Council Meeting

And we now move into the actual council meeting for Tuesday, February 3rd.

Uh it is so call the uh council meeting for the 3rd of February to order for the town of View Royal.

Uh can I get an approval of the agenda, including the late items, please?

So moved.

Keep it down, please, folks.

We're still continuing on here.

If you want to have comments, then please do it outside.

Uh Councillor Lemon, you uh you approved.

Is there a seconder?

Second or second seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed that carries, and I think that brings us down to the rezoning uh application uh bylaw that we just had the um the public hearing about.

Administration basically.

Uh sorry, you're right.

Thank you, uh Council Rogers.

Public participation for anything except the um the zoning bylaw for 258 Helmcken.

If anybody wishes to address council on anything except that rezoning application, go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Raz Isaac, and I reside on Bisham Place.

I'm here as a member of the View Royal Climate Coalition, and I'd like to speak to the notice of motion by Councillor Don Brown, agenda item 14B1, in regards to establishing a municipal natural asset inventory.

Natural assets offer valuable benefits, for example, economic development in the form of tourism and outdoor recreation, public health and safety via cleaner air, biodiversity for pollination, urban cooling and excess rainwater absorption from atmospheric rivers.

View Royal already has man-made stormwater diversions and wetlands in Chilco, Stone Ridge, Eagle Creek, Riverside Ridge, and along Six Mile.

The Four Mile Hill project from around 2005 is an excellent example of using natural assets with an innovative Middle Street stormwater collection, draining into a man made settling pond, which is a wetland in Portage Park, then travelling along a purpose built stream to flow as freshly cleaned stormwater for the ocean into the ocean, which was really good.

Council intended to use similar strategies and natural assets for stormwater on the island highway and down Helmkin, creating a beach wetland cleansing area.

Unfortunately, the housing bills will likely result in many changes, including the replacement of the existing side row ditches or bioswales with pipe storm drains.

The natural asset inventory, Councillor Brown proposes, provides financial analysis tools to allow municipal staff to make better cost effective decisions in the face of increased pressure to deliver services.

Please support it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Linda Girond and I live on Ardenlee Place.

I'm here as a member of the Ural Climate Coalition, and I'd like to speak to the notice of motion by Councillor Don Brown in regards to including a natural asset inventory in the budget.

Funds are always tight, but local experience suggests costs do not appear exorbitant and grants are good.

The VRCC has been in touch with the executive Director of Natural Assets initiative Roy Brown, Roy Brooke, who said based on their recent work with the District of North Saanich, the cost for an inventory that includes an interactive GIS-based dashboard, a condition assessment, and self-directed risk identification using NAI tools is typically around $60,000.

He said if we wait several years to get a new GIS system, we could risk losing so many important assets in the interim.

The District of Saanich notes they got natural asset inventory funding for up to $50,000 through the UBCM under the Grant Canada Community Building Fund 2022 Strategic Priorities Fund as described on the website.

The bottom line is the costs, the net costs are low, the net cost.

The Coastal Douglas, for one example, the Coastal Douglas for Conservatory Partnership has partnered with the Biodiversity Atlas using LIDAR mapping, as well as a draft local government toolkit to be used by local government staff in planning parks and engineering.

A quote from Sanich.

The project includes evaluation showing that even a very narrow look at services providing by natural assets demonstrates a minimum value between 21 to 125 million in annual public benefits, and the development of initial levels of service that can be used to track natural asset management efforts.

More from Sanich.

Unlike engineered assets, natural assets typically also provide one or more co-benefits than enhance the livability and resilience of the community, such as air purification, carbon sequestration, temperature regulation, and many others.

Saanich highlights the following unique features.

Potential to remove to provide or support multiple municipal services at lower cost, potential to provide co-benefits, potential to be more resilient and adaptable to climate change.

Life cycles are typically much longer or indefinite with natural assets than man-made gray infrastructure.

The Gary, I added that on the end.

That was my words.

The Gary Oak Meadow Preservation Society is working with UBC Geomatics Scholars on a LIDAR mapping project for Saanich and Victoria.

They are applying for funding to cover more municipalities, and they can cut include V Royal if you wish.

So there's an opportunity there.

UVIC has a sustainability scholars program that offers students to nonprofits and municipalities for help on projects like this.

It doesn't have to be a hit on your staffing.

Pressure is mounting.

The BC Disaster and Climate Risk and Resilience Assessment, the first in-depth update on provincial risk since 1997, warns that the annual average surface temperature in BC is rising much faster than global trends.

Since 1948, temperatures in BC have increased by 1.7 degrees Celsius.

With the greatest warming occurring in winter, by approximately the 2050s, the BC climate is projected to increase by 2.5 degrees Celsius, and by the 2080s by 4 degrees, making extreme heat events likely to almost certain.

The research is clear.

Taking action now is prudent.

According to the Canadian Climate Institute, for every dollar spent on adaptation measures today, $13 to $15 will be returned.

The natural asset inventory of Councillor Brown proposes is another step you can take to build resiliency.

Thank you for your work on this file, Councillor and Councillors and Mayor.

You've done a great job so far.

We encourage you to keep a hat keep going.

So please support the motion.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Linda.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Jane Devonshire from Glen Airly Drive.

So, as the founding member of our newly minted WISE, the West Shore Initiative for Sustainable Ecosystems, I am in total support of the motion of Councillor Brown to add a natural asset inventory to V Rural's 2026 budget.

WISE is composed of engaged citizens from the five West Shore communities of Colwood, Highlands, Langford, Machosen, and V Royal.

We have an impressive steering committee, which includes highly respected scientists as well as academics from Rural Roads.

Our full table group consists of a broad array of people interested in protecting our precious ecosystems and biodiversity, and also includes electives from each of the five West Shore municipalities.

