Council Meeting

Good evening, everyone.

We're going to call the meeting to order and begin by recognizing the Lekwungen speaking people, known today as the Esquimal Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

And tonight we have on our agenda.

Um we have the development permit for number three Helmcken.

And there will be a special area within that part of the agenda for the public to speak.

So if you're wishing to speak to that, you you can wait and speak after the staff presentation on that.

There'll be a area for the public.

Any other public participation, if there's something you want to speak to on the agenda tonight, other than that, you can do so under public participation.

And you will call in to the number that is on the screen, 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID number 681 379 410 Pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until asked.

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

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by participating in this webcast.

If you can give us your name and address for the recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

And with that, we just need a motion to approve the agenda, please.

And then we have minutes from March 15th.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

Thank you.

Seconded.

All in favor.

Councillor Matson seconded it.

Opposed, that's carried.

I don't have anything under Mayor's report, so we will be coming up to public participation right away.

And as I said earlier, that is for anything on the agenda tonight other than the number three Helmcken Road.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship, we have multiple callers.

First caller, last four digits, 0216.

Okay.

Caller with the last four digits zero two one six this is your opportunity to to speak to us.

Zero two one six you may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Hello okay let's hear me yeah, we sure can.

Uh no comment on my end.

Uh Ivan Leoung from uh uh 1400 Limbered Place just listening in.

Okay, thanks very much.

Thank you.

The next caller stuff.

Your worship, our next caller has the last four digits zero seven three eight.

Caller with the last four digits zero seven three eight.

This is your opportunity if you'd like to speak to us.

You may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Are you there, caller zero seven three eight?

Okay, so maybe we'll pass over.

I can try that one again at the end, staff.

Then the next caller.

Your worship, we have no other callers at this time.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'll give one more try to the caller with the last four digits 0738.

If you'd like to speak to us, this is your opportunity.

You may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Your worship, that caller is just hung up.

Okay.

I have that effect on people sometimes.

Thank you.

I have to say, for all I understand folks' apprehension about the public coming back into this room, and I'm speaking to the public out there, and I understand your apprehension about coming back in this room.

But my from my perspective, I am so ready to have the public back in here to be able to speak to us with a degree of comfort and ease.

Rather, you know, I think this is wonderful that we can do this online, and it'll always be a wonderful addition.

But I think it's going to be great that people will be comfortable to come in here and speak to us directly.

So with that, I'm going to move on to staff reports 8.1a, which is number three, Helmcken Road.

There he is.

I also think it's going to be nice to have staff back in the room.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

I'm just going to share the screen so we can start the uh start the presentation.

All right, this is a uh form and character development permit for three Helmkin Road.

I'll start at the beginning.

Uh purpose of this uh presentation tonight is to consider a farm and character development permit for multifamily development.

We comprised of three apartment buildings with underground parking.

Um there's actually four parcels involved, but we'll just call it three home kin for convenience.

They were rezoned in 2020 with three different sub zones to a CD zone that would have different heights in maximum heights in different buildings.

Before we begin, I'd like to just clarify a point.

So the original notice was for uh showed a parking requirement of 340 uh parking spaces, which is not quite correct, it's actually 324 uh spaces that were required.

So that's a variance of 24 spaces rather than 40.

Uh the other variance is variance that has changed was that there was a proposal to have some to have some wider balconies along the that project into the side yard setback.

Uh but again in the final plans, uh the plans were revised.

That variance is no longer required.

So there's only two variances.

One is for parking, and the other is for the width of balconies projections into the rear yard, and we'll discuss that further in this presentation.

Uh at the time of rezoning, uh, this is just a reminder that three covenants were registered.

Uh, one was for a Community Amenity Contribution of $3,500 per unit, which works out to $819,000 based on the proposed 234 units.

There's also a requirement that lots be consolidated and they not be sold individually.

The idea is was to uh to keep the site, the four properties as one development site.

And the other item was a uh is a tenant uh relocation package, which included a number of things such as a four month notice prior to demolition, which um I understand uh some residents have received.

Uh the proposal is for 234 units uh in one, two, and three bedroom configurations.

Uh the stated intent is for rental, but uh it's not um it's not a requirement of the town.

Um so the original proposal at the time of resonance was 247 units, and that's gone down to 234.

That part of it is is because they have more three-bedroom units, which would support more kind of uh family type housing.

Um they've also changed because of the reduction in the number of units, the number of parking spaces has also been reduced.

Um and with the variants, uh they have provided a parking study, and we'll discuss that later.

The site data summary, uh, this basically just compares the um the original proposal from uh from 2020 to what we see today, the the conceptual design.

And uh and this table just highlights the two different variances that uh we'll that I'll cover a little bit more detail later.

Um so this project is in a key location in the town.

It's the Northern Gateway Community Corridor, it's the it's the entrance to the town from from the east.

Um and a strong, it's important to have buildings that create a strong sense of place in the area.

Uh they've created uh kind of a setup that would will create uh at grade uh building entrances along uh Burnside Road West.

On Helmkin, it will be the entrance will be below grade.

