Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal, and welcome to the uh Town of View Royal Council meeting for Tuesday, February 17th, 2026.

And we'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize Laquanguan speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

If you wish to provide comments during the public participation period uh or ask questions during question period again by indicating your name and your street name for the record, uh you may then give us the benefit of your views.

Uh to provide comments virtually during the public participation or to ask a question during question periods, scan the QR code or use the link on the live webcast dream screen uh or town website under live webcast.

Again, uh we ask that you just provide your name and your street name to begin your comments.

Your comment will be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to an agenda on uh or an item on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes for each speaker.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Uh I think we can begin with an approval of the agenda, and the agenda this evening is fairly light.

Can I make a just a very slight amendment?

Sure. Uh to item 14.

Um that's my fault for uh for an English major from UVEC.

It's pretty a big mistake.

But anyway, it should be natural asset resources, not natural resources asset, because I don't think we're gonna do any coal mining here or oil drilling.

Uh coal mining, of course.

My name's Donald Brown, not Donald Trump.

So yeah, for natural that's just number 14, change of title.

Okay. Thanks for that.

Uh and I was hoping to add uh a new item.

Simply an update on the island highway road closure starting on the 26th.

There's been information in the news, but it's just still lots of gaps in sort of my understanding of what's happening.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson.

That appropriate um Scott to put that under new business.

Uh just takes a unanimous vote of council.

Uh so add discussion of uh highway or island highway and um BC Hydro.

Uh so councillor Mattson has a motion.

We have a seconder.

Seconded by Counselor Brown, all those in favor about adding that to new business.

Any opposing none opposed that motion carries.

Thank you, Councilor Mattson and Councillor Brown.

With those two changes, could somebody move approval of the agenda, please?

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposing none opposed uh motion carries and public participation period.

So I think this is where we go to you.

If there's anybody in the public that wants to address council on anything that's related to the agenda, please do welcome Linda.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Linda Gironde, Arden Lee Place, View Royal.

Um, tonight on the agenda, we see View Royal is currently conducting a drainage master plan update.

Council is also developing an urban forest strategy.

So why then would we need a natural asset inventory?

It's my belief the natural asset inventory is needed to provide a common language of service delivery and financial liability that connects them to the official community plan.

And I'd like to read you an excerpt from a letter submitted today by CRD resident that was submitted to you.

You have it may have it in your paperwork.

I won't read the whole thing.

And she holds a Bachelor of Engineering and is professionally certified in climate action planning through the United Nations Institute for Training and Research.

Her input reflects both a technical engineering perspective and a globally recognized framework for municipal climate resilience.

Thank you, dear Mayor and Council.

Thank you for the work that View Royal has already done to develop the urban forest strategy.

I'm writing to also support Councillor Brown's motion to conduct a natural asset inventory for inclusion in asset management and stormwater management plans.

A natural asset inventory allows the natural assets to be managed as key components of municipal service infrastructure rather than part of separate environmental strategies.

An inventory would help provide a centralized accounting or dashboard of all land and water based assets such as trees, shrubs, watersheds, stormwater ponds, bioswells, rain and pollinator gardens, soil and shorelines.

Decision making tools that integrate the design of engineered assets with natural assets to deliver essential municipal services like stormwater management, cooling centers, energy and water supplies, reduced infrastructure costs.

I'll go on just to the point.

Insurance protection and savings, improved land use and community plans.

One final point.

Information has been provided to you about mapping data that is available to VV Royal to implement this to make it simpler for you, so you don't have to spend a whole fortune on this in addition to what you've been asked for tonight.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Linda. Is there anybody else in council chambers that would choose to address council on any item related to the agenda?

Oh, right there. Oh yeah.

Mayor and Council.

My name is Jack Bates and I live at Hidden Oaks 15 Helmcken Road.

I would like to reference the February 11th email from Ivan Leung to Jason Jansen.

It's in the uh correspondence.

On page two, the email states, additionally, of which you may not have been aware of previously, the town is currently undergoing an update in its to its drainage master plan, of which additional analysis of the town's natural assets, such as the stormwater ponds, etc.

will be included.

My question is Is Little Road Park included in this inventory as groundwater accumulations in the park flow downhill and flood the grounds of hidden oaks drastically?

The town acquired the park in 2020.

So that's my question period but it's easier to clap now you didn't have to wait till the end of the meeting but that's right yeah I've taken a chance on the timing.

Uh Ivan, that uh seems like a straightforward question.

Are you uh happy to provide input on it now?

Uh mayor Tobias um I'll have to consult with staff who are working on the stomach master plan or the trainer's master plan.

I do know that's we do um we do engage with our consultant about problem areas so this may be one of them maybe but I can't give you specific answer right now given I'm on the spot um but I can certainly come what's come come back to me or uh email me at engineering at v roll.ca and I can I'll be sure to point that uh question to staff.

I have uh met on site with Ben Louberton and um Mark Coche on January the 28th we met and did a site block and uh we've been in a little correspondence and there is some mitigation that they have that they are undertaking.

However my uh plight is that I don't feel it will be sufficient to prevent the flooding which actually surrounds a couple of building foundations at the moment I understand this is a measured approach which you're dealing with water I understand that you can't try and solve all the problems all at once otherwise you don't know where you where you uh where you are um as I as I said we uh we did meet with uh Ben Lubert I think his name is and Mark on site and uh and Hidden Oaks has unilaterally attempted to mitigate the flooding on its site, but it's a very difficult problem.

And due to the rains uh that we have, you know, have had, and I would contemplate we will have more of.

I think all the nodding heads sort of makes my point a bit that we want to do something and feel now that 10 years ago this happened and we we managed to mitigate it.

Um but this severity of the storms are now are just overrunning our back or back uh property.

So thank you.

Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention.

Appreciate it. Is there anybody else in council chambers that wants to address council and any item related to the agenda at all?

Seeing none. Uh Carl, I'll go to you online.

Do we have any um any request to address counsel from your web?

Uh Mayor Tobias, yes, we have a message from Jason Jensen, uh street name Creed.

And Jason says, thank you for your close attention to the concerns regarding local infrastructure, which are covered in to today in agenda num item number nine.

I'm concerned about a pattern of maintenance deferral with our stormwater infrastructure.

After reviewing several decades of town commissioned reports, in addition to the official plan and the 2017 made master drainage plan, a troubling trend emerged.

The town is consistently funding expert advice and plans, yet not always implementing the critical maintenance or recommendations of such plans.

Furthermore, I'm concerned by the recent departmental suggestion that the loop is closed on this matter prior to this important issue coming before council.

From a resident's perspective and an asset management standpoint, a loop cannot be closed while infrastructure remains in a state of visible failure.

While it has been suggested that further testing is needed to deal with 100% to deal 100% with facts, I would like to bring the following documented facts to your attention.

Visible structure failure.

It's a physical reality that the ponds are at capacity with sediment and nuisance vegetation.

Mature trees are now growing through engineered concrete structures and berms.

These are not subjective observations.

These are observable evidence of long-term maintenance neglect.

Redundancy of further study.

The town has hired experts for over 30 years to produce reports on this area, requesting new studies to confirm visible physical decay, much of which is already documented in the 2017 master drainage plan appears to be an inefficient use of taxpayer funds that could be directed to actual maintenance.

Safety and maintenance timelines.

In a recent correspondence, staff stated, I wish we could order to have the fence on site and installed someday.

The reality is that the fence orders do take some time.

While I appreciate the logistical challenges of 2026, this response overlooks the fact that this safety infrastructure has been a state of in a state of visible disrepair for many years.

A same-day order would not be necessary today if the town prioritized this maintenance as part of a basic safety oversight.

Four weeks ago, I did a site test with your staff to highlight areas of concern as a resident, yet to date, only a small portion of the damaged fence has been repaired.

The science of displacement.

It's been suggested that testing is needed to see if the ponds provide adequate service.

Scientifically, a pond that has lost the majority of its detention volume to sediment and nuisance vegetation cannot function in its original engineered specification.