Phase one of our goals is to host a West Shore Bioregional Summit on April the 10th, 2027.

This will give time for new councils to get settled into their roles.

Phase two is to bring in the broader community in the creation of a bioregional framework.

Our aim is for all five West Shore municipalities to adopt the bioregional framework in their OCPs and monitor and measure progress.

Phase three, which is quite exciting, is to dovetail our work into the CRD's nomination of Greater Victoria as a UNESCO Urban Biosphere Region in 2027 28.

One of our asks of our councils will be to create natural asset inventories and have these incorporated into their OCPs along with the supporting bylaws and regulations needed to protect and manage them as part of this bioregional framework.

Colbridge is already working on theirs, and hopefully the role will also step up and take a leadership role in inspiring others to join in this exciting new initiative.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jane.

Anyone else wish to address council on any item related to the agenda that is not to do with the rezoning.

Adria Miller, Parker Ridge Place.

Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on item 7B.

I want to start with a true story from the summer of 2024.

It was a sunny day when a BC wildlife conservation officer approached a nearby home.

For months garbage had been spilling out of the overfilled bin.

One day the bin became so heavy it tipped over.

Bear and other wildlife were active in the area.

A mother bear had been killed the prior year and attractants were a real concern.

The homeowner explained that it was simply impossible to fit all the garbage from his household, including a large secondary suite, into the single gray garbage bin.

Thankfully, his organics bin was closed and not the issue.

The problem was simply the volume of the regular trash bin.

Open and scattered.

Because it is not inside a town issued bin, the garbage truck can't lift it mechanically, and collection becomes a manual process.

Also postal box sites and bus stops in the town have become dumping grounds for unwanted items, including sometimes bags of household waste.

At the postal box on Watkiss Way near St.

near Francisview Drive, I have seen bags of household trash, piles of apples, kids' toys, and even a chocolate fountain.

I try to clean up as many reusable items as I can and bring them to the thrift store.

Town crews also come and do a good cleanup job.

Since 2024, we've heard from multiple homeowners who have said they want options within the current weekly pickup schedule.

They want the ability to possibly order a larger bin or, you know, just get an additional bin for a secondary suite.

Many want an option for wildlife resistant bins too, especially if the regular bins can't be stored securely in a garage or enclosure before pickup date.

Ideally, it would be great if all bins were wildlife resistant.

In a squai malt, when residents asked for larger capacity, the township chose a simple solution.

Just offer an additional bin like the others for $95, along with a fee for the extra garbage tags.

All extra bags must be placed inside the approved town bin, not left uncontained on the ground where it could be scattered around by birds, wildlife, kids, whatever.

The issue is timely because recent provincial legislation encourages secondary suites in single family homes.

More and more we see two full families living in one house.

That means higher density and more garbage per household.

My understanding is a duplex would be issue two sets of bins, but only one set of bins, the regular garbage bin and organic bin, is provided for a single family home, even those that contain two different living quarters and two different families.

Council has heard about garbage on wildlife attractions numerous times.

A bear-resistant bin pilot project was launched in our neighborhood.

It would be nice to see more attention on wildlife issues.

Upon reflection and thinking about my request, I also don't want it to backfire and encourage extra waste.

Will having larger and additional bins mean people now can't safely secure them in their garage away from wildlife?

To avoid these situations, we really need to, we really need the bylaw, the wildlife attractance bylaw enacted, communications with residents, and the option of wildlife resistant bins.

Also, like charging a fee for the additional bins or larger bins could help.

I urge council to consider options that better match how people actually live in View Rural today.

And it is vital to keep the weekly schedule.

Can you imagine these overflowing bins if they weren't picked up weekly and we picked them up biweekly?

I don't want to think about the rodents and the wildlife issues.

Just unimaginable.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Next, please.

Jeff Miller, Park Ridge Place, and I'd like to address council on agenda item 7.b.

Uh, with the collection contract coming up for renewal, this is the time to look at our current service levels.

The world has changed quite a bit from when the original contract was left.

Um we have provincial housing requirements that never existed before.

We have residents looking for increased capacity or multiple bins.

We have the possibility as shown through Santage and other municipalities, you can co-mingle yard and garden waste with household waste.

And then finally, because it does come down to numbers and cents, how do we make this tender competitive?

I have to admit the weekly service is a definite uh necessity that must be maintained.

It is one of the most effective ways to remove garbage or yarding yard uh kitchen scraps to remove those attractants away from the neighborhood.

Again, View Royal has a lot of forced interface, and these animals, whether they be raccoons, bears, crows, have access to our garbage.

And by having weekly service, this reduces their opportunities to get into that.

So I would request that council direct staff to explore these issues rather than simply accepting the current levels of service.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anybody else wish to address council on any item relevant to the agenda.

Going once, twice, three times.

Carl, we got any uh public participation in on our chat for public participation for the council um session.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have no uh public Q or public presentation uh chats at this time.

Thanks, Carl.

Appreciate it.

Well, we know it works now after the public hearing, so that was good.

I think it was the first time I've uh we've received that many over that period.

Um so I think that ends public participation, brings us down to bylaw, and that's the zoning bylaw that we had in front of us.

We've already been briefed on it from the public hearing.

Um so the issue is now all of our questions and answers should be exhausted, and we can only really vote on uh or make our deliberations based on the information that we have.

Um so the staff recommendation is that uh prior to third reading of the zoning bylaw number 900 2014 amendment bylaw number 1160 2025, the council will rescind motion C 12625, which required registration of a covenant to secure a medical office and or neighborhood grocery store on the ground floor for a minimum of 10 years.

And number two, zoning bylaw number 900 2014, and bylaw 1160 2025.

So either we get a motion on what I'd like to do is just get a motion on the floor unless somebody wants to fire an amendment.