In terms of design character, the buildings are kind of in a configuration that kind of creates an interior kind of courtyard, and the buildings step down at the corners to create variation in building height.

These are the latest renderings that were that been prevent provided based on the architectural models and gives you a bit more kind of a more kind of hard look at what the surfaces might look like surfaces and colors would look like.

And one item to note here is that this also shows in the lower left-hand corner the uh the uh preservation of the majority of the rocky knoll that uh that is kind of a distinguishing feature of the uh of the um of the original landscape.

Um building design, it is a West Coast contemporary uh style, and uh members of council have had an opportunity to look at the material board at the back of the council chambers, and uh and this uh these elevations show the variety of colors and also surface patterns that are used.

So it's a combination of um of a brick type finish to um especially facing facing Helmicken Road, uh combination with uh Hardy type paneling, uh paneling, board and batten, and horizontal siding to create a variety of colors and textures on the street.

Uh the corner balconies also have kind of a metal um material that's actually uh has a wood look to it.

Um landscaping uh part of the the internal landscaping uh is is uh is what's called a woonerf, which is uh living street in Dutch, uh, which is basically kind of a shared pedestrian vehicle space.

And uh this is kind of a conceptual illustration of what it could uh what it can look like.

And basically there's a space where where uh vehicle spaces you know driveways are not really delineated the way uh the way they typically are in in uh in parking lots or or driveways uh because you have kind of a square tiling uh it looks more like a plaza which uh vehicles and people can kind of interact and uh in this kind of situation creates an opportunity for some recreation and and even for you know kids might be even be able to street hockey here in terms of tree preservation, there's uh approximately 107 trees on the site.

Uh the majority of the trees that are preserved are all on the eastern, sort of the western edge of the property to buffer the townhouses that uh uh on the neighboring property.

And uh unfortunately the majority of them do have to be removed because uh when you provide underground parking, um it uh it displaces tree roots.

So so in this case, uh underground parking is is really important to create a uh a good urban design in this location, and uh and so the trade-off is is interior trees uh cannot be retained.

So the applicants may through the rezoning process, uh there was a lot of discussion on preserving trees on the on the uh on that on that edge of the property.

So that's that was the priority.

Dark skies uh friendly lighting is proposed.

Um the the site has good pedestrian access from the sidewalk.

Uh there are some surface parking spaces and loading areas that that make for um easy loading this loading area for each building, and there are also five accessible parking spaces, universal access on the uh on the underground parking level closest to the elevator.

This type of a design, uh the water uh also provides an opportunity for a good oversight into the public spaces in and around the building, uh which is good for CPTED, and uh and with with good lighting, uh they will follow good CPTED principles.

Garbage and recycling is on the first parking level uh offsite works and services will be uh will be finalized through a servicing agreement um there are a couple items to resolve from the uh rezoning process including the the uh transportation impact because the studies were done uh before the McKenzie interchange was uh operational so that really changed traffic patterns in the area so updated information has been provided and we'll look to see how that affects the offsite works.

The other thing to examine is there's a potential sidewalk and transit to stop encroachment on Helmkin Road to address.

The two variances are for parking with the width of uh of the uh balcony projections.

Um the the original again originally was 340 units, um but the proposal here is to uh provide 30 parking 300 parking spaces, and in support of that, a parking study was was provided, and a number of them were in uh locations with a similar context, um a couple in the Squimalt, where they're located near a walkable center and a major bus route and bus bike paths, bike paths nearby.

And um and in this case, the rationale for the variants is that there are a number of local services available within a short walking distance at Eagle Creek Shopping Center.

Um in a situation like this where there's no opportunities for on-street parking, constraining parking supply also increases demand for alternative transportation such as walking or biking or busing.

Transportation demand management measures can include providing good bike facilities, and that includes oversized bike spaces.

In this case, 10% of the spaces are provided to accommodate cargo bikes or bikes with trailers, and those are in the underground parking shown on the plans.

In this case, we've also provided a bicycle washing and maintenance facility, which is one of the things that you know that that make it more convenient to ride a bike when you have the facilities right there to do it.

For rental development, uh what you're starting to see more of is unbundling parking so that what that means is parking is extra so uh in your rent so if you are looking at uh renting a space um it makes you think hard about whether you want how how many parking spaces you actually need.

And the other thing in support of it is they are providing visitor parking spaces on site so such that there's to minimize off site impacts.

So the uh second variance is to the width of balcony projections.

In our in the regular zoning bylaw, uh balconies are permitted to extend out beyond the uh into the building setback.

Uh in this case they are requesting um some variances of up to 8.6 meters, and that sounds like a lot, but um in this case you can sort of uh the variances relate to uh buildings at the back of building one, which faces the uh field, uh and at the rear of the site.

And these uh these balconies um in the plan here um extend a little bit past further than what uh actually um they're a little bit wider than what the zoning bylaw permits, but when you look at the uh the facade of the building, um you can sort of see what the arrangement is.