Testing a system with almost zero remaining capacity functions as a delay rather than a solution.

Environmental and proper impact.

Because this area is not being maintained to design specifications.

It should not be the sole discretion of the department to close the loop when public safety, environmental health, and private property remain impacted.

When expert recommendations are consistently bypassed in favor of repetitive reports and studies, it becomes a matter of governance.

I'm asking for your support in ensuring one, the timely repair of perimeter fencing on both stormwater ponds, and two, the timely remediation of dredging required to restore these ponds to their original specifications so they can function as designed.

Thank you all for prioritizing the safety of residents and the environment.

Thanks, appreciate it. That was only one message, correct?

Um Mayor Tobias, yes, that's correct.

Thank you very much.

Uh Carl, and uh I think that brings us down to no bylaws and just uh the mayor's report.

Uh a few things to report.

Uh one is I had uh privilege to being invited by a grassroots organization called City Watch uh in Vancouver last week, uh where they invited over um they invited all municipalities to uh explore the judicial review that we uh had um initiated that conversation with other municipalities.

Happy to say over 30 different communities uh showed up, none of which uh were previously signed on, and they ranged throughout the province.

Uh quite a few from Metro Vancouver, both mayors and counselors, um, to discuss the merits, which uh brings us to likely the first meeting that we'll have on uh the 6th of March and host it uh um uh host it virtually.

Uh so currently Oak Bay uh the North Um Okanagan Regional District have uh committed to it as well as um a municipality within that uh and several else others on the island uh would get together.

One of the recommendations made by Oak Bay is that we separate it out.

So we start with a legal opinion, and uh uh those interested jointly fund that by MOU and then bring the uh bring that back for a decision point, and then after we get the legal review, the councils could then make another decision uh to whether they want to continue on again.

So it brings some of the expectations and risks that are aligned uh associated, but um it's uh it was uh positive to see that large of a turnout.

Um I just wanted to make a comment getting lots of media requests about the RCMP building and how it's going right now.

And just to let folks know the mayors and CAOs are meeting almost weekly on it.

Callwood still has uh to vote on it.

They're waiting a bit uh they have all the information now and I think there's a report that's being generated that they should make the decision shortly by the end of this month and then it will go um to CRD should they uh act in favor of it uh so some of the work was around the validation report itself they wanted some security on some of the work as well was getting a letter back from the RCMP that says this design looks like something we can live with you know just some acknowledgement that they have from the RCMP that uh we are building to their requirement you know which we have been of course all along but we'd like before we invest that amount of money we'd like to have word back that um our our design meets intent um and the other piece that is um unique for us is how we get the governance right because the uh IPD process works great if you're a single owner um it's never been tried with three owners before uh so it's important to get that formula right so that we're able to assist in actioning things that come up and keeping councils aware of the progress of the build.

Um, so we're spending lots of time on that to get it right because nobody's done it before.

We can't look to anybody else for a model.

Uh so just wanted to highlight that for council and the public.

And uh also wanted to bring up that next week we host um a special meeting, and that is a uh uh an OCP meeting, official community plan meeting focused on the Western Gateway.

Uh the uh Leanne has already extended the invite to the OCP committee as well to be here uh with a facilitator in place uh for that.

So it'll be a time box structured facilitated thing to answer questions to um dig in a little bit deeper about the Western Gateway, and that Western Gateway is from kind of what better to call it, but the um kind of where Interurban is now uh toward the Calwood border.

Uh so that that area in there, primarily focused on Old Island Highway, um, will be the topic of our conversation, and I think the public um is uh open to attend as well as to send in comments online about that area.

Uh the date I think is the 23rd, 23rd or the 24th, Scott.

24th. 24th of uh of this month.

It's in your invite.

Six o'clock. Yeah, so you've got uh everybody should have an invite in their in their email now, uh as well as the OCP committee.

And that's about all I have for a mayor's report.

I think we can turn to petitions and delegations now and invite a uh delegation for natural asset management.

Um thank you very much, Mayor Tobias and counselors for the opportunity to speak to you.

Can you um hear me okay?

We can, thank you.

Okay. Uh well thank thank you very much.

Um my name is Roy Brook.

I'm based uh nearby in Victoria, and I'm the executive director of a not-for-profit known as the Natural Assets uh Initiative.

And I've been asked to give a brief presentation on uh natural asset management.

And the context is um a presentation or a motion um from councillor Brown, which um you can see there on the screen regarding uh climate change and uh and uh the idea of a natural asset inventory.

So I was asked if I could provide a little bit more uh detail on what natural asset management is and where an inventory fits in and uh what the benefits of uh of all of this might be.

So that's what I'm aiming to do in the next sort of seven or eight minutes.

And um I'll I'll start perhaps at a higher level and say, and we've already heard this this evening, um, the town of U Royal, like every local government in this country, uh, faces a wide ri array of converging uh challenges and crises, whether this is uh an aging infrastructure base or uh challenges providing cost effective services, containing costs, managing the effects of a disrupted climate, and so on.

Everybody is more or less in the same boat.

And nature, if we allow it, nature in the form of forests, wetlands, streams, foreshores, nature can provide part of the solution.

It's not a magic bullet, but it can provide part of the solution.

Well, how do we let nature provide part of the solution?

How do we bring nature into decision making?

Well, that's what's become known as natural asset management.

And it's basically asset management that all local governments and all public sector entities in Canada have to do anyway, but adapted for the unique considerations of nature.

And nature, uh, as uh I'm sure we all know provides a wide array of services, many of which are highly relevant to a local government.

So let's think of a wetland, for example.

It may be it provides um, in addition to aesthetic benefits and possibly recreational opportunities, maybe it's drinking water filtration, flood risk reduction, stormwater management, a whole array of services.

It has no capital costs.

Um, typically most natural assets have been there since time began, has no end of useful life if we um if we um manage and maintain it.

But um in in most communities, our actions kind of suggest otherwise.

Um we we don't necessarily have full information on what natural assets we own, what condition they're in, what risks they face, what services they provide.

And natural asset management, which I will illustrate on the next slide, is a fairly, well, it's about 10 years old now, a fairly well-evolved process and collection of tools and strategies that span the assessment of natural assets.

So what do I own?

What do I rely on?

What condition is it in?

Um if I erode it, is it going to create problems and costs for me?

Can I cover those costs?

Do I even have a sense of what those costs might be?

Through to planning.

And this relates to things like levels of service.

What sorts of services am I trying to provide?

And to what extent can nature and natural assets help?

And then that leads into implementation, which really is a bit of a movable feast and can span everything from acquisition to restoration, sometimes just getting out of the way and leaving well enough alone.

Sometimes it's uh bylaws or um or uh DCC changes in a few cases.

So to summarize, nature can provide many services that help local governments with not all, but many of the challenges we face.

It can do so cost effectively and reliably, but it doesn't happen by magic.

We need a disciplined uh and um uh useful and scalable and replicable and comparable set of tools.

And basically that's what natural asset management is, as I say, fully integrated and interwoven with standard asset management and uh the natural asset initiative, assets initiative, of which I'm part, has been one of the uh leaders in this area and has helped to define and uh shape natural asset management as it now exists in Canada.

And it's moved from about one example uh eight or nine years ago to ballpark 175 or so.

And um, the value of an inventory, somebody has already spoken to that.

If you look at the red section here, you'll see it's not the same as natural asset management.

Natural asset management is a long-term adaptive management cycle, but in inventory, it's it's the thin edge of the wedge.

It tells you what you have, and uh it can tell you something about the condition that it provide uh that it's in and some of the risks that it faces.

It does so in an interactive GIS geographical information system type of uh platform, and it basically gets you to the starting line.

So if you want to start to answer questions like, well, what's the relationship between um our natural assets and our um upcoming drainage master plan?

Well, you need to know what the natural assets are, and you need them the the data organized and collated in a useful way that is familiar to staff and expressed in asset management terms, and that basically is what an inventory will do for you.

It is the first step in a uh in an asset management journey.