Well let's just do the first one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just clarification.

Sorry, just clarification.

So the first part is simply to rescind the um motion, which C 19625, I think that's the requirement for the 10 years.

Second one.

So I'll move that.

I think, am I saying this right?

Now that we're zoning that this way, does it require a covenant on it?

And I'm getting clarification from Juck.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, the recommendation to rescind the previous motion requiring the covenant is because the covenant is redundant.

It would be uh uh because it's to ensure something that the zoning already covers.

So that was why we're we're we're rescinding the covenant.

So we're happy with that.

So does anybody want to move the first part of the staff recommendation?

That's just one.

No second.

We okay moved and seconded.

So any other discussion or comments about that.

So we got a mover and a seconder for just the first part, number one of the staff recommendation.

That's to remove the covenant on it.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Okay, now we're into the zoning by law amendment by law eleven sixty twenty twenty-five.

And that is third reading and adoption.

Would you like the motion before we discuss?

Uh yeah, I'd like to get it on the floor before we discuss it.

So a mover and a second.

I would move third reading and adoption.

Third reading and adoption.

Do we have a seconder?

I'll second.

Seconded.

Uh so now uh yes, please.

Questions and and uh uh comments and motivations, but really motivation goes to you first, counselor Rogers, and then to you, Councilor.

Yes, thank you.

Um I it was a really worthwhile discussion.

I really appreciate all the folks coming out to uh to speak on the matter and um and certainly having the applicants to uh give the background and and the latest updates.

Um I I think the um one of the things that I'm um I'm quite aware of is that we have an OCP that's coming up, and that the OCP will be looking at other zoning possibilities um on Helmican and Island Highway, uh, which means that um any prospects of uh a grocery store are not dead.

There are other opportunities in this community to have one in that intersection if the applicant and um and the future councils uh are and of course the staff of the um OCP process is uh wants to delve into that.

So um I based on on that point, um I think the three points that we've we've got in this amended bylaw with the uh restriction size of the uh cafe is uh is the best we can do.

I think it's reasonable.

Um I we've heard um a lot of support for the the medical clinic and um if it and it appears that that can come to fruition.

So I'm in support of the motion.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers, Councillor Lemon, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I'd love to see a grocery store there, but but I take heart that it's still a possibility within the three allowable um occupations for the space, a grocery still could still happen.

So I it it it could still be.

I I I was struck by the gentleman that said we're not in a coffee shop crisis.

So, you know, if I could if I could say grocery store and and and only uh medical offices, that would be fine.

But it seems that there is um a desire, and I believe a tenant um for a coffee shop, uh we need health care.

And the people that spoke out about health care spoke so passionately and with real person I sensed personal stories.

Um so I'm yes, I'm gonna support the support the bylaw law and the rezoning.

Thank you.

Um comments, questions.

Um I was gonna ask this earlier, but it it's a gripe of mine.

Like when we were promised the grocery store, we gave an extra floor, but we didn't get a grocery store.

What we got was a space, an empty space.

There was no tenant improvements, and I'm sure if the developer would have built the tenant improvements, they would have got somebody, but we didn't.

So it's a lesson to us in the future.

Don't take the BS that we'll get something from a developer unless we've got everything etched in stone.

So because that's what happened to it this time.

We got a promise, and we didn't get what we were promised.

And now there's lots of justifications we can't get anybody, but they didn't have a they weren't trying to rent a grocery store with all the tenant improvements that were required.

So these were these were second.

So that's one of my frustrations.

Um when we built the building, I think we actually allowed them to go onto town property to be able to have a wider patio, and that was so we would have a gathering space, people be able to sit out there in summer and have coffee.

So again at the very least a coffee shop will sort of address that part of it.

And think somebody mentioned uh community and gathering place.

We need more of these.

And so it's essential that we have a coffee shop at least.

Again, not what we were promised.

So and I know it's the best we're going to get given we've had lots of discussions.

So I will support the motion but I'm really not happy about it.

Just make a comment.

I mean, I I feel uh I wasn't part of the last council, and those were some of the history about uh extra density and and how that uh went out, but I I do appreciate um how much the community was looking forward to having a grocery store there.

There's no question about it.

But you know, part of me on a business side is saying, was there ever a market study done that would prove that the area could support the business of a grocery store in that location, which I don't believe was ever done, right?

So um that that's some of my wanting something, having it posted as open and trying to force a fit is is something that really it's not what businesses are about.

I'm also leery of um you know building a space, and maybe that's just not the time.

Maybe at the time when you're building it, there was interest in it, but circumstances changed over the last little while that didn't.

I think as Counselor Rogers brought up, that it's zoned for that now.

But it doesn't mean that they're they won't change again.

I think when we get too specific about our zoning, we don't take advantage of opportunities.

Obviously, we want some safeguards around things, but we don't allow businesses to evolve.

View Royal was voted the best place for an entrepreneur to live in Canada last year by the Toronto Global Mail, right?

It was a tabletop exercise, it wasn't a popularity vote.

They looked at where we live, proximity to market, taxation, uh, all of those things.

And I think having those opportunities that can evolve into other things are necessary for giving us what we need and giving us what we want.

Um, so uh I regretfully I'm in support of the best thing that can come out of this.

I I would really hate to see that space stay empty because when you look at our commercial areas across View Royal, none of them are empty.

And if they are, it's for literally seconds now and they're snapped up by somebody else.

Eagle Creek Village for uh over a year was empty, and uh now the turnover rate is is stabilized and there's no empty spots.

So it would be uh not a good projection for business in View Royal to have an empty space that we're hoping, hoping.

There's no strategy that we'd be hoping for success instead of um doing it.

So I'm happy with the motion.

Councilor Brown.

Typically, people are attracted to communities and stay in communities.