So so the uh the the three uh balcony, the three kind of single balconies are a little bit wider, um, but the corner ones at the ends of the building are quite a bit wider that's because they are they create kind of an architectural feature that kind of helps to uh to uh soften the massing of the building and uh some of these balconies are actually shared balconies so so there's um they're actually side side by side uh balconies that that combine to create one kind of architectural feature given this the uh the size of the building uh this really helps to break up the massing and and can't be supported because there's no significant um neighborhood impacts.

If the chairs weren't supported, you would just have smaller balconies, which makes for less livable space as well for residents.

So in conclusion, the variances can be supported.

The proposal is in keeping with the official community plan objectives for placemaking in the Northern Gateway Community Corridor and is consistent with the development permit area guidelines.

Some of the conditions that would be in the development permit permit is requiring the properties to be consolidated into one site before building permits are issued because that's the building permits they have to comply with the zoning and the development concept security deposit for landscaping and a note that uh the outstanding issues from the transportation impact assessment process be resolved and address the potential sidewalk and transit stop encroachment.

The the recommendation is to um is to uh support the proposal and uh and the associated variances again the uh the required parking spaces is not 340 but uh but uh 320.

I'll clarify about that number for you.

But that completes the uh staff presentation and the applicant is here to provide additional comments.

Your worship.

Thank you, Jeff.

Lindsay, go ahead.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, the variance for parking is 326 to 300.

Okay, so the required number of spots, as per our bylaws 326, and they're they're asking to provide 300.

That is correct.

Great.

So questions for staff before we go to the applicant.

Councillor Mattson?

Uh yes.

So what I haven't seen in these plans is sort of any sort of amenities or anything from park benches, etc., like for the pup for the residents to actually use on site.

And so I'm trying to I whenever we do a project of this that's this large, I like on some of the ones we saw on uh Elsom Road, there were something for the public or for the residents to do on site, and I haven't seen that here.

And so I'm wondering uh what's what's happening what's happening there and is this something we can require because I just have a a a problem with all that grass and nothing on it for the public to use for the residents to use so that's one question.

The other one just in terms of the design the access accessing from Helmcken Road only goes part way of the building and on Helmcken and I'm just wondering why the uh apartments all along that one stretch on Helmcken can't be accessed from Helmcken.

It only seems to go part way.

So that was one of my other questions.

And uh okay well why don't we let staff go with those two before you get to another one?

Um yeah.

So staff.

If I'm they speak on behalf of the uh engineering department, usually um usually uh for vehicle access is usually preferred off off a minor road rather than a major road.

And uh and that furthest away from the intersection, that's that's the configuration that's been that's been provided here.

Uh in terms of pedestrian access, there is uh there will be pedestrian access from the corner, um from the corner of Burnside and Helmkin.

And uh for residents of obviously of building two, which is adjacent to Helmkin, they would they would be able to access the site uh direct from the sidewalk so i didn't quite catch all that so for helmakin road i don't know can you just how far do they right there so the access is being able to access the apartments from so building two would have direct access from helmkin they have a they have a main entrance uh walkway uh other residents they would have to walk around the uh through the uh through the plaza at the corner into the into the uh woonerf there's a big rock no yeah, so because there's a large rock at at the uh at the east corner that access won't be possible because that'll be that'll be kept in a natural state.

Your your your worship, I have a detail of the landscaping plan that I can share with you if you would like to see it.

Right, so that's why we can't natural state, yeah.

Sure, if you got it there.

I do.

Jeff, if you can stop sharing your screen.

So are you able to see the landscaping the the detail of the landscaping plan?

We are.

It's a little small, but um we can see it.

Okay, so to give you to give you um orientation, this this is is Helmkin Road at the bottom of the screen of the image.

And there's a pedestrian access right here off of the corner that wends its way around the rock outcropping that is being retained and allows facilitates pedestrian direct pedestrian access into the interior courtyard.

Beyond that, there are accesses further along Helmkin.

Um in in this sort of just as you're heading off the screen, um, and there there are um access points there.

And then there is the um substantial access point on the corner of the of the on the Helm Helmkin Burnside Road corner.

So this is the substantial access point for pedestrians and it's is our our gateway feature as well.

And that area is kind of a green open area, is it not with benches and it it is, yeah.

So there uh there are benches on the on the property on the back side of uh what is actually a stormwater retention feature on the corner, and then there are other um there are other features um to facilitate uh community building in in the interior in the interior courtyard.

I anticipate that the project uh landscape architect maybe may be here um and as well as some of the project uh folks and they might be able to better speak to that okay thank you lindsay counselor matsen yeah so if you go just back to the front of that building again so okay as we want that sort of the townhouse look in the in the front of Helmakin and in Burnside and so it certainly have accesses all the way down Burnside directly into apartments to into each into into individual units from the street.

And I think there is on Helmakin as well.

But about halfway only.

Or does it go all the way?

Yeah.

Just halfway.

Yeah.

But that was my question.

Why just halfway?

Finish the rock.

Okay.

Why don't Rob, I think when we get to you, why don't we let you answer that question in your presentation?

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Uh the other one was just about what sort of amenities for the residents would there be throughout the site.