Um who's doing it in the region?

Um, well, quite a few folks.

I would say Sanich is the furthest evolved.

I'll come back to them.

City of Victoria is currently doing an inventory, as is North Sanich and Central Sainwich.

Um, Town of View Royal is here because you've done a roadmap, which is even an earlier, very high level uh sort of awareness step that staff uh would have conducted really to sort of see where they're at in their readiness for natural asset management.

Cullwood did an inventory uh some time ago.

There's now a national standard for all of these inventories.

So suffice it to say, there's growing interest uh in and around the capital region.

I won't have time to go into details, but there's a QR code that'll lead to the underlying report.

Sanich did not only an inventory, but also went started going down the road of asking, well, hmm, what's the value of these assets of these natural assets if I had to replace them?

What's the value of the services they provide?

And you can see some of this on the screen.

And this data is more than sort of nice to know stuff, it is uh data that they will in 2027 be bringing in to their um full asset management program.

But if you don't do the work, then you can't reflect nature in your asset management program.

So that's what they've done, and that's where they're at in their journey.

Um, we're all preoccupied with the housing crisis.

I thought this was kind of a neat example, quite recent.

Uh, we worked with Riverview in New Brunswick quite a long time ago.

Um, and to make a very long story short, some of the analysis contributed to them um uh sort of understanding the role that nature could uh could play and taking an approach, a naturalized stormwater management approach that has allowed them to build new housing units, which of course require new services.

And the analysis sort of brought them to a place where they didn't merely have to default to engineered solutions alone, but had a basis for saying, okay, what role could nature play?

Other training opportunities, many of which are subsidized by the Federation of Canadian municipalities.

I would argue or I would submit to you that it's pretty hard to go wrong with a natural asset inventory.

So that's why it's highlighted in in red.

There's plenty of other things that can be done.

I don't have time to get into all of them.

As I say, there's now a national standard.

If you don't go with us, I would just suggest that whoever you do get to do the work, make sure they adhere to the national standard so you get something that's comparable to what Victoria and others are doing.

Well, it deserves its own separate discussion, but but I will highlight that we two years ago were doing almost nothing with First Nations, and now we are working with uh four.

The one that you can't see on the map is um is Profit River.

Okay, Roy, I think you're at time, so I'll just give you uh about 20 seconds to sum up.

Well, that was basically it.

We're doing some useful, I hope useful work with uh First Nations, and I didn't want to uh um miss that.

And there is my uh there's my coordinates.

Should you want further information?

Thank you very much, Roy. Much appreciated.

It's a pleasure. I appreciate the opportunity.

And I think that brings us down to staff reports. So we've got a transportation master plan. Ivan, please.

Thank you, Mayor Tabas.

Ivan Leoung, Director of Engineering.

So, yeah, this is the um just want to provide an update to council on our transitation master plan.

It's been a few months since I've last uh presented an update to council.

Um quite timely as we've uh in the last month or so, we've uh completed our engagement round one of uh the transportation master plan.

The uh main theme of realm one is to uh reflect on what we've heard in the transitation master plan.

Um many of the engagement documents, engagement exercises that was done as the OCP, we understood from OCP that transitation congestion was a was a very, very important to resonance.

So you know, even though we this is round one for transportation, we've we like to think that the OCP provided us a lot of good pre-guidance.

What you see here is the actual draft, what we heard, survey number one summary.

It's in the appendix of the staff report.

Next slide. So as I mentioned, we did uh leverage many of the previous reports done on the on the OCPs, and we've looked at the visioning surveys, we looked at the um business mixers, we've looked at the Western Gateway Corridor uh engagement sections, and we also looked uh and reflected upon uh engagement that was done as part of the 2023 Active Transportation Network claim.

To the left is small, two small writing, but essentially it's it's on our website uh where we have kind of primed readers to say, hey, we've heard a lot about what has been a concern from residents in the past, items such as the need for public transit, uh improving to congestions from on the roadways, uh being able to close the gaps and provide more continuous corridors for active travel, um, provide improved access and um ultimately planning for growth in Bureau, whether it's in Virual or if it's due to development or uh density that's happening outside that's causing congestion.

So uh you'll see you'll see in the slide here that's actually it's not in the slide, uh, but uh there the survey number one that we have conducted checked off all of those boxes.

So, what that means to us is that what we've heard in the past is very relevant to what we're hearing now.

Next slide. In terms of participation, we did uh throw a lot of engagement notifications out, newsletters, um messaging to key stakeholders to council as well.

Uh we've done it, we've gone through um posters, social media, and a ton of view website.

What you see here is that there has been a large amount of uptake or knowledge from residents that's come from social media.

I think on the View Royal website alone, there's a thousand views.

Uh Instagram was about 8,000 views, and Facebook was over 600 views.

I think someone has actually put in like a like a Reddit post as well, which is pretty cool.

Um just a user generated way of getting uh getting the the message out there.

Uh in total, we've had 237 survey responses, uh, 69% in equity deserving groups.

So that would include caregivers, uh folks that are born outside of Canada, folks that are new to View Royal, uh, folks living with disability.

And what we essentially found was that there was a fairly bad balanced respondent base between commuters versus uh intermunicipal travel.

Next slide. Ah, here's the check marks.

Yes, so the the key themes, uh you'll notice five check marks there in terms of uh what we heard before versus what we heard in the survey.

Uh what we heard in the survey is very much aligned with what we heard in the past.

In terms of the survey, uh, we're glad to hear that there's a good balance of folks that um travel in and around view roll.

59% drive a car annually, 25% multiple times a day or multiple times a week.

About uh half the respondents walk every day, uh, and several of them uh walk several times a week.

For active travel, scooters, and buses, uh, you'll know it says infrequent with a star.

And the reason why I say that is because we know that uh transit is a solution, and we also know that uh even though we are investing very hard on transit, it's the assets and the infrastructure is not quite there to get to everyone.

So we understand that there's going to be um infrequence quite simply because the infrastructure is not there to encourage people to take transit.

Finally, uh per council direction, there's a question asked about interest in light rail, of which 76% were very or somewhat interested.

Next slide. An interesting part of our engagement is that we're able to just put a map out of view royal, and then people can just add a pin and tell us what their concerns are in View Royal.

It could be anything and everything.

Uh the uh there's quite a few pins you can see in this on this figure here.

Uh, and we weren't able to you weren't able to tell exactly what each point meant because there'd be just way too many, way too many letters and words in there.

Um, but ultimately speaking, we're able to find some key themes.

And so what you have here is a triple Venn diagram uh that shows commonalities between what we've heard during the OCP, what we've heard during the African transportation network plan, and ultimately what we heard as part of this survey.

And we found a lot that's actually within that green, which is a synergy with all three.

Next slide. So here's a list of the seven themes we have heard.

Uh driver behavior is has been one of the top uh items of concern that'd be speeding, um merging practices.

Uh there's um uh you know you know things that are that we want to uh control a little better.

Um, congestion number two, uh, we found a lot of that in the Helmkin Corridor, the island highway corridor.

Uh third has been uh a need to improve signals and intersections, providing accessibility for all, uh improving active travel, and as we know, intersections are one of the highest conflict points for folks that are outside of a vehicle.

Pedestrian safety safety was uh close fourth.

Um access limitations uh that speaks more about uh accessibility.

Um we do have uh differing uh sidewalks.

For example, we have asphalt sidewalks that are a little narrow, and we have wider sidewalks that are to today's standards.

And the last one has been cyclist safety.

That's not to say that they're that those are the only themes.

There are a lot of other emerging items that we have heard, and also with the as we move forward with the transportation master plan, we'll be able to um identify those and incorporate those into uh options development.

Next slide. What we have here is it's just a staff kind of overview of what we've heard, and um just to see if we can find any patterns or or additional um commonalities.

The base map you see here is from our active transportation network plan.

Specifically, I believe it comes from uh the pedestrian network plan, so where you could see where where we've heard that um and have been recommended to do additional uh improvements to pedestrian accessibility.