Uh the number two things are actually our schools and uh medical services.

So I'll be supporting the motion.

Councilor Brown.

Councillor Qualis doing thank you.

Great points.

I think if we looked back to what this site used to be, it was a very small aging piece of infrastructure uh restaurant that we were desperate to redevelop.

Uh we did that.

The council and staff of the day did that, and perhaps upon reflection, we were too prescriptive with what we wanted and too aspirational.

Uh, I think lesson learned here for all of us um but i will say that i highly doubt that this particular developer envisioned a vacant first floor for four years losing who knows how much money I don't think this was part of the master plan so um in the interest of economic prosperity healthcare and moving this forward I certainly support this no other comments than um this uh motion that's already been moved and seconded, I believe.

Yes.

Third reading and adoption uh third reading and adoption.

So all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And that concludes the um bylaw.

Uh mayor's report, and it's significant that it's after this one.

Just wanted to highlight two things.

One is that on a previous meeting, council gave the CAO and I direction to continue discussion about clinics in View Royal.

This isn't about this property.

This is entirely separate.

We will bring before council uh probably by uh budget time uh an opportunity to invest in a nonprofit within View Royal in the commercial space or the space that we have available now that would provide uh clinical services just for View Royal residents with the with an agreement that we would uh work with the board of directors of that uh of that group to deliver healthcare services for view royal residents and that would look more or less like a rent for um uh for for that opportunity to just serve view royal uh residents um that may be available to us um by making an announcement and having an initial intake for un what do they call it?

Unattached View royal residents that are not on the list that don't have primary care.

And that uh proposal will come uh that it might be uh up and running by August to start an intake.

So we'll make sure that that gets ahead of you.

But that's exciting that there are people thinking outside of the box, like we are trying to get physicians into our um our community, because as some people pointed out, that uh if a physician finds View Royal attractive, meaning that it has healthcare, education, employment for their spouse, then it attracts other things and it is one of the foundations for business and and for families to grow on.

Um, so I look forward to bringing you that in the in the future.

And that's all I've got to say for the mayor's report.

And we're down to staff reports and Ivan for shoreline school request for traffic safety improvements.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan the Young, Director of Engineering.

This report is with respect to a request from Shoreline Middle School PACs for traffic safety improvements at the Shoreline Drive Island Highway intersection.

What they've noticed there is that there's potential conflicts with children crossing Shoreline Drive, and then there's the um given the amount of density of vehicles traveling on island highway, potentially making the right turn.

There is a potential conflict interface there.

And so what they're asking for are some solutions to mitigate uh that conflict.

Uh, some ideas they have was uh traffic cycle installations, crossing guard funding, more pronounced wider crosswalk, repainting existing pavement markings.

So staff reviewed this and the the quick answer to this was essentially partnering with the Capitol Regional District as part of their Ready Step Rule program.

There's a few reasons why first reason is free of charge for the town to partner with the school district and CRD.

The CRD basically acts as a as kind of a mediator or a kind of like a nice um they create a nice environment for the school and the town to collaborate in decisions.

The other reason is that it includes more stakeholders.

So it's not just the town figuring out solutions, but it's also the schools able to provide education to the students.

It also includes RCMP.

So it's not just the town.

It's everyone coming together to kind of uh solve the problem.

Um is that it would directly address the concerns identified in the letter.

So it's essentially providing an avenue for all of us to agree on a solution.

You know, it's um with respect to uh the ICBC data that there hasn't been any pedestrian or cyclist incidences in that area.

Uh however, you know, uh per safe safety issues and near misses uh around a school area is is loud and clear.

So uh what staff are doing right now is they will be um touching up the pavement markings if they're needed, potholes that needs to be filled in.

Um take a look at the signage as we speak right now, and they'll buy us time to provide or work with the CRD as part of this plan.

So that's been uh that's being done right now as you speak.

Uh but in the meantime, the staff recommendation is before you that the town enroll into the Capital Regional District's ready Step Rule program with Shoreline Community Middle School.

I do understand that they are interested as well in partnering.

And essentially, um, as soon as we get a decision, I'll be contacting them right away.

Thank you.

But happy to take questions, thank you, Mayor.

I'll move staff recommendation.

And Councilor Lemon, you have a question.

Can you tell us briefly just a brief synopsis of what that program is, what it does, what it what it looks like.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias.

I'll read an excerpt from the staff report if I can find it.

Um see here, just stand by.

So the Race Step program is the is the Capital Regional District's regional school commute planning program that provides our improved safety, accessibility, convenience, and comfort so that more students, family, and staff can choose to walk, bike, roll, or take the bus.

So with respect to this uh concern about um pedestrians and students walking, uh this aligns fully with this ready step rule program.

We have partnered with uh EcoView Elementary School and uh View Rural Elementary School in the past, probably in the last two, three years, uh which has suggested uh very, very valid changes.

And so this is the last school that we will be that the final school that uh is missing in that race step role program.

Yes, thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Um uh having looked at um uh and observed myself um the the immense situation with all the students coming out at the same time and and uh a lot of them are taking the bus.

They they it's a big um big initiative, but uh so many youth are um are are crossing shoreline and uh then you have all those other cars that are trying to get out, get in, and and uh the congestion.

So um I I really do appreciate um the staff's work already currently um and they're assessing what significant wear maybe on the on the markings of the crosswalk.

That's excellent.

Um the new signage uh 30k 40k, and as well incorporating into the transportation master plan, these are really excellent and i think reassuring to the pack um and and i'm also hopeful that um uh when there is that program engagement site in uh assessment it happens at rush hour so uh you know c or d can be witness to the the challenges and and youth don't pay attention to what their cars are they they're immune so hopefully we can ensure the greatest of safety uh as they walk home thank you i do have a question now go ahead counselor if we have thoughts of putting like uh just a pedest pedestrian crosswalk and in terms of having a light so that the cars actually stop when they see the flashing light.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, I think what uh councilor Matson is alluding to is like the the crossing shoreline drive, not island highway but shoreline drive, if we could put a flashing beacon there.