But I guess that we can probably speak to that as well.

And the other one was just rentals.

There are, I noticed that we didn't have permanent rentals.

Is that is there a point where they can start being sold and people live in them full time as opposed to being rentals?

Well, when we zoned the property, we didn't put any housing agreement on it to be rentals.

So I think if the applicant wanted to, they could theoretically decide to do a strata condominium development.

And if that's your question.

But I can't imagine that a company that specializes in building rentals is going to go through the work of building rentals and then try and turn it into a strata.

But I mean we zoned it for housing, right?

We didn't put any specifications on it when we zoned it.

And in fact, we thought it was going to be a condominium development at that point.

Okay, so those are probably my main questions.

Okay.

Any other quick counselor lemon?

Yeah, just to that point.

Um would it have been possible or is it too late or is it even a consideration to put a covenant?

Yes, this is a form and character development permit.

That's a yes.

It's not it's not something that can come into the conversation tonight.

Okay, understood.

It can always be brought in.

It's just not just going to be indirect.

Counselor Roger.

I see that.

Lindsay's got her question.

Director Chase.

Thank you, your worship.

Um to to in part answer counselor Mattson's question.

Once the building has been occupied for rental purposes, it would then need to go through what's called a strata conversion process.

It is a relatively easy matter for council to adopt a policy indicating that any strata conversions would have to come to council for ultimate approval should vacancy rates be below a set amount.

Those policies are very common in other municipalities where there is quite a bit more rental.

It hasn't been a significant issue in View Royal over the years because we just haven't had a lot of rental housing stock to begin with.

And the stock that we have is relatively old um and uh on on fairly large, large lots that would be unlikely to attract that kind of redevelopment so there are there are tools that council can use if that is a concern um that that projects would be my suggestion would be that we may want to have that discussion at a future committee of the whole yeah got it any other questions for staff about the parking variants or the form and character councillor rogers yeah um the public space that's in the corner uh i i'm assuming that's a public space uh am i right um through the chair.

Um the the proposal is for a kind of a a larger space at the intersection, and that the details of that will be finalized in in the servicing agreement where the stormwater detention pond is below the level of street, and that would be private space.

Okay.

So the the you know, I get the impression is that the the corner would be a uh a gateway entrance feature.

So why why don't we ask?

I think that's a good question for the applicant who's coming up next.

Yeah.

Um actually I think I have most of my questions will probably be answered by the applicant.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you, staff.

So we will now go to the applicant, please.

And you've heard some of the questions, Rob, that you can answer directly.

Yes.

I actually don't have a presentation.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I think Jeff I covered everything, and I don't need to bore you with it again.

So I will try and answer the questions as much as I can.

The topography along Helmkin has a has a big dip in it between the corner and the rock outcropping.

So within that, within that dip is where we located an amenity room at the lowest floor, and that amenity room spills out onto a patio that faces Helmkin Street.

And that was something that you could see in the plan that Director Chase had shown.

And so we we do have units on the east portion of that building with direct access from grade where it works.

And then where the grade dips down, that's where we have the amenity room at grade.

But Jessica and I, the architect, the other architect, as we designed it, we made sure that it had lots of glass and was a very welcoming and active space.

So that is it's still contributing to the character of the street in its own way, whereas the residential entries are do are doing the same thing in their own way.

I think the other question that we heard was about amenities on site.

And so I think that absolutely the corner is intended to be a very public uh outdoor space that has seating and it's got paved areas and a mini plaza.

Um and I guess you you could say that the the lower um uh rain garden areas are private, but I uh I think that's kind of a technicality.

It's it's all going to be one large space that that will feel like a space that the public can occupy and use.

Um and um and I think that covers the questions, but I I will happily answer any other any other questions or or clarifications that come up.

Just for clarification.

Just for clarification, my point, I wasn't too worried about the public accessing the public spaces, but it's more of the residents who live there.

Having places they can go on site, you know, because you have a fairly big property.

Like are there benches throughout the site?

Uh is there a play area for kids, those types of things.

So what amenities are for are there for the people who are living there?

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, good question.

So yes, we there are benches on the interior part of the site.

Um I I think you know, the the woo-nurf terms come up a lot.

You know, it's a it's it's a paved area that can be used by vehicles intermittently or for for deliverities, but it's mainly intended for people for bikes and skateboards and and and people to spend time on.

So it's a less it's a less specifically programmed space that would have you know uh a shuffleboard court.

It's more for uh it is lawn area, planted area, and paved area that can be used in a wide variety of ways.

And um that came out of discussions that the design team had that found that those spaces do have potentially the most long-term value where you don't overprogram them and you don't have spaces that don't get used.

You let you let the residents um use them in a whole variety of ways, and and that seems to work out the best.

Okay.

Counselor Rogers, yeah.

Um it it's kind of too bad you don't have a drawings uh to uh to refer to, but uh let me come back to this corner.

Um, you know, when uh we heard the uh presentation uh a long time ago, I was definitely under the impression that this was a um a public um gateway place where uh it would be accessible and enjoyable by by residents.