And so through that mapping exercise, there's been a lot of uh focused areas where there's been congestion issues or uh a need for improvements to intersections.

Uh so while I'll just we like patterns of three, so we put three of the main ones here.

We know that there may be some other ones that are maybe lesser priority, but still important.

Um but ultimately uh I I think council um can agree on the on the circles and the polygons that you see here in the sense that uh congestion and intersection issues uh are quite prevalent in the uh hospital neighborhoods.

So we're talking about Helmkin, uh Burnside and Waukas.

Uh there's been congestion uh comments on the island highway, uh especially in the harbor area.

And then six mile road, there's been uh some uh there's been actually quite a few comments about congestion and uh intersection safety there.

And the interesting thing is that all of the intersections that's been identified, so those are the ones in red, uh, do fit within the neighborhood corridors where there has been some where there's the respondents have stated that there that they see an issue there.

And even more so if you look underneath into the pedestrian uh network plan, um, a lot of those areas do show a need for improved pedestrian access disability.

So again, it's kind of it's not self-serving.

Well, what it's showing is that we've done the work in in 2023 identify corridors and um from an active travel perspective and from a transportation perspective of a whole, things seem to line up.

So it from uh from our perspective, it sounds like we're on the right track in terms of knowing what the issues are.

Next slide. How will the engagement data be used?

Uh, this is very, very important part.

Uh in the world of engineering, uh, there's always 10, 15 solutions to a problem.

Uh what's the best solution is the one that uh is that uh holds engagement paramount.

So hearing from the people is what the issues are.

And so as a result, what we're looking at is and the theme here is we're adding a transportation lens to the day-to-day issues that impact VOL residents during their travels.

So the next steps, once we fully appreciate the data, we'll be providing a it allows our consultant to provide focus on where the issues are, where the priority transportation modes imply and directions should be.

Maybe we should look at it a little bit a little bit differently.

So that's a good thing about engagement, is allows us to kind of look at uh things that residents see that we we may not catch.

What I have in bold here examined feedback looking for points of agreement and disagreement.

Uh, this is a very good item that consultants will help us on.

One example that we had in the survey was that there seems to be a 50-50 split as to whether or not multi-use paths do illicit uh safety issues and conflicts.

There's a 15, you know, half that think they do and half that don't.

So uh instead of doing the you know the butting heads, we we do want to uh have our consultants provide more context in that so that ultimately later down the road council can make a decision for us.

And then again, we'll be forwarding engagement findings to local, regional, and the provincial government regarding light rail transit.

Actually, we've already done that.

Next slide. So our next engagement round two is going to take place between now and April.

We're in the process of developing the engagement content right now.

Ultimately, a lot of it has to do with engaging our neighboring local, uh, regional and province, uh, provincial governments.

Uh, just letting them be known that you know we have this project here and what they see.

I do know that Sanich is very very eager to hear what or they want to provide input on the Helmkin area.

Uh Squamalt and uh the ministry are very curious about the Admiral's corridor.

So uh we're looking forward to hearing from them as that provides more of a uh uh governmental jurisdictional feedback.

Umreach to the local First Nations will be done, so we'll be providing uh we'll be doing some messaging out there that'll be staff done.

Uh outreach to accessibility groups, local business communities, school district, and the pack uh will be providing a messaging out there seeing how they wish to be engaged, uh and that will inform on you know how we we bring forth this project to them.

In bold, I have three community pop-up events.

So we're gonna find areas where a lot of people gather and we're gonna have a pop-up um like a pop-up event.

It may be staffed or unstaffed, depending on on the area, but essentially is to provide uh key themes in what we've heard and encourage people to take the survey number two, which is feedback on the mission goals and objectives of the transportation master plan.

Um, this is an interim engagement that we've added to the project because uh council recall in the active translation network plan, there has been a little bit of back and forth with respect to uh visioning and uh and what the goals are.

So, what we want to do in this is to get a concrete idea of what uh the mission goals and objectives are from the public and share that with council so that we have the initial alignment and then we can take it and do and develop the draft uh transportation master plan, hopefully without the risk of a lot of rework.

Um last year I did note that round two would include a public ideas fair.

Because we've received the feedback that's very indicative of what we heard in the office community plan and after translation network plan, we feel that we have a pretty good idea of what is needed, and so what we will be doing now is actually shifting the public ideas fair into round three.

So that gives council and uh residents an additional uh round of engagement to review the draft transitation master plan.

Um in addition to that, because we're we've gone through quite a bit of engagement, whether it's the OCP or the um urban forest strategy or this, there is a risk of engagement fatigue.

So we do want to make sure that the OCP takes precedence in terms of uh making sure we get the people there to um to comment on the OCP process, and then we'll ride in the coattails of the OCP.

Next steps or next slide, sorry.

Uh so recommendation is that this report be received for information, um, but I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Thank you, Ivan.

I think you've generated uh them.

Can you uh for questions, can you bring up your site feedback slide simplified that shows your hot spots?

And uh go to thank you.

Uh go to counselor Matson with the first question.

Thanks, Ivan. Um, sitting up here for all these years, like a lot of these things we we heard.

So I'm just curious, is there something really new that you got out of these surveys?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias.

We I I personally myself and the consultants are very curious about the points of contention.

So um many years, you know, there's the basics of sidewalks and bike lanes and intersections, but there's some emerging items are coming in, such as uh uh mode share shifts, uh multi-use paths, um, emerging new designs and intersections.

And so uh we are more those are the ones that are are probably gonna be critical as part of the transitation master plan.

Um, by hearing what we hear from council and the concerns and residency concerns, there's either going to be opportunities to do these things.

Uh Kassel Kerbs, one example, or buffer bike lanes, another example.

Um, so there might be opportunities.

However, depending on what we hear from council and the public, there might be fears and that which may cause us to pivot.

So um, you know, notwithstanding the fact that this the last transportation master plan was done, I believe in 2009.

Um, there may be some of the values and some of the uh issues may still be the same, but the the concepts and the solutions are different, and so that's what we're going to be really focusing on in terms of this transitation master plan.

Okay, and my other question is uh we have a number of initiatives that are going on now, like the Atkins sidewalks, and I think for Watkins and uh Helmaken, we've got things planned there.

So and and and others.

So I'm just wondering if that information is sort of being fed to the members of the public who who are doing these reviews so they have an indication of sort of what what we're already planning to do.

And my other question is is there any conflict between what we've currently agreed to do and you know are currently in our plans to plans to do that conflict with anything you've heard?

Um yeah, so that's just so Mayor Tobias answered the first question.

Uh, we have no we have talked to our consultant about the things we're doing, like the Watkiss and um and Akins, and they're just like this, basically, thumbs up.

So that's encouraging on our end.

Uh in terms of the second question, which I believe is the messaging, is it?

Or maybe you can repeat that there, Councillor Manson.

I I'm old, I forgot quickly.

Yeah. So yeah, I mean, so have we been telling the residents what we're doing and and how does this fit into our plans?

And is there any inconsistencies with things that we've already agreed to do with what we've heard from the public?

Um, yeah, very good question, Mayor Tobias.

There's none. Um, and the reason why I say that is because the Active Transition Network Plan provides options.

It doesn't recommend like Dal Shell put this here at this time of year.

It basically says consider improving accessibility for these folks around this time.

And so what the Transitation Master Plan will do is we'll leverage that and then go through the motions of um modeling, so doing actual signal uh calculations and that, and then they'll provide a recommendation on the actual cross-section.

So it'll be in if anything is filtering into uh one solution.

Um, so yeah, no, there's there's no rework, I would say.

It's more or less just taking what has been presented before and honing into a a finance solution.

That's it.

Thank you.

Council Limit.

Thank you, Anthony.

We you you we can't be faulted for lack of engagement when this is so thorough, and I see two and three are to follow.

Um in the master plan, and you next up is is consulting or engaging with with other levels of government.

Will we include possibilities like putting the rail corridor to work for light rail, whatever?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias is a very good question, notwithstanding the recent um uh uh agreements that we've signed with the local First Nations.