Uh intersections like that is not conducive to having that without full signalization of the intersection.

I I was more thinking of uh island highway.

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, that is a is a uh a very, very loaded question.

Um I would say that that is a transitation master plan type of question, which is being worked on right now as we speak.

I hope something like that will be considered.

So with with the motion that um with the shared, are there with the CRD uh bring back a report uh for staff and council to consider?

Uh Mayor Tobias, they're all online, they're all you can access all of them.

So the council can literally go into the race at rural website and find out Eagle View and View Royal Elementary.

It'll do the exact same thing.

So we got a mover in a second, or do they need to motivate, or is everybody in general support?

I think I'll assume your silence is support.

Um, I don't know, maybe that's uh misnomer on my behalf, but uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing not opposed, motion carry it's not get us down to another one of your push button topics tonight.

Uh Ivan uh uh uh solid waste collection.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Our current solid waste collection contract is going to expire by the end of the year.

So uh for typical process, we want to engage council about our um our needs to renew the contract.

So the staff recommendation here is to uh for council to authorize staff to proceed with a competitive bid process for a new three-year solid waste collection contract with an option to extend for an additional two years based on the existing levels of service.

Um, the reason why uh the recommendations is for existing levels of service is because uh simply our staff have received zero complaints with respect to the level of service.

Um the latest citizen engagement or citizen budget engagement survey that was done, it uh upon collection, there was an 84% uh contingent that were satisfied or very satisfied with the service.

I think there was only two that were not satisfied.

Um so our um our ask of council is just to provide us with directions so we can move forward with a with uh the competitive bid process.

Um that's it, happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

So by level of service, just to clarify for council and the public, you're talking about weekly pickup in in essentially the same uh format we have now, just carrying that on, correct?

That's correct, business as usual.

Thank you.

Is there a way to incorporate an option for larger bins?

So if somebody wants to, like some of the examples that were brought up, maybe they have a larger household or a suite or whatever, is there an option where somebody truly pays for not just a larger bin for the service?

Could we include that in the contract, or would that require negotiating or renegotiating the entire contract?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, but the with a new contract and a new RFP per se, I don't see that at the top of my head as being an issue.

Um, the one thing council may be mindful of is the increase in level service of staff.

Um, to give you an example, right now our staff administrate about $20,000 worth of uh replacement bin requests, which is a quite substantial amount.

It takes a bit up a time, especially in in December.

Uh so by um by having the additional of getting requests for bigger bins or smaller bins, especially when people move in out, could increase uh our staffing needs.

There are ways around it though, in terms you know staff already reached out to a lot of other municipalities.

Your Sanitz that have a whole garbage collection department, they can do it themselves.

I mean myself as a Sanish resident, it's it's quite good, but they have a lot of staff for that.

And then there's some other local governments that are in the midst of trying to create this garbage collection model, and they're uh looking at having the contractor just uh administrate all of that.

Um, so you know, given their existing staffing and resources, that the latter would pre likely be what we would aim towards.

However, that does potentially um lessen customer service, quite simply because residents go through the contractor as opposed to the town.

Right.

Could you bring us back uh I mean you're looking for an answer today to continue it, and I'm saying it yeah and uh and the yeah and is I think for all the reasons that the public cited, but just noting that uh not not everybody's garbage fits into those small containers anymore, and where where we have done a good job with for recycling and composting and things with the increase of the households, we really haven't accommodated that.

So uh if they you could provide us some options to come back and say, you know, option one is just business as usual.

Here's how we're gonna continue.

Option two is larger bins uh with user pays and then and by user pays they pay for everything.

If they pay for a larger bin if there's a percentage of extra collection or whatever if they want that that option then they should be paying for it.

Everybody is I think else is happy with their level of service.

But yeah if that was an option that we could include that would that would win me over for sure.

Yeah mayor Tobias staff can certainly bring back a report on that.

I think it's interesting that uh one of the letters we have is saying we we pick up too often that there's not a need for weekly and then we you know we've had a presentation tonight saying you know actually we need more bins um and maintaining the service.

Um we have a a lot of suites and they're legal suites and they're they register with the town.

Do what when you register a suite, does an extra garbage bin come with it?

Uh mayor Tobias, the as the the bylaw stipulates that um regardless of usage of the the building, um should a resident require to additional pickup that uh additional bag tags are provided.

Okay.

So essentially it's um putting a sticker on a garbage bag and putting it next to uh the garbage bin.

So just if if I may, so not not everyone perhaps knows about bag tags.

And do bags get picked up anyway if they don't have and I don't want to start something here, but I but but you know, I I or do they do they get left behind and then we got you know, animal problems.

Oh that that's okay, Council Lemon, I'll take the blow for you.

Um, so uh you know it doesn't happen, it's not really an issue because uh the the folks that um contravene the bylaw whereas the bins are up um or without a bag tag, you they usually get warnings.

You know, I can't say for say absolutely every single one, but from time to time we do uh hear of warnings for that.

And when that's the case, the residents do get informed that here's an avenue you can go, which is to uh obtain bag tags, and then you can leave it uh next to the garbage bin and they'll get picked up.

Thank you.

Counselor Matts and then Rogers.

Yeah, I mean about secondary suites.

I mean, I think the town collects what, a hundred dollars a year or do we even collect that much now for a secondary suite.

Um, you know, in theory, there should be a requirement for them to get an extra garbage can, an extra one of each, and pay pay garbage fees the way the rest of us pay for for one.

