would be, for example, taking out the possibility of row houses in the harbor precinct without allowing the residents of the Harbor Precinct to weigh in on whether they think it's a good idea.

Well then if I put a motion into that effect, we can have that discussion and just simply vote on it.

But I'm saying that right now in advance of that.

I why would we want to cut out our residents providing us with feedback on that?

Well then there's a whole discussion there, you know, keeping large, you know, are they large lots if you put them in a duplex or triplex and you split them into a third or or two?

Is that a still a large lot?

I mean, so those are those are the two.

But why would with this this document is being presented to us made written by planners and consultants and professionals in their field so why would we start changing it before we've heard feedback from our residents as to whether or not they're in support of it or not I just don't get that you're you're cutting it off and wanting to make drastic changes before we hear from the public and I I just don't think it's right quite frankly but I guess we can have that debate next week.

I'll move receipt second.

Favorite against carried, and we will bring this back on the flag my notes next week.

Thank you.

And Lindsay, staff have a copy of this.

I will turn it into motions for those things that I think need to be motions.

Thank you, Counselor.

I did receive a copy of this afternoon.

Um so I'll I'll look forward to uh the next the next iteration.

On page three, line 16.

I'm just kidding.

Actually, that level of specificity is actually helpful.

So with that, I think we're finished.

Yes.

I'd like to call the public works and transportation committee to order.

Good.

Uh let's begin with a staff report on the regional public electric vehicle charging network project grant application.

Thank you, Chair.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Would the committee like a presentation on that or is it straightforward enough?

Or do you just or I can say that how long is it?

It's about five or six slides.

I would like to see it if that's okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh the purpose of this report is to consider a proposed resolution to support a C O D grant application.

So the CRD is making an application to um, I guess ultimately it's a federal grant, uh, but it's a grant for to install um level two EV charging stations for the most part within the region.

And that includes um within the municipalities as well.

And the grant covers most of the costs, nearly all the costs of installing um uh chargers.

Uh and those would and I should screw over the slice.

And um we'll cover some of the incidental costs as well.

Uh the CRD through their climate action fund would actually fund uh the additional um the additional 20 whatever percent um to fully put the put the space in uh so the from this case the town will really have to contribute the land for that parking space and the charging charging stations uh so where we're at is um is basically there are uh probably two general locations where where uh where the criteria of the um of the grant are met and those will be fine tuned later and those are namely in the uh one one potential location is the town owned parking lot for overflow from Thetis Lake at on at Atkins Road and six-mile road intersection um the other put potential location is the voyal view royal park um parking lot.

And basically the main thing is that they be 20 accessible 24 hours a day in a safe location, walkable to amenities.

The slide deck there shows the criteria.

The main thing is the town has to be willing to provide a parking space for that.

So a council resolution is needed to uh allow those charging stations to be part of the grant for View Royal.

I move the recommendation.

Second.

Moved by Mayor Screet, seconded by uh Councilor Madsen for discussion.

Uh actually, Councillor Rogers is first.

So when I it's interesting, I see that the city of Victoria and Mountle Hap Nation are getting level three.

Um so why don't we look for level three?

Um yeah.

So the chair, uh that has to do with um it's it's actually it's slightly different grant structure for that.

So they uh so I don't have the full details of it, but my understanding is um based on location and number of vehicles and the willingness to provide the additional infrastructure that is needed for uh for level three chargers, because those are really big transformers that go with those uh those parking spaces.

The town at this point probably doesn't have the density to support that.

In the case of the Malhattan Nation, it has to do with the um location in the highway.

Because there's a certain separation you want to have between them.

So the the recommendation is to install four.

Okay.

Um through the chair, uh to the wording of it says four, but in actuality there are two chargers, each that have two ports in them.

Uh-huh.

So, but this is this template that we see here is one that the um CRD needs consistency across the CRD in terms of making the grant application.

That's why it's worded that way.

But it's basically allows for charging up to four vehicles, but there's actually two actual chargers.

Okay.

So we have two locations.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and so you're recommending the Thetis Overflow parking lot and View O Park?

At this time, those locations will be fine-tuned if the grant is accepted.

Right, yeah.

I guess my concern with the the Thetis uh overflow parking lot is that we get it installed and there's forever gonna be a parking lot.

And I'm I'm just wondering, I mean I understand the the logic because it's so close to Thias and and all the cars coming and going.

Um and it'll encourage the electric use, but it does lock us in that that site for for that use.

You know, you I don't I presume it's not easy to move a uh charging station in around.

But if we wanted to do a development food, you know, at that site, would that be uh could that still be possible?