Um, so there will be context there.

That's the reason why we'll be engaging with First Nations.

Um station master planning is generally a 20-year outlook.

So we'd be very curious to hear about what's plans are for rail or light rail.

And I do know those conversations uh not just with the standing of the reconciliation corridor, but BC Transit's also looking at things.

Um Capital Regional District are also um part of that conversation as well.

So uh I think my answer to you is that um we don't have an answer, I don't have an answer for you right now, quite simply because there's been discussions with so many other governmental organizations on this, but it is on it is uh going to be touched upon in some shape or form in their transportation master plan.

Okay, good. Foreseeably it it it will could will be there.

And uh to the point that driver behavior is a number never number one bugbear, it will continue to be unless we address the other points, right?

Of signals and intersections and uh congestion, right?

Yeah, okay. Thank you.

Had uh one uh comment and uh I guess the reason why I asked to bring up this map is the most towns have a single corridor that runs north, south, east, west that carries traffic uh through, but we've got two major ones, uh albeit one is the highway.

Ivan, how much of this is regional traffic problem, and how much of this is town of view royal traffic problem?

Uh Mayor Tobias, I don't have exact percentages, but the after transstation network plan, there's a map that shows that the peak day uh vehicles traveling is more than the population of U Royal.

So just going by that means that there's a significant amount of commuters from different uh uh parts of Victoria that travels through V Rule.

Thanks, Ivan. And uh my other question is are we gonna use some standardized kind of mapping that everybody can understand?

Because um now we've got consequences on uh our transit-oriented development.

Um one of the comments there that was substandard public uh uh transportation uh there.

Are we going to establish kind of the typical thresholds for high frequencies like 10 minutes or less, and horror is 30 minutes or less kind of servicing?

And from what I'm understanding, you know, we've made some decisions based on the transit oriented or area orientation that they're looking at increasing significantly the development of those areas, but we barely meet kind of a poor standard of public service.

And a lot of people say, well, that's just during work times, and it's not because if you're demanding 10 stories with no parking, then it's also how you're getting your kids to daycare or hockey or wherever it is, right?

So I'm just wondering if uh in the in the transportation master plan, will we have some rating of our current services now uh that that's probably from data that would be available?

Um yeah, Mayor Tobias, uh just judging by the past and my experience, uh the rating of roadways are generally um in categories such as here's a local collector and a major, which um is based on uh could be either vehicles per day or vehicles per hour.

So it's not done necessarily by delay, but kind of is because if you're um if your road is rated to be like 10,000 vehicles per hour, but it's only going up 5,000 and a half, you can tell it's congestion.

But it's not done by the minute.

Uh what I can do though is I can um send your comments to the consultant to see if there's something else that they could do, or if they could uh include that in there in terms of you know, like we're gonna design this road and during peak times is gonna be X minutes of of delay.

Uh Mayor Tobias, quick question for you.

This is for um vehicles and transit, not just transit.

Uh I I would say both that we could do, and I'll see if I can forward you this study, Ivan, because some preliminary work uh by BC Transit might have already been done, particularly focusing on um the transit coming from Op Island and Souk.

They're because of the increased population, not on just in View Royal, but those other areas has implications of increasing the transit time, uh, particularly during working hours from uh from Langford all the way downtown.

So it would really affect um moving through View Royal.

So as those feeders and collectors increase, it affects everybody if you're trying to get around in View Royal, uh, because you've got so much throughput um uh that that is there.

So we'll see if I can get that for you.

Yeah, I'm aware of that uh what they're doing there, and also uh BC Transit is updating their transit future plan, right?

So we speak right now.

And so an important part of the transitation master plan will be identifying what BC or at least reflecting on what BC Transit is identified as a frequent transit corridor trans period uh which is basically 10 to 15 minutes um basically uh for stop times uh as well as their transferred or trans transit-oriented areas too.

So I do know they're working on that, and that's one of the main reasons why we BC Transit is high up on our stakeholder list to engage so that we get that data.

And um uh our preliminary study for the rail has started.

That's the study before the study to go out and get funding from the federal government.

Um, and right now the assumptions that we're going with is 25 to 20 minute service from West Hills to the Johnson Street Bridge.

And that's kind of maxing out speed within tolerances for um the capacity of the rail.

Um and that's likely gonna start at 6 30 in the morning, primarily for the base.

But the other thing, uh council, in case you're not aware, you know that there's some, but there are 6,000 vehicles that are coming in just for CFB Esquemo.

Just for the base is 6,000 vehicles a day from Wesha or or Duncan or whatever um uh that are there.

So uh that uh one of the only growth areas right now is probably the base uh over the next little while.

So that's not expected to really slow down.

And the biggest complaint talking to the base commander is the inadequacy of uh transit getting folks to from Lankford to the base, for instance.

Um and uh yeah, so we're toying with those modeling, but I can make those available to you as well, just as uh as a foreshadowing.

So that looks like uh the assumption is that um based on rail being restored in 29 uh 2030 for light rail to uh the West Shore.

But thanks Ivan.

Is there any more questions?

Uh council. Yeah, is there any sort of low-hanging fruit uh solutions to fix problems that you'll be doing, you know, or recommending to council we do sooner than later, or is you're gonna sort of delay any of those things until after the you know studies completely finished and get a chance to review recommendations.

Uh Mayor Tobias, I have to look at our five-year capital plan.

Um, but ultimately speaking, this is a 20-year plan, so I can't foresee ourselves um canceling things for the sake of canceling.

I do know that uh we have been quite dynamic with council.

Like, for example, uh in November we talked about tabling some projects, uh, but by no means um is this transition master plan going to derail things?

No pun intended.

I was more thinking that in discussions with the public, you might see something a fix that we could that you think will need to be done and it isn't all that expensive, and will you be doing that sooner rather than at the end of the study?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, it depends.

If it's quite literally just like I need something touched up, like a crosswalk or something like that.

Very easy to do.

If it's a sidewalk request, that might be an extension to Atkins Road.

Um, you know, we can certainly look at that as well.

So we'll we'll always look at that in terms of best values for dollars spent.

Also, obviously, though I have to make sure that it's uh it's with the the right means and that my finance officer doesn't uh lash me in the back for it.

But uh yeah, no, we always look at opportunities like that.

Uh can I get a motion to receive uh second moved by councilor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Brown?

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you very much, Ivan.

And I think you're gonna stay up here, aren't you?

For the urban forest strategy request for additional funds and grant funding opportunities.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um we're searching the urban forest here.

Uh the purpose of this report is twofold.

One is to obtain a $22,000 lift into the urban forest strategy.

Um, essentially by uh by directing us to look at 35 and 40% canopy cover targets.

It's uh required a consultant to do some remodeling.

Um the work is already being done right now.

Uh we do want to get, and the reason why is because uh we want to meet the OCP timelines for policy generation.

Uh so we expect to bring something to you very, very soon on this.

But that said, it does require a liftable $22,000 for the modeling uh for the comparisons of other municipalities and what they do.

You've done a substantial amount of work.

The second uh item that we are looking for council approval on is to uh apply to uh the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Growing Canada's Community Canopies Fund, so GCCC.

Um when we're going through the urban forest strategy, we've given that what we heard from council that trees are important and we want to plant trees and and create a natural asset database that helps uh not only um improve the ability to plant trees but to preserve existing trees.

Uh we asked them to provide us with a uh list of projects that could be eligible for this fund that also aligns with our urban forest strategy, regardless of what can I be heard cover target um council wishes to seek.

So there were, I believe, uh five activities here.

The grant fund is basically in short, a uh it will grant two years of programming and up to 80% of eligible costs can be grant uh grant funded back.

Um so in attachment one, you'll notice there's five uh there's there's five projects there.

I want to point your attention to the first one and the last one.

So the first one is established a geospatial public tree inventory, and the last one is establish a forested parks asset inventory.

And so these inventories uh serve two things.