Um if we got vagueness going on, we've um, you know, is it public, is it not, who maintains um hours of use, uh, you know, laundering, you know, those kind of things.

I think we you know the vagueness concerns me.

Um, but on the other hand, I I want to be able to have some assurances that the uh the public's gonna have some uh way of being able to enjoy the space.

So there's there's there's an area directly on the corner, right?

Which clearly is a public area because it feeds off the sidewalks.

Yeah.

So it's which area are you talking about?

I guess it's it's behind.

I thought um, you know, there's a like a um a sheltered area, which um, you know, again, it you know, is that is that uh just for residents only?

You know what I mean?

Uh it's I think there's the intention, the design intention is there's going to be a natural hierarchy of public versus private.

So the the corner plaza that you know it fronts onto both sidewalks is going to feel feel very public because it it faces the streets.

It it's it's a just a continuation of the sidewalk.

And then I think as that space um meanders its way into the middle of the site into a space where the residents are going to have more natural ownership and surveillance over, I think that the site will have will sort of naturally find its way to have a comfortable balance between public and private use.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um the one of the changes that um that Jeff mentioned from the rezoning was we increased the amount of family units and decrease the overall amount of units.

So this is definitely intended to be a family uh oriented development.

Yeah, that's that's good.

Um because I'm I'm wondering um uh this is following up on Councillor Mattson's point uh in terms of amenities, um would um would you be building uh some play structures on the the grassy area for children?

Just reminding council we are on a form and character development permit.

Well it is your worship, and in a sense of not really it's it's land uh you know it's an amenity and those are generally done at rezoning if we're just gonna um negotiating amenmiths.

Well, I'm just wondering.

Anyhow, Rob, is there any intention to I mean you mentioned that the kids would be able to play ball hockey on the the green space.

Is there any intention to install playground equipment?

That's that's not part of the design right now.

And and and and the re and we talked about it and we looked at it and we looked at options and and and settled on the fact that uh um a multi use flexible lawn area in trees um has as much valuable value uh value arguably as a play structure.

But you know, having having said that, um you know the owner, the developer, my client, um they they have playgrounds all over.

And so in in the future, if there's demand for a playground, um I I can't see why they wouldn't put it in.

But but at this point, the you know, the main plaza area, I think will be of great benefit to families.

Yeah.

So I'm coming back to form and character.

Okay, more questions you wish.

Thank you.

Uh what's what's the uh step code um that you'll be applying for the construction?

Is it step code two, three, four?

We've we've been targeting step code two.

Step two.

And what's what's the heating source, heating system for the uh so we uh you know we're we're just at the initial stages of coordinating with mechanical consultants, but um it's uh typically step code two is a combination of you know highly insulated, low, low leakage buildings and and heat recovery air ventilation.

Um so so highly efficient air ventilation, and I think that we would be we're shifting towards all electric um all electric uh appliances and and heating systems and and mechanical systems as well moving away from gas fired.

Okay good so um you you're not and you're not considering uh natural gas or anything no it's a that's unlikely that's good okay that's helpful thank you uh streetscape um there's a there's a rendering that uh you provided um uh counsel and staff uh and it's the view of Helmaken and um you know I I was looking at um at the previous rendering that um that we'd received and it suddenly dawned on me that um the streetscaping trees um you've got red and green uh the red trees are on the boulevard but the green trees are uh put right up tight to the the building as opposed to where the original plan it was going to be uh in the lawn is the new rendering just a mistake i i call that uh respectfully i call that rendering an artist's interpretation um and so the yeah for for species um or location uh the the the landscape plan would be the best source and then and then the rendering uh was actually done um recently just to help uh convey the character of the materials and and more the architecture um than specifics about the landscaping.

Certainly um um a grave concern uh in the summertimes is heat domes and and trees providing uh an excellent uh shelter for buildings and for people.

What size of trees are you intending to plant?

Hopefully, you're going to say large.

Large.

It's a good question.

I agree 100%.

The largest species obviously are going to be the retained trees on the east and north side.

The second largest species are going to be the ones that are sitting on native soil along the road.

It's going to be naturally smaller trees above the parkade, just because we have to be realistic about how much root volume we can put over structure.

But also one of the great benefits of having a building where all the parking is underground is we can avoid those parking stalls at grade.

We can just have the minimal paving of the woo nerf so that the heat island effect inside the courtyard is going to be hugely reduced over a project that's got a surface parking lot.

In the report it says existing perimeter trees will be retained as much as possible.

And uh the as much as possible always worries me.

Um so when we say existing perimeters trees, are we is it suggesting that the uh essential trees between your your proposed building and hidden oaks, are those trees possibly at risk?

Unlikely.

Um the you know, the uh uh with respect to our landscape architect and the arborist, um, with who they've done, you know, a half dozen iterations of um tree reports, health um analyses, and then tree retention strategies.

So I think the best we can do is rely on our tree retention drawing, which is part of our set.

And I think they would in all likelihood, uh unless what the health of one or more of those trees has changed drastically in the last uh couple of years, it's very likely that the trees that have been labeled to be retained will be retained.