Um through the chair.

Uh stations probably I I don't know the full details of it.

The main cost would be the electrical work.

The charging stations are you know installed, the point can be taken apart, but it's the wiring that that you're making that commitment to.

So you do want it ideally wants it to be in a place that's going to be there for a long time.

Um just I'm just gonna ask a question uh out of order.

This is important.

Uh is there a contract that comes along with this with the CRD that will not allow us to do that specifically on that ACIDS park and ride.

I'm sorry, could you is there a contract that comes along with this proposal that we need to agree to with the CRD, for example, five years, 10 years?

Um the chair for you the chair, uh that's correct actually.

Um the there would be one of the details that we mentioned in the report is who's going to own that charging station.

And the uh the CRD is open to having a discussion on that.

Um so in one scenario they would if if the town does not want to own and operate them then the CRD would would do that as part of their regional uh climate action uh commitment um and those uh they would administer the the contracts so whoever the provider of that service is or the electricity, the utility that provides that, those are deals details that they would work out.

But the main decision for us is do we want to be the recipient of that?

And just as our charging that station here, we have a contract for that.

And um and but ultimately this this uh this project would be because it's it is a very large project, it's several million dollars.

Um that would be kind of a separate package from from how we do ours.

And um at this point, you we don't know who the provider is, but uh it would be coordinated by the CRD.

I think the main thing at the moment is this is a grant application, right?

Right.

And the CRD really is looking for our endorsement to be part of the grant application more more than anything else.

And if the grant application is successful, then there'll be nuts and bolts that are gonna have to be figured out.

Yeah, right.

But at the moment, we're doing a grant application.

For example, the details will put them.

Uh councillor Lemon was actually next.

So given that it is a grant application, you would need to identify the locations that you propose, correct?

Uh through the chair.

So we have proposed those, but they will be fine-tuned later because we we have to look at those specific locations.

Are they really feasible in terms of how close are they to you know having enough uh electricity to reach that that site?

Right, okay.

Um if if if I may, my my concern about Vie Royal Park is that it is always it is so tightly congested now in such high high demand for parking that um the idea of two cars at any given time occupying you know two of the what 10 parking spots or um is is concerning in terms of that as location.

I think I think it's wonderful to have the have have the grant but I'm wondering about you know a a limited um a limited venue.

Thank you Counselor Matson was next I just wanted to point level two is if somebody's going to park for a couple hours that's how long it take takes to charge with one of those.

Level three is if you're in there for like 20 minutes and you want a quick turnaround and it's it's totally different beasts.

So level two would be seem to be perfect for these spots, subject to the issues of whether or not they actually take a full parking spot.

Anyone else can park there, just people who have electric vehicles.

Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

So um uh staff counselor Lemon's got a good point.

Um, very limited parking in Vale Park.

Are we is it possible that we could put these out on the street like on Pheasant Lane across from Zero Park?

Um through the chair, I think that's the type of work that we can that we can work on if the if the grant is approved.

I just say the obvious if you allow other people to park there, then that's doesn't matter, right?

I'm hearing some thoughtful debate about location, uh which it sounds like we can look into later.

Uh sounds like uh our insider Maris Greech, uh who has some experience with the CRD Transportation Committee, uh, says that we can potentially talk about it later, but the main uh the goal here is to jump on board for this grant application.

So uh with with that in mind, uh I can I can get on board with that.

So I will call the question uh to uh support this staff's recommendation.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Uh motions carried.

Thank you.

Next up is the View Royal EV charging stations update.

Thank you, Chair.

Very timely.

What better way to celebrate EV charging than have two EV charging reports in one second?

So here we go.

Um thank you, Chair.

I've been Leo, Director of Engineering, and um I do have about five slides as well.

So wouldn't mind.

I wouldn't mind just sharing on the Scala pictures.

Okay, so the purpose of this um presentation is to update the committee of the whole on the current usage of the town's two EV charging stations as user fees have been in place since March 12, 2022.

Um these are level two flow charging stations, and they're located.

Uh one of them is located at Helkin Centennial Park on Kingsbury, and the other location is actually just uh 20 feet away from me on town hall, and it looks like there is one vehicle there being charged.

So just a little short timeline.

Uh the installation of these two stations was in 2019, and at that time um it was agreed to have free usage under a two-year pilot project.

Fast forward to January 18th, 2022 at the regular council meeting, uh user fee charges were approved.

So uh it looks like it was uh an amount of $1 per hour for the first three hours and $2 per hour thereafter.

And was also a bylaw amendment to the fees and charges bylaw was done.