One is and the most important is that if we're to increase a canopy cover, it's very important to know the state of our trees.

And so, especially if you want to go into a higher canopy cover target, this is a must have.

Um assets uh including this in the natural asset inventory is just icing on a cake.

Like instead of spending $60,000 on it, they basically cost it zero dollars because we're already doing this work as part of the urban forest.

Um, so those are the two that I would that I believe staff will be proposing probably in year one of the grant.

Um, and then there's the three other ones creating a tree planting plan, pretty self-explanatory.

Uh here's where you plant trees.

Um, and then uh reviewing the town subdivision development service and bylaw.

So that's to help when the development process be able to inform developers and what they must uh put into the ground for trees.

And then uh the the next one's updating to the terms of reference materials.

That will be done probably in in in partnership with development services there, uh detailing design requirements and for landscaping arbricultural and wind firm submissions.

So that would give us a head start in improving our urban forest strategy or at least acting upon on it.

Um that said, the recommendations before you one is that uh there's an that additional $22,000 net of GST uh be provided to fund the lift in the urban forest strategy in programming for 35% and 40% candidate cover targets, and that staff be authorized to directly award the Growing Canada's community canopies grant funded work to Diamond Head Consulting, who will act as co-collaborators on the projects deliver the awarded urban forest strategy programming over the next two years.

Uh happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh thanks. Uh Ivan, I'll go to my colleagues for questions, but um uh just to get it clear in my head, uh, with for the 188k, are we looking at um grants first and then casino?

How is that being proposed?

Yeah, um Director Vella and I will be discussing that as part of budget deliberations.

Um ultimately it's we'd be seeking grant funding first with the balance would have to be um paid for by the town, whether that's uh casino revenue or maybe there might be other funding um areas as well, maybe LG Cap as well, but that's also me something that uh I'll have to talk to about with Director Vella as part of budget deliberations.

Okay, thank you. Uh Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Mattson, and then Councillor Brown.

Thank you. So my question relates to the additional 22,000.

Um I think I'm not just I'm just not appreciating the scope of this additional work.

Uh in my mind, it was just to see using the model that they used to see the no change, which was 30% coverage.

Um now we're just modeling what 5% and 10% more would look like.

So to me, that there's a model they put some numbers in.

Um so but I know you just mentioned they're also looking at different municipalities and what they're doing.

So I I didn't really see that detail in in this report.

Oh yeah, Mayor Tobias, um, it's not it wasn't a report because when we uh it's I think the yeah, so the reason why um the consultant was required to do that was because we received quite a few correspondence from folks that um basically just issued numbers out to council about you know this municipality is doing x percent, that municipality is doing that percent.

And when we looked at that, uh it was very important that we uh show council what it actually looks like apples to apples.

So give you an example, um a municipality may say we're gonna go with a 45% can be cover target.

Well, they don't really tell you in the but in the foreground is that that's urban and rural.

And so for us, even like if we were to go by urban and rural, we have a 60% can be cover.

But the idea is that you want to improve shade and that for your urban areas.

So uh part of the exercise was to demonstrate uh to for the diamond head to demonstrate the council when you look at apples to apples, this is where we stand.

And also um the financial aspects of it is requires a lot of research.

Uh what they basically went through is what each municipality's budgets are, how people are in their staff, uh how many trees they plant every year.

Um things that are important to give us context is you know, here's what other municipalities are doing for canopy cover, and also this is the level of service that they provide.

So that's one aspect, specifically specifically looking at other municipalities.

Another um I example is when they're doing modeling.

Uh when we start looking at 35, 40 percent, you actually have to look at whether or not the land that you that you've initially seeked out to say I can plant trees there, we have to do some additional proofing.

So that would be um including okay.

Well, are do you have any underground infrastructure there?

Do you have hydro anything that would prevent us densifying more trees in those areas?

And they had to go through that, uh, they had to go through the exercise um quite thoroughly.

They had to uh basically request additional information from our GIS about where all or all the pipes and all the uh infrastructure is in the ground.

Um and so we we we will have more information for council on that fairly shortly as to what they've done.

I've looked at the draft uh report and it's it's fairly thorough.

Okay, thank you.

That was yeah, more than I pictured in my head, because at first I thought 22,000 is a lot, especially because it's coming from casino funds, and that could be used for grants and aid.

So um I appreciate that.

Thank you. Council Metz.

Yes. Ivan. I'm a little confused.

So I see this list of items for 188,000.

Have we approved any of this stuff yet?

And what what's currently what's currently happening and and some studies being conducted currently.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, these are brand new.

The reason why we're bringing it forth before budget deliberations is because the deadline for the funding is before we even start budget deliberations.

So the idea is to come forward the council saying we know that we're a little early but here's a wonderful opportunity for us to improve our natural assets inventory also at the same time showing council that you know we are and to the people that we are uh trying to enact the action items in our urban forest strategy because there are items in the urban forest strategy the action items that we'll have to do regardless of what can be target we have to enact upon so uh instead of spending 188,000 of CAL money we're hoping to only spend 20% and what for the work that's currently being undertaken how what is the cost of that so far or what yeah what is what was the budget for that work that's being done now.

Mayor Tobias just a clarification that in terms of the programming or the urban forest strategy project that we're going on right now.

Well we you mentioned you've hired a consultant and he's doing work and so in terms of that study what it what did we approve um yeah those studies have been administrative so they're not capital or a non-core project so I would say in terms of projects themselves we have nothing right now until we uh until we present our five year financial plan.

Okay so so there's no consultant fees being paid now and you're the 22,000 is is like a s a new study for this consultant.

Uh I'll just the council asked uh Ivan to go away and say see what uh it would look like for 35 and 40 percent can be covered target so council told Ivan to do this and he's come back and said that'll cost 22,000.

Council Bass like to move the staff recommendation I will see some that but I I still have a question.

Certainly um and just because it's on the floor doesn't mean you I can't have questions.

Go ahead council turned it off um the 1880 those are for um the the activities most likely to get grants however just to be clear there are other activities within this whole um project that are on top of this 188 right yes that is correct we have like over 40 or 50 all actions and um the item C here they directly reflect checking off the action items and also some of them check more than one box.

So it's a very efficient way of delivering um projects in accordance with the strategy.

Great thank you.

Um, I've got a question and concern here.

Just to so the if we put a motion in that we're um supporting, I think the 22,000 to get to the 35% to 40%.

Um that that that's that full motion, right?

That's the only ask to council today, correct, Ivan.

Um the motion specifically for their urban forest strategy project is just the 22,000, the additional, and that is um something separate from the urban forest strategy, kind of working on it as part of the programming part of it.

And and so you're gonna come back to us with the ask for 188, potentially during budget for deliberation.

Um yeah.

Okay.

It wasn't a leading question.

I'm just thinking about it in the sense that no um what staff's hope is is that should uh council take staff's recommendation that that allows us to go to the consultant say apply for the grant fund, and good luck, and we would include it as part of our financial plan deliberations.

Thank you. Um, and I do have a bit of a concern over scope creep here for the contract, because if we're going to give them another 22,000, and then the intent was uh they would be sole sourced to do the six activity deliverables such as established geospatial public tree inventory and all those separate ones that would be from my perspective significant scope creep from their initial contract.

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, I would say that uh it's while that project is mutually exclusive separate from the reinforced strategy, um, yes, by them providing the application, they would have to be co-collaborators on the uh on those grant funded projects.

The reality is that's uh we don't have a staffing capacity to write those grants ourselves.

Okay, uh so there might be some grant work there to do it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the award that they write the grant that they that's like a self-licking ice cream coin.

Yeah, if the the uh recommendation before you is that if you if council does approve recommendation that should the grant be successful, that's uh Diamond Head would be uh direct awarded those projects.

Okay, I do I do have a definite challenge with that because I think it's um yeah, I think it's too much awarding them if we're already giving them 22,000 to increase the scope of it, and then there's another 188 on top of that.

I would I would like to see that recompeted and gone back out for bid and even separated as potential.

Um, because each one of those are are significant.