Uh-huh.

And it's nice to see they go ahead and do a two for one replacement of yeah, the other trees thank you so much any other questions for the applicant thank you no okay so thank you and we'll now go to the public so just i'll I'll come to you Kim so if any public is watching who would like to phone in this is your opportunity to speak so you dial 778 402 9227 and when prompted enter conference ID 681 379 410 pound cao anima.

Well, I just wanted to clarify a bit about the um treatment of um um right of way and or property.

Some of the things that are shown in the renderings, um they're not necessarily part of the farming character, and so they're not automatically approved as a result of council's approval of the DP.

I want to make sure that's understood because in hit in our past we have had situations wherein the developer has assumed that because it's part of the rendering, that it's also part of the approval, and that's not the case.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Just for clarification clarification, does that mean it doesn't have to be done?

I think what he's saying is that that whole piece on the corner, which is going to be partly on view world property, still has to be approved.

Right.

But it's obviously part of the project, but it's not something we're approving tonight.

Okay.

Staff, do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

So I'm gonna close off comments from the public.

We have no correspondence.

So what is council's um can prerogative?

In terms of this motion, can we split out the parking and do that separately?

Sure.

Yeah, I don't see why not.

Um Lindsay, is there any problem with that if we were to approve everything else and then have a separate conversation about the park parking variants?

There's no issue at all with doing that.

Okay.

So then I think so I'd like to move everything but the parking.

Okay.

Second.

Okay, so that's moved by Councillor Mattson and seconded by Councillor Kowalovich.

So that is approving the staff recommendation minus the parking variants.

Okay.

Do you want to speak to it?

I'm fine.

Fine with the project as it's set out.

It includes many of the things that I remember we approved this in 2020, so I I have no problems.

I think uh it's gonna look good on the look good on the street um and we'll certainly be uh an improvement to that section of the town so happy as it is okay Councillor Kowalewich I'm excited to see some much needed uh rental housing that would is going to be categorized as affordable I guess uh coming to our area and a great location and happy to support this and looking forward to see it moving forward okay anybody else?

Councillor rogers?

Yeah, um, long time incoming.

It's um uh but it you know indeed it's it's pretty much as as we had seen uh with the uh um through the open houses and and public hearings and so forth.

So it's um uh as already said a great addition to um uh to the rental market uh in an excellent location, walkable, unbelievable.

Um and uh I was I'm a little concerned with um uh if you like the the lack of interest in uh along Helmkin.

Um I thought we there could have been a um more interest applied to the the buildings, but it's a small issue to uh uh to the overall benefit to the community.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um thank you.

There's there's much about this that I think is admirable and interesting.

I really like the woonerf.

I like the woonerf before two years ago.

But two years ago we sort we heard loud and clear from residents that it was too huge.

It was too much for that corner and it's a critical corner.

So I am going to stay true to my original position.

Okay.

So I'm presuming that we're going to have a follow-up motion to either deny or approve the parking variant so that we can talk about that.

Okay.

So I'm I'm happy to support the project.

I um I I think it's great to see it moving along, and um I look forward to seeing it start.

So with that, I'm going to call the question on the motion on the floor.

So all in favor?

Opposed.

So councillor Lemons opposed.

And I'd like to move that we deny the parking variants and require the 320, $312,000.

Should they require that, but I think we can deny the parking variants.

I just wanted to point out subtly that we'd be able to do that.

Well, why don't you point that out in your debate?

So the the motion that's on the floor is to deny the parking variance.

Is there a seconder for that?

Second for discussion.

Okay.

Okay, Councillor Mattson, you have the floor.

Yeah, it's just that we have a bylaw and it would require 326 spots.

The bylaw also enables the proponent to pay us $12,000 per spot if if they wish to reduce the parking and that's fine.

But I think we should require them to pay us as the but as set out in the bylaw that's like it's $12,000 per spot and that's about $312,000 which we can use to if nothing else provide uh some much needed enhancements to the park that's adjacent to this property so that all you can't use it for that.

Well we can reallocate the I mean they know I mean if we're speaking about it, we have to speak factually, and it's a bylaw.

And Director chase, maybe you can fill us in exactly on what that money.

Oh, sorry.

When did you get here?

Can you remind us of the bylaw and exactly what the limitations are that that money could be used for?

Thank you, your worship.

So uh the bylaw that council Councillor Matson is referring to is uh part of our zoning bylaw, and it is a section in the parking uh uh regulations that it speaks about cash in lieu of parking.

And that uh particular section of the bylaw allows for up to 15% of parking spaces to be provided uh to not be provided.

However, there is a cash value associated with each space, and that value is $12,000 uh per space, and what that that money is uh must be dedicated exclusively to non-car related transportation improvements.

So it would be things like sidewalks, it would be things like bike lanes or connector pathways, those types of things.

So perfect.

So my point being that money that we would have to find from source A to fund those types of projects, we won't have to do anymore because we will have those funds, the $312,000 for the parking spots available for that purpose.