And finally, user fee charges commenced as of March 12th, 2022.

So usage details, this is a just a couple of quick graphs on the usage at Centennial Park Station and the town hall station.

Staff accessed this data from the flow charging network.

They show average weekly usage at each station, so total kilowatt hours per week.

And the focus was less on the peaks and valleys and more about uh the the trend throughout the last few years.

So um I would ask you to pay attention to the the average trend uh from uh inception to to the end of uh end of May.

So the data indicates or I should also notice that I put a fees collection lines there.

So that line there indicates anything to the right was when fees were collected.

And the data currently indicates a slight drop after uh March 12, 2022, and it shows some recovery as well.

It's similar to the usage prior to the charging with fees, however, the data we've collected is less than three months, and as you can see, we have about almost three years of data, so it's it's recommended to uh monitor for additional uh maybe to the rest of the year to see what the actual trends uh present itself.

Uh fees and revenues.

So uh obviously, with the the fees being implemented, the city uh receives some revenue.

Also, there are some costs associated with uh implementing these two stations.

So, what we see here, if you also just point you to the far right approximate net revenues, um this revenue is based on total fees collected, uh less uh GST and flow transaction fees, uh, and then electricity costs are based on PC Hydro charge rates at each leadered site.

Um, the numbers exclude the $150 dollar deduction for uh flow's annual global management service contract fee.

So that's the contract, and it also allows these two stations to be put onto a network for people to find them for us to obtain data, et cetera.

Basically, if we were to extrapolate, so this uh I guess if I also take at the look at the approximate net revenues, this is based on the last two and a half, three months.

If I also extrapolate that over the course of the year, the annual revenue would be less than $500 per year, and that would exclude uh you know, internal administration time for staff to monitor and maintain these uh these stations.

So, in conclusion, current data currently shows a usage trend that is relatively similar to usage prior to use and fee charges.

Extrapolating the data shows net revenues after fees, taxes, and energy costs, and staffing time will be minimal.

And it's recommended to continue to monitor usage to obtain an accurate picture of any change in usage.

And finally, the recommendation is that the that this report be received for information.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Madsen, can you just go back uh a slide or two?

Let me see, one slide that one.

So is as much as I was on the bandwagon for charging.

So does flow take care of all that?

We don't have to worry about.

Like, I'm just there.

Are there administrative it's taking staff's time to do the uh to us to have you know charging people to use our system?

No, the the staff time is mostly to um present reports such as this.

Obviously, we've had quite a bit of um dialogue on costs, and um the purpose of this uh this report is to provide an update on how are how are we doing with the fees?

And is there any change?

Is there a drop in usage due to the fee charges?

Um staff have noticed that there are some free charging stations elsewhere.

So the idea was to take a look at any change in usage.

Sounds like, and based on the limited three months of data, that it's relatively the same.

So that is good news.

So that's money.

Well at based on the numbers, it's looks like it's minimal.

Obviously with a little bit of administration.

But uh if anecdotally, uh, if I if I may say, Chair, um, you know, there's a lot of very municipalities that do charge one dollar an hour for the first three hours or first bit.

I I can say that it's it's not a surprise that that's seems to be the number so far.

Counselor Lemon.

Okay, is there any other comments or questions?

Um just to to the director of engineering.

The purpose in the main purpose in um charging was to that there were cars being parked there and hogging hogging the outlets overnight, and and other drivers were getting frustrated.

Yeah, yeah.

I'll move proceed.

Okay, move by Mayor Screech, seconded by Councillor Mattson, and comment by Councillor Rogers.

Is um I'm just curious, we were talking about the CRD.

Is the CRD um uh with their systems?

Are they gonna be charging fees for the revenue as well?

Okay, because I don't want them to compete with us.

Thank you.

Does Council wish to discuss this more?

Do we want to continue to monitor it as per the recommendation of the director?

No.

No.

It's it's yeah.

Okay.

I'm good.

Okay.

Uh motion to receive was uh Mayor Screech and Councilor Matson, all in favor?

Opposed?

Abstained.

Uh motions carried back to Mayor Screech for the conclusion.

Thank you.

Next up we have question period.

Um, so the number on the screen is there 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 4993 107 101 pound.

We'll pause there just for a minute because we did get there awfully quickly.

Do we do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship no callers at this time anyway we'll we'll wait a minute just in case remember the old days and sometimes it'd be like 15 people just sitting through the whole meeting to see what's going on I don't remember 15 people but I remember certainly a handful like John Bamford and Veronica Ackerman.

Yeah you would think that people who want to run would start coming out to see the case.

Well, you would think that for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.