And in today's world of AI, I can tell you to establish a geospatial public tree inventory, including estimating its species for $70,000 is less than a day's work.

So that th those are my concerns that if if uh if we give this $22,000, then the the next body of work gets recompeted.

I know it means more work for you to get another RFP out, but I think that's only fair and potentially uh be some significant cost savings there.

So I'm happy to support the 22,000 to get us to what council had required the 35 to 40 percent canopy cover, but I think there's a way we can balance um the fiscal restraints we're under with getting the information that we need.

Uh yeah, so the motion's on the floor.

So if you've got a question or a comment, now it's time to do it.

So Council Matson, I'm assuming you had so if I recall during the discussions, um we had a certain percentage we were going for, and we found out in fact, because of all the trees residents were planting, we seem to have a lot more trees planted than staff had recommended that we plant.

So so that's one thing.

The other part is whether it's 35 or 40 percent, like why do we need a study for that?

I mean, good lord.

Give a few more trees out that make buy a few more trees and people can plant them.

Spending 22,000 for a study on on where to put these other trees is is a total waste of money.

Uh if you want to pay them to put money out or or pay them to um request grants, that's a different thing.

But whether we have 35 or 40 percent goal is not worth $22,000.

Uh I mean, each of us could point out spots on the streets where we could put more trees.

So I mean, that twenty-two thousand dollars for my mind is way better better spent spending some money on trees and those water bags.

So I'm I'm definitely gonna be against this.

I just can't see it.

It's as a good spend of taxpayers' money.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Counselor Brown, we didn't get you to motivate because now apparently we're into that place where we need to.

So Counselor Brown, and then uh who is the second counselor Lemon?

Yeah, thank you.

This uh fits nicely into our natural asset inventory.

So um whatever we spend here, we potentially have to spend less on the natural asset inventory because it fits right in.

The natural force is obviously uh a major part.

And the the tree can be it is a no-brainer.

When we develop that western uh corridor, and I have some really out-of-the-box ideas and how I like to see it develop, and that includes a lot of trees.

Because we don't put a lot of trees, our climate change, we're gonna be screwed.

So I support this 100%.

And uh stand on the thank you, Councilor Brown.

Counselor Lemon.

I agree. I think I think it this aligns completely with the other topic topic on the agenda tonight.

And uh, you know, not not to be argumented to my colleague, but I think this goes far beyond planting a dogwood tree in your front yard.

Uh you know, this is this incorrect this involves the entire municipality and maintaining tree knowing which trees we have where and maintaining them.

Um my viewpoint is that what we're and and perhaps I'm I'm wrong, is that what we're approving here is $22,000 and the opportunity to apply for grants.

So there's very little cost to the latter part of that.

So I'm I'm swerved.

Thanks, Councilor Lemon.

Seeing no other comments, questions will go to a vote.

All those in favor of the urban forest strategy project for 22000 to give the canopy cover target programming to 35 and 40 percent.

All those in favor.

And noting counselor Matson's opposed motion carries.

Uh thank you, Ivan.

Much appreciated.

Um business arising from previous uh minutes.

I think we've got two pieces of correspondence.

Does anybody want to discuss either one of them?

Seconded.

Uh thank you, Councillor Mattson and Councillor McKenzie, all those in favor of receipts um to receive uh A and A one, I believe.

And the consent agenda, and those were minutes uh of council uh meeting on the third of February, uh and the committee of the whole on the 10th of February, as well as the uh official community plan update.

I made an announcement about that.

You should all have an email uh with you as well as the correspondences that we receive.

Move consent agenda.

Second. Seconded uh moved by Councilor Matson, seconded by counselor brown.

Nobody wants to pull anything out.

All those in favor.

Any opposed. Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And we have no considerations, so we can go to question period.

So anyone with a question for council.

Oh just uh it needs to be recorded, sir.

Should be a button on the top reboot, uh microphone to turn it on.

A silver one there.

Oh, like front.

Yeah. Uh I'm Lee McGuire, uh 427 Creed Place.

Uh I live on uh Craigflower Creek, and I'm here to support uh the letter correspondence that you received from Mr.

Jensen. I uh have had quite a bit of experience with this.

I lived in Lions Bay on Harvey Creek, which killed two people when it went out.

Then they put it expropriated part of my backyard to build a trash basin, put it under control.

And I have built several settlement ponds and in various construction projects in West Vancouver, which I watched all the money we spent doing that be absolutely flushed out.

We live in a rainforest folks, and all the climate change issues aren't relevant when you start killing people.

I'm concerned about Theetis Lake and the fact that it's got berms built around it to get the water level higher.

And when the berm on the back side goes, guess where it's all going down the slope into Craigflower Creek and flushing down through there.

Those ponds that they've had deferred maintenance on them for since they built them.

They haven't done anything there.

All those berms around those settlement ponds have large trees on them.

These are trees that are up to a foot diameter.

Well, I I don't want to get into the details of why trees are bad in berms, but they uh they create natural pathways for water seepage.

All those ponds, the two ponds that uh I'm concerned about that unfortunately viewer oil in their deliberations with CRD back in the day took responsibility to maintain, they've never been retained.

You can't get into that one pond without building a hundred thousand dollar road down to it.

It's you can get a cat down to hoe it out, but part of that is you have to haul the crap out too.

You have to replant everything in there.

And it's uh this is a major issue, and I don't think it should be taken lightly.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd give Mr.

Jensen's concerns some serious consideration.

Thank you. Thank you, Lee.

Appreciate it. Thanks for coming out tonight.

Uh I think that brings us to motions and notices of motions, Councilor Brown.

Oh, sorry, I had to go.

Carl, did we have any questions uh that were brought in uh on the web?

Mayor Tobias, we have no questions on the board.

Uh was there anybody else in council chambers that wish to address council on anything?

Not sure if there's a limit to the number of questions, but keep it as a question, Lee.

And the uh question about uh our galloping goose.

When I was a boy, we learned to walk against the traffic.

I'm telling you, 40 kilometers an hour on some of these bikes they got going.

It's a danger. And uh maybe you could talk to the folks that are running the galloping goose to try and come up with a solution that we're here facing the traffic rather than a bike coming up.

When we go skiing, we say on your right, but most people with ski understand that.

Most people at walking don't.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lee. And I can say that something the topic has been addressed and brought up by me at CRD and they have started a bit of a campaign.

But when you've got, as you say, electrical scooters and bikes that can go faster than some cars now, it's pretty difficult.

Actually, you will be able to go to max speed faster than most municipalities now on their main roads, the capability of some of the scooters and electric bikes have been.

So thank you for the question.

Councilor Brown, I think it's over to you for uh your notice of motion.

Yeah, and I'll talk to it about it.

I'll meet the motion first.

That staff work towards completing a 2026 municipal asset inventory for the town of V Royal that include natural assets in any updates to the corporate asset management policy, and that the 2026 budget include funding for a municipal natural asset inventory, and that staff seek to apply for available funding opportunities to offset the costs.

If I can get a second or I'll motivate second.

Yeah, go ahead, Council Brown. Well, thank you.

First of all, I thank Mr.

Brooke for his presentation.

That was uh very helpful.

Because I know people have asked me, you know, where's the cost saving?

And uh well, there's tons of cost saving that the uh by not doing it, the the cost could be considerable, especially with global warming.

Um, and you we see the letters of support and the emails of support uh to do this.

And some of the work's already been done.

That's amazing, actually.

Uh I commend staff.

They've already got the NAI roadmap.

They've got that.

We've got the urban forest strategy.

We've got a grant funding for drainage plan.

Those are all things that are part of this anyway.

So but there's a lot of things that could fall through the cracks.

You got wildlife refuge, bird sanctuaries.

And I think if we don't do it, and once you lose it, it's gone.

So it's important to have a structure so the assets are maintained, uh, improved and built on.

So and the assets are are are numerous.

And people don't even realize, and of course, there'll be a new council too.

So it's good for a new council.

The staff's not going to be here forever.