And again, there's all one big pot out there, so we won't have to take money out of casino to fund the project in the adjacent park.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, hi.

So I'd I'd provide some notes on um on the rationale um why I think um the parking and Lou or payment in Lou of parking uh twelve thousand dollars space um is justified.

Now I think we can negotiate uh if you like on on the number of parking stalls, 26 or or a portion thereof.

But um uh as um uh staff has already said this is really um an important aspect of um funding and supporting the cycling and walking features, amenities uh that the residents in this building are going to have.

Walking and cycling.

And I pointed out that um in improving Camden that goes directly down to the galloping goose with sidewalk and bike bike lanes, just adds that safety, that enjoyment and ease of access, not only for the residents, you know, the two or three hundred people that are gonna live in the building and their children, but it's also going to be of uh tremendous benefit to the community.

It is also totally consistent with um the the funding, the beginnings, if you like, of us collecting funds for the active transportation plan.

Um this is um I can't think of a a better way of us using the cash and the parking.

Um the applicant is saving money by not having to install very extend expensive underground parking.

This complements the uh the the biking um uh amount of bikes that he's gonna have then uh provide to the tenants.

And um uh as Council Matson is saying, uh we don't want to have to apply our CACs to it.

We don't have to want to apply our casino to it or even taxes.

So this is a most relevant way of um making sure that we have and support the modal shift uh bikes and walks, walking to the um uh to the tenants and occupants of the building in the future.

So I'm gonna insert myself in the middle of it rather than at the end of it.

And I I mean, I guess for me, I'm not gonna support this.

I mean, I I would maybe support us doing a halfway um where the applicant can buy some of the spaces and we give a variance for some of it.

But I don't quite know why.

I mean, surely we have to think about whether or not the requirement is reasonable.

Um, and in a day and age when we're encouraging people to be shifting away from single use automobiles, um, surely part of that is that we're going to have less parking.

Um, you know, I mean, 300 parking spots for 234 units.

I I don't see that in my own mind as being a shortfall.

So I won't support it as it is, but I'd be happy to say split the difference.

And remembering that we are getting community amenity charges from this development already.

It is rental housing, and everything we charge just basically goes to the rent.

Some communities in BC are considering purpose built rental housing as a community amenity alone with nothing else to go along with it.

And we're fortunate enough to be getting 235 rental units built.

So whether or not we nickel and diamond on top of that, I'm not convinced it's the best thing to do.

On my left?

That was a good argument.

So to the point of if we're discouraging um vehicle traffic and then you know um penalizing um a uh development for reducing the possibility of vehicle traffic.

I I I think we're talking out of both sides of our mouths.

If council chose to, what what would happen if we agreed to uh a variance?

Oh I keep on thinking, you know, to a variance of 13 spots.

Would that then give the developer the option to purchase the remaining ones?

Yeah, just I'm just drawing it out there as a possible solution.

Or build them.

Or build them.

If if if if council wouldn't mind continuing to discuss, I'd actually just like to have a very quick look at the local government act.

Okay.

I have nothing more to say.

Okay.

Councillor Kowalovich.

I I mean lots of good points by my colleagues.

I guess my counter-argument to the parking spaces, and I I think I was the only one really in opposition on Erskine was that just because there's parking spaces are there doesn't mean they're F 350s parked there.

People are moving to e vehicles and um I I'm open to meeting somewhere in the middle.

I think that's probably the fairest uh for for this situation and reasonable and so yeah okay what what did we end up doing on Erskine we did grant a variance on Erskine this staff remember off the oh yeah yeah you you granted us a significant variance however there was a um the the the rationale behind that was a very compelling transportation demand management strategy that also included car share right that's right there was car share and bus passes and all sorts of amenities which is not being offered yet yeah I'm happy to split the difference but I just didn't let's just see if we can do while she's looking I just want to point out though we do have a bylaw right and so we should change our bylaw if well but we yeah no I don't disagree but we also need to be reasonable I think right and we're we do have a report telling us that the the the parking that's being offered is sufficient and it's not like in that neighborhood that people can go park on burnside or helmet no there's no parking no you're right just a question didn't we uh um recently take cash on loop but I can't think of what it was was it um human portage no we we did take it but I'm what we did for what yeah hmm that't see why um well we could just grant 13 if we have if if they're offering 326 if we grant a variance to 313 I'm gonna presume then that leaves them and staff the ability to figure out whether build them and purchase okay so I'm gonna call the question on the what what's on the floor.

So what's on the floor is to deny a variance.

I think that's gonna follow through.

I can amend the motion.

Okay.

But maybe let's just Kim.

Do you think what are you looking at the Local Government Act as well?

Or no.

Are you looking at these guys?

I mean it does it make sense that we can amend it to allow 313 spots and then staff can sort it out?

It makes.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Yeah.

Okay.

So moved.

That's my amendment.

I second that.

Lindsay.

My my my only note is that the cash in lieu of parking is entirely at the discretion of the developer.

Yeah, I know we get that okay.

So this will be up to the developer to either build the spots or come.

We get that.