Um and I like the idea that gentleman mentioned tonight, if somebody consistently has more, then they should go out and buy a similar garbage can that we have because and and be required to uh pay extra for that, not only for the can, but all for its its ongoing usage, as opposed to you know bigger ones.

I don't quite agree with you there, Sid, but uh again, there's also an opportunity to like we've got four or five hundred families or you know, households that are two families, and each of them should have to provide their own garbage.

Council Rogers, do you have a question on the comments?

So picking up on Council Matters' point, um, uh, you know, the the recommendation is to have a uh extension of the existing level of services.

Um so would with that caveat is what Council Matson is suggesting that uh a household that has um uh a secondary suite and typically uses two bins, would that existing level of service enable them to have uh two gray bins?

Uh Mayor Tobias, the existing bylaw and the existing level of service is such that uh residents only have one bin.

Can we sorry?

The the bylaw currently states that residential, like a single family residential, they're only allowed one bin, like like uh one garbage, one uh food waste bin.

Uh there used to be also the point where uh residents could uh uh buy tickets, you know, because they could uh so they could have that extra bag out.

Does that still exist?

The bag tag still exists, Mayor Tobias.

So that still exists.

Now, uh in this preview in this ongoing term that we've uh just coming to the end of, um, we introduced the bear project.

So we have the now, so does the existing level of service include those bear proof bins?

Uh Mayor Tobias, not for say, although that's not, I mean, the town can certainly do a one-time purchase at a time at time.

I mean, quite literally, we still have extra bear safe bins.

Um, we were undersubscribed and some people brought them back uh but we still have some available then are still available for people who who wish to have them.

Yeah I'm not saying we get more but um that the the area Riverside Ridge that is dependent upon the bearproof bins um that that is still part of the existing service program right yes uh I would say so although from time to time we'll probably need to go to council asking for a lift for more bear safe bins.

Yeah.

Okay thank you I I'd happily support the motion on the floor if we just added to it by an amendment, counselors, uh, but with an investigation of both increased bin size as optional and number as you were getting up and and then um uh an opportunity that Scott.

Uh I think one of the points Director Lang Young talked to me about earlier today is that some of the bear-proof or or animal resistant bins were returned because they were too big, they were unwieldy to get in and out of certain situations and to keep secure.

I really like the suggestion of having uniform bin size and having two for a second a second bin for a second suite.

Um, but we've already seen problems with different size bins.

Um sometimes they can be a problem for the contractor to pick them up with their automated arm.

Um, we we would like probably to have very uniform bin size, um, but we could certainly play with the number of bins per per household.

Yeah, I think I guess what I'm just looking at is reality is catching up to everything as far as secondary suites, larger homes.

And and uh and both that and the size.

If we could just look at that, I'm happy to extend the service, but I think we've got another thing going on that might be wrapped in.

I think all of us here are happy with the service level.

It's just we're concerned about exposed garbage as well as uh kind of are they big enough?

You can buy another bag tag, sure, but that's gonna sit exposed.

And and uh what do you do with that?

And you're the bear aware guy, aren't you, Scott?

I have extensive experience with with bears, um, going back to my childhood.

But I will just say um having garbage bags not in a bin um with a sticker on it is not very bear aware either.

And so if we could get those into a can that would be fantastic.

So I I think there's I think there's a lot of room to work with the existing size of bins and the number of bins.

And if council could provide us with the motion, we would be uh 10 and a half months ahead of um boarding the contract, which would be ideal for us.

The contract has not been uh radically changed since 2009.

Did we have garbage back then?

We we've always had garbage.

I think we were expecting people to generate less garbage.

Yeah, that was a good idea.

That was the expectation and the reduction of the size of the band and what as we're learning tonight.

Um ideals are often challenged by reality.

Thank you for that.

So you're gonna uh bring that away for um uh just a discussion point to look at the adequacy, but you're gonna take council's thumbs up to say the level of service is the same.

We're just gonna look at whatever we can do to address uh uh bin coverage, I guess.

Yeah, that sounds good, Mayor.

I think we got the resolution.

Uh I think it's moved, so all we need to do is vote on it.

Uh uh.

You did.

No.

Okay.

Councillor Matson and Councilor Rogers did.

Okay.

Counselor, it was moved by Councilor Matson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh the next one uh should be relatively straightforward and it's a staff recommendation for the appointment.

Uh seconded.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries for item C for the appointment of chief election and deputy election officers.

Temporary use permit number one bait road.

Second.

I may uh remind council this is an opportunity for public comment.

So it would be important to have a presentation.

I know we don't have any public here, but we do have the applicant here who may wish to speak tonight.

So I'm stepping in for a community planner this evening.

So I'll be giving the presentation.

So council, this is a temporary use permit application for one bait road to allow for two detached dwelling units on the subject property during the construction of a new home.

Next slide, please.

Under the Local Government Act, temporary use permits may do one or more of the following.

Allow a use not permitted by a zoning bylaw, specific conditions under which the temporary use may be carried on, or allow and regulate the construction of buildings or structures in respect of the use for which the permit is issued.

A temporary use permit may be valid for three years or a shorter term if specified by counsel.

This applicant, not this applicant, the applicant, may apply to have the permit renewed only once.

As part of the development application process, the public will be given an opportunity for public for comment on this application following this presentation, as I mentioned earlier.

Next photo, please.

This property is 17.3 hectares, so it's very large in size.

Here is an aerial photo of the subject property.

It is surrounded by Thetis Lake Regional Park on all three sides.

The area of the property in question for this temporary use permit is located with uh within that orange circle.

So that is the location of where the existing house is located, as well as the new house is being proposed.

So as you can see, it's a very, very small area of this very large lot.

Next slide, please.

Oh, and I should also mention that the um you can stay here, Carl.