So for new staff, and I do commend staff for the work that they've already done on this.

They've done a lot of work already.

And I think it's timely.

Um, and I think a lot of the uh costs could be covered by grants, and a lot of municipalities, including Sanich, have already done it.

And I think we should be doing it as well.

Thanks, Councillor Brown. Counselor Lemon, see how you seconded.

Do you want to add?

Sure. Um, just briefly, I I think that um we haven't seen the last heat dome, and we haven't seen certainly haven't seen the last atmospheric river.

Uh so this is this is a time when this is not just a nice to have, but it's important to have.

So, you know, we're we're lined up to preserve what we have and managing and uh care for the natural assets that we have in the town.

And um I it it it seems to me that um well I understand there is there is grant funding available, so the cost to us which should ultimately should we be successful would be minimal.

Thank you, Councillor Luman.

Councillor McKenzie.

So I have questions, but they're mostly targeted towards staff.

So I wonder actually whether a staff report on this would be useful.

Because I have so my two questions are um, you know, uh this inventory would be good for everyone to to look at, but it's mostly used by staff, and therefore I would want to know, like from staff's perspective, is this duplicating information that they already have?

Um like would it be value valuable to them?

And then my second question is around the funding, what possible applic applicable grants might there be?

So I don't know if that warrants a report.

It's complete completely unbound. Um Ivan, did you want to talk to that or Scott?

Uh merit to bias would be considering the provider report.

Um I believe we're going to it to some extent anyways, given the interest in the in that subject.

Um Mr. Brooke said it quite quite frankly and and lovely when the questions we should ask ourselves are what do we own, what are the conditions, and what level of service do they provide?

And so the inventory is is just a snapshot at the very beginning that we start off with.

Um, as Councilor Brown has mentioned, we are doing two big ones or in the process of doing two of our major tangible assets, which are wetlands, ponds, and now trees.

Uh I'm not too sure what other natural assets we have left to go through, but the good thing about our asset management policy that we've um that we've adopted is that there is a fluid way of doing things now, and then also planning the plan.

So it's not just a bunch of documents and then we action it at that time.

We're doing stuff right now, and then at the same time, we're also uh creating some documents to to help further the plan.

Again, that's a very long-winded say way of saying we are in the midst of providing some sort of information to the council, and that request is uh is definitely okay with staff.

So you can do one or two things now, Councillor McKenzie, now knowing that that it might have some value, you can um uh uh ask to amend the current motion with a seconder and that uh and that staff ring uh seeing how we're not deciding on this today, this motion is to more or less defer it to the uh budget include funding.

Uh is your intent here that we're gonna talk about this, Councilor Brown at budget deliberations.

Yeah, that's the intent, and I know there is grants available.

I believe I could be incorrect, but I believe Santa's got a grant for $50,000.

So I wouldn't expect us to spend a ton of money because a lot of the work has already been done.

And we certainly have other municipalities to look at to follow their example.

Um, and to me, long term, and like Joni Mitchell says, you know, the paved paradise and uh and um those natural resources, there's so many of them, so many of the list.

Uh not just what was on the on the board here.

People don't realize the the value of the marshlands and the streams and the uh aquifers and all those things.

They're so important.

Yeah, yeah. Stormwater.

People bought uh overflow from ponds and stuff.

They brought that up tonight.

So uh it all pieces together, and uh it yeah, it needs to be done.

So, Councillor McKenzie, was it your intent to uh amend?

Uh so yeah, so my understanding is that the the motion, uh Councilor Brown's motion is that we are approving that staff begin the asset inventory or natural asset inventory, whereas I would prefer my amendment would be that we receive a report first and then we approve it or not approve it.

Yeah.

I mean, I'd be happy to table this motion until after we receive a report.

There's just too much information.

So I'll move to table until after we get a report because there's too much we don't know, including the cost, what what exactly would it involve, what the information's already available.

Like we have lots of bylaws related to how we have to treat streams and and you know, so we we've we've already got a lot of this stuff done, so and they're doing those major studies.

So I think that needs to be built into the report that staff brings us back to see what the magnitude of this would be and what has to happen because it's just too too premature.

Now I don't know what this what we're voting for and how much it would cost, and how much is needed so you agree you want to table it no counselor battle sorry to repeat myself but staff has already commenced a considerable amount of the work and yeah we'd have to discuss this at budget time uh if there's money required over and above well the grants too um personally I'm confident that the grants will cover it but I could be wrong but um they've they're all they're already working towards it so that's kind of moot they're already working towards it and we've already discussed some of those items here tonight and people from the public have already brought up items that fit right into exactly what I'm looking for so uh yeah so again my just my concern is we don't know what we're voting for on this how big is this what's the scope and so until those things come in I I can't support this motion might be a great idea but not until we find out what the cost is what the scope is what's already being done there's just too much too many unknowns.

So I'm quite happy to move it tabling until after we get a report table this motion.

Okay uh that's not the motion if unless you want to put another motion on the floor is would be a move to table it's saying that right that would need a motion to table an agreement, correct, Scott.

Well, there's a motion on the floor to be voted on.

Uh so I don't think it's appropriate to have a motion to table midstream.

Agreed. So the motion on the floor is what is seen here, and if that does not uh is not that is not successful, then uh it can be brought up to be um uh we can redo it, such as referred to budget deliberation.

So we're gonna call the question.

So the first is a vote to call the question, right?

To call the question to have the vote.

So the first vote is to have the vote.

So we stop discussing it and we vote on whether to call the question.

We've skipped that for years here in View Royal, right?

So the first procedure is to call the question requires a vote to call the question.

No, just yes, to call the question on this motion.

So the first vote is whether we're gonna call the question, not just jump in to call the question.

We we missed something for years.

So the vote is um in favor to call the question to stop discussion and vote on this.

Those in favor of calling the question.

Those in favor of calling the question to vote on this now.

Just a vote. Yeah, that is the procedure, Councilor Mattson.

Vote to call the question.

Those in favor to call the question or to continue discussion all night.

So are you voting in favor of calling the question, or do you just want to discuss more?

That that's the simple binary.

So so we're we're voting on it right now.

So voting on yeah, we're voting to call the question on on and take a vote.

So that's what we're voting to stop discussion and voting to call the question to vote on it.

So all those in favor of calling the question to vote on it now.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

Councilor Mattson's opposed.

So uh so now we vote on the the motion.

Uh all those in favor of counselor Brown's motion as it reads without amendment.

All those in favor of the motion, all those opposed to the motion.

Okay, the motion is defeated.

I would um propose to offer a counter motion to it, and that is that um that uh we include natural uh asset management as part of our budget discussions for this year.

Oh uh and my motivation is I think it was a little bit unclear about how this is gonna roll because it was uh that we uh set aside budget for it, and I just think it would be fiscally responsible to take a look at how much budget we've got, get have staff an opportunity to do some research to see how much it's gonna cost, and potentially at least be able to provide a bit of a verbal report around some of the concerns, counselor Brown, and again I apologize because the first part of the motion is for staff to commence work.

Well, they've already commenced work, yeah.

So that's moot.

So basically, the second part of the motion is probably exactly what your motion is.

So I support that, and uh, let's put it on the budget and let's deal with it and let's get rolling on this.

Jennifer, is that uh clear for the the new motion that we just defer natural asset or municipal national asset uh inventory for budget deliberations?

Okay. Uh so we gotta move over in a second or uh any discussion or questions.

Councillor Mattson.

So we'll for budget.

Uh there will be a report that outlines what actually would need to be done, what the costs would be.

We're with budget, there has to be a bottom line somewhere along the line.

With with this, there'll be a line item that we're telling staff to provide uh for uh uh an asset uh municipal natural asset inventory.

That's a line item for deliberations.

And if there's not enough time to develop a fulsome report, then we can discuss it during those deliberations.

Uh any other comments or questions?

All those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries.

Thank you, folks.

Uh so I see no notice of motions were formally submitted.

There's no closed meeting at this one.

Rising report, uh so can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Second. All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, folks.