The uh the current zone is R1, and it perd me A1 rural zone, and it allows for only two detached dwelling units.

Um, so uh the principal dwelling and an accessory building.

So uh it cannot, it doesn't permit two dwelling units.

Next slide, please.

The here's a uh the proposed site plan.

Uh the existing residence is located in the northeast corner of the property, and as you can see in on this plan, the existing residence is located within the setback shown within the dashed line.

Next slide, please.

Staff supports this request for a temporary use permit for a couple of reasons.

One is that it is a very large lot and it's surrounded by dense forests, and so it really has limited impact on the surrounding uh neighborhood.

Uh staff did, in accordance with our development procedures bylaw, we did mail out notices to all residents within 400 meters of this property.

Uh we have received no correspondence.

Next slide, please.

So here are a couple other photos of the um of the property and um the sorry uh yes, so the red stars um indicate the location of a wetland located between the existing residents and the proposed residence.

So there's quite a separation distance between these two dwelling units.

There's also substantial parking on site, so parking will not be an issue.

Next slide.

So here we have the staff recommendation.

So the staff recommends the issuance of the temporary use permit for a period of two years, and that aligns with the expiry of a building permit.

So it would be in place for two years.

So one is that obviously the zone does not allow for two dwelling units on the property.

So once the temporary use permit expires, the owner would either have to decommission the accessory building or demolish it or come back to council with a rezoning application if they wish to keep it as a dwelling unit.

The other condition is that the applicant is working on their building permit application right now.

And so once that is submitted, there's a you know there's a there's there's time until that will be issued.

And so staff is recommending that the temporary use permit comes into effect upon issuance of the building permit.

It makes no sense to issue the temporary use permit it right now because it's just it's it's wasted time, and as you know, it's not it's not benefit, it's there's no benefit to the applicant for that.

So it will line up with the building permit to to make sure that um the applicant can reside there during the construction of their home.

Uh that is the um the conclusion of my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, is the uh applicant uh gonna be a self-builder uh for uh the new property or is that uh gonna be contracted?

Um through them through the mayor, um I'll probably leave that question to the applicant should they wish to come up and speak.

Any questions for Ian at all on this?

That one question.

Yeah, uh so I guess we're ready to move to the applicant.

Yeah.

Uh first of all, uh comments from you.

Go ahead, uh come up to the mic, uh, because it's all going to be recorded whether you like it or not.

Um, and just uh activate that in your uh response.

And if you'd like to start with any comments, yeah.

My name's Timo Vahamaki.

I'm the owner of One Bait Road, and that's where I reside.

Um, it's a small family, it's me, my wife, and our daughter.

Um, there's it's not a there's no secondary suite.

The existing carriage house that's there is strictly uh one bedroom, it has one three-piece bathroom and a one one-piece bathroom in the garage.

So it's a small building by any means.

So we're we have our we've received our development permit to um construct the new home.

It's a three-bedroom home with a secondary suite.

Um, on the other side of the pond, as was shown in the drawings there.

There, um, it is our intent to reside there, and my intent is to decommission this existing building.

What I would like to do is just to keep it as a garage.

I just want to park a couple of cars in there.

That's all I want to use it for.

It won't be resided in.

I'll remove the I'll remove the washroom and everything if it's required.

Yeah.

And the reason for the secondary suite is either either for our daughter to live separately from us or for my mother-in-law to move in and live separately from us.

Uh I guess my question for you is uh are you building your self-builder?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, I'm just waiting for my HPO license currently right now.

Right now, that's the only thing holding the permit application up.

No, that's great.

Um, any questions for the applicant from anybody?

No.

Uh, and I guess comments from the public, but they all left.

Uh, but they left.

There was lots here.

Uh Carl, is there any comments online for one bait road?

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Cheers.

Uh Mayor Tobias, one moment, please.

It's just taking a moment to refresh.

That's fine, Carl.

I think while it's doing that, would uh anybody like to move staff's recommendations?

So moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Uh Mayor Tobias, no comments.

Okay.

And uh, I don't know if we need to motivate uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Thank you.

Uh motion carries.

Uh I think we're where are we?

We're down to correspondence.

Um, and we've got two pieces.

We could move them together.

Uh if somebody wishes to.

Can I speak to A?

Uh well that's pulling one out.

So yeah, uh, you can definitely speak to it.

Move received B.

Second.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing not opposed.

Motion carries, and go ahead.

Uh yes, uh this uh correspondence is from Jane Devenshire, and uh this is giving advanced notice of a uh grant and aid application um for June the 6th.

And uh because it's so um so close to when we consider grants and aids and and uh the um usually the delay in in getting approval for the funds or being aware getting letters from the staff, um they would like to start work promotion work as soon as possible.

So I wondered if um if council would be willing to uh give general uh approval in principle for the $500 to do this uh June 6th um retrofare.

But that doesn't mean anything.

Pardon?

That doesn't mean anything.

Well they they do want to uh have some, you know, they've they've already initiated um uh with um um canyon tire and and uh 50s and so forth and door prices so they would like to get some sense uh from council if this is a worthy uh project and where the council would agree okay i don't think we should really get in the habit of having a meeting before meeting this is a budget meeting where other things are going to be taken into consideration and I appreciate it it's for a good cause but I think it sets a bad precedent to commit to something where we haven't had a budget meeting on it.

Um but my question to staff would be when would we be talking about grants and aid so we could provide an answer back?

Uh to the mayor.

Uh grants and aid will be covered in April.

The how in April generally is when uh the council will review or committee will review the applications.

Uh prior to that, uh we'll be discussing the grant and aid budget, the overall budget, which is usually is per policy five percent of previous years uh casino revenue.

So I would make a motion that um you know given the time frames we just heard, I would move that um uh we would support the application of grant and the application of $500 to um VIRC VRCC uh for the June 6th event.

And Don, are you seconding?

Okay, I'll let you go ahead and motivate, but I'm gonna speak against it just because it's a meeting before the meeting or a decision before the the meeting and a commitment.

In speaking to it, we've had circumstances where we've we've um made exceptions and uh granted uh um financial support uh to events and certainly this all qualifies it's it's going to be held at the community hall it's uh geared specifically to the view of residents uh it fits with the uh the whole climate uh strategy uh uh initiative that's embedded in our town and um so the everything everything clicks and the um the ask was certainly um um i think reasonable considering that they're going to go funding with other um local businesses.

So there you go.

Uh Councillor Brown, you're seconded, so well yeah, it's a little time sensitive.

I'm sure they all are, but the event was really awesome event last year, and I supported 100%.

I really um yeah, yeah, I was blown away by it.

It was actually was an outstanding event.

So I'd like to see it happen again and uh encourage them to carry on with their plans.

Councillor Lemon.

Speaking quite indirectly to this, but I was looking for an opportunity.

Uh the Globe and Mail published its list of the top five hundred most livable cities in Canada on Friday, and View Royal was second on climate nice there you go climate colwood was first if this comes to council we should um we have no idea what the budget i don't think there's anything in last year's budget steve for the um uh for grants and aid am i saying that correctly uh for for this uh organization no just in general is there anything in the budget for uh uh for our grants and aids left or are we exhausted it we oh i don't have an exact number but we do there is capacity from um carry we don't carry it forward but we didn't fully use the 2025 budget that would be uh my next question could we apply it from 2025 to this yes if council chooses we could roll over that amount i would be happy with a motion like that but i think counselor quellitz you i would amend that uh to um a role over at the surplus from 2025 finish uh counselor quellit i i like where this is going but i just want to make sure is this 500 okay uh i will not support this if it is out of order and not part of the 2026 consideration because it sets a precedent irregardless of topic itself i do support taking five hundred dollars if there's money left from twenty twenty five steve thank you mayor uh i just reminded myself of the policy again being five percent of twenty twenty five's um casino revenue.

That is our limit for twenty twenty six grant and aid, regardless of uh the the uh amount left in twenty twenty five so I I think it w it would be contradictory to the policy to add an additional um surplus to that.

Clear.

So uh we can't pull from last year, that's our staff's recommendation.

Um and uh and you're looking to give them a commitment for it before a meeting that we make a decision on it, even though it's a great idea that people support.

So how do we do that without having an fulsome deliberation about what we want to give our money for in the grant and aid?

Um or is it something separate than a grant and aid?

Councillor Mattson?

Yeah, you know.

There's no shortage of good things to fly for for grants and aids.

And so it's I I just think it's premature to support this one when you, you know, in theory, don't know what's coming down the road.

And it's I just think it's bad form for us to just do that this way.

I mean, yeah.

Yeah, so I I mean I I get where you're going with this, but I think it sets a precedent for, and I know you're eager and supportive, but I just think it sets the wrong precedent that before we make a decision on grant and aid, how are we doing that where we're always already showing favoritism that we're gonna give this group and and as much as I I love what they're doing and attempting to do I don't think um we're here to we're here to adjudicate the proper you know um uh and fair distribution of a grant and aid for the entire town right not just for one party or ours so uh so there is a motion on the floor that we um what was the motion again council to take it from the 2026 uh make an exception still grant and aid but exceptorally okay and it's got a mover and a second, or so all those in favor of the motion on the floor.

All those opposed to the motion on the floor.

Okay.

So the motion didn't pass.

Um, and that uh you can tell Jean that we'll uh April.

Well, I think we'll be discussing grant and aid and it's already in.

Uh and we've uh already accepted B.

Um and the items on the consent agenda are minutes plus light up review royal.

Move 10 A to D.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

I don't think anything was removed from the consent agenda.

That brings us down to question period with nobody here.

Carl, have you personally got a question for counsel?

Um, no, you've caught me off guard.

Uh good question.

Yeah, what what's the atomic weight of lithium?

That one.

Okay.

And Mayor Tobias, we have no questions on the board.

Thank you, Carl.

Um and Council Brown, you're we're down to notices of motion.

Yeah, make a note motion that we do same day same day consideration of this motion.

The motion written here is is a real condensed version, but I do have a written one, which I distributed to everybody.

Um I mean, we could move it on to the next meeting, but however, we I don't want to go for the for the uh same day consideration, you should motivate council on why this is urgent.

Like is it life or limb?

Is it is it what what is it that's urgent my thinking was and it it's moot now because all the climate people committee are not here anymore.

So maybe they're watching on TV.

I don't know, but um that's fine.

If we move it to the next meeting, I'm not gonna fall on my sword over it.

Okay, all right.

So uh would you please read it in for us?

Um start again.

The staff staff work towards completing a twenty twenty-six municipal asset inventory and include natural assets in any update to the corporate asset management policy and that the 2026 budget include funding for a municipal natural asset inventory and for staff to seek to apply for available funding opportunities to offset the costs.

So I I know this isn't a motion to vote on, it's just informing us that it's going to we don't even discuss it right now.

I have no idea what he was saying.

So that's okay.

That'll become clear when we actually discuss.

We need clarification.

That's okay.

Okay, uh that will we just you just read it in and then you can have by uh counselor mattson a coffee and explain it all out too.

Yeah, we are a meeting on Friday, so uh I'll fill you in there.

And uh so that brings us, thank you, Counselor Brown.

That brings us to a closed meeting resolution.

Ellen, over to you to read up.

That there is a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers and employees of the town, and those identified under section 912 of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 91c, labor and e land.

And moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Motion carries.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?