Yeah.

So I I think for Clem just being clean, let's vote this one down and then have a new motion.

Okay.

Rather than an amendment.

Okay.

So all in favor of the motion?

All of no, we want to be in favor of this one because we're declining the variance.

And then you're gonna put a new motion that we allow it to 313.

Well, no, the motion is to can't not allow a variance.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I just it's not really an amendment, right?

Well, we'll do that.

So why don't we just put this motion so who wants to vote for this one and then and then we'll have an immediate another one allowing it three.

Okay.

Does that Sarah does that put you?

Okay.

Okay.

So all in favor?

Opposed.

So that motion carries.

And now we're gonna have a motion allowing 313 spots.

Correct.

Okay.

Second.

That's uh moved by councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Okay, everyone's good with that.

Yeah.

And staff, you're good with that?

Okay.

So we've approved the development permit, and we've approved half the variance that was being asked for for the parking.

Okay.

So all in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you.

Um Rob.

So next we have item B.

Is that work for him i guess doesn't matter we have um item b which is the Craigflower community center i know it's a bit odd for us to say that um we're declining but it's actually better for all parties if we do that yeah move staff recommendation yeah thank you moved by counselor matts and seconded by i think that's a question yeah good question okay we'll second it for discussion okay okay so um um does it mean when we're declining the uh are we declining comment or we are are we um uh because i'm I'm yeah we are declining comment which is why we did with the with the casino as well that's all we're doing yeah okay we're not saying they shouldn't have a liquor license no exactly yeah and in fact they want us to do this.

Oh yeah yeah okay oh so okay then then I will be uh in a opposition.

Um I think we should be making comment I think we should be going to the community and um and and getting feedback.

I am concerned about the hours of operation from nine a two uh nine a m to two a m um and I'm concerned about the noise um uh that's um that could be outside um I'm concerned about taking business away from the full mile in terms of receptions.

Um I do this is alcohol use very close to a school um and I whatever they say is um you know reasonable level of noise at night um you know sound travels and I I think the public uh needs to give input on this matter and I think we should collect the the comments so voice and I mean I'm kind of astounded I mean what what did we think was going to happen there when we approved a community hall to be built on the property.

I didn't I I'm gonna go to director Chase because she had her hand up.

Lindsay thank you your worship um this situation arises because the the province in their in their um wisdom has has two separate streams.

One of those streams, the local government is then responsible for collecting all of the public input and facilitating whatever public engagement at our cost.

The other option is that we decline the opportunity to facilitate that on behalf of the province.

And then the province needs to figure out what it is that they're going to do with respect to any any uh any engagement, etc.

So the this is is consistent with how we have approached other uh liquor primary applications in the town.

Um and each time we have declined to uh uh provide comment or or or to facilitate this process on behalf of the province.

And I'm presuming any of the issues such as late night noise and things, we of course would deal with those under our bylaws yeah councilor rogers so um i i guess um what what does the um what do our regulations have about alcohol use and the hours of uh serving alcohol do we have any regulations to that at all we don't regulate alcohol well it's yeah so it's um i i I think there's hopefully the province will engage the community and I guess if that's um uh you know if we could write a letter we would make no comment but encourage the province to uh um to solicit public opinion and and comment i i think we need to i we when we did the zoning at eagle creek to try and get a community pub in there we had none of these discussions i don't um i don't get the concern yeah it is but at any rate the motion on the floor is that is is what is written there that is that be declined and that's exactly what we did with the casino yeah and and i understand what what we did with the casino and i think the the casino and and um and this uh location are two different locations um i think the um it's a whole i think the the whole use and the whole um uh you know description of uh events outdoor events and and noise and so forth um with uh the use of alcohol it's it's it's quite concerning to me um like I say it's near neighbors it's near the school sound travels um I I uh I really feel that there's a lot more discussion and and public input that's necessary.

Okay well I mean I guess for me I'm just going to point out again we don't regulate alcohol the province regulates alcohol and we can't get into that um game and we'll hope that the province will take their responsibility seriously when they look at the license and the conditions they would put on that license which I'm sure they will um to make it a worthwhile community center.

I mean I councillor Matson I mean just given the location yeah I just don't see it being a serious issue.

I mean there are weddings being held at and there were parties being held at uh View Royal Ratepayers Hall and there's certainly a lot more neighbors around there and you know that never never became an issue there.

I mean people had wedding receptions and things and and at the church.

So anyway it's well it's about as far out some neighbors two two houses away from the strawberry veil hall exactly and we have weddings most Saturday nights from you know June July and August and it's it's just not really an issue.

Sure, sometimes they're loud, but it's um that's a far more quiet neighborhood than the corner.

And the school isn't open normally at two in the morning.

No.

Who knows how what they're out there out of serving are?

I mean, there it will be a bar for members, so members of the Highlands Game Society, but it's not like Joe Blow is going to be able to walk in and order a beer.

Well, they're not, it's not going to be like a bar, right?

No, I realize that.

It's not a pop.

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So the motions on the floor to for the town to decline.

All in favor.

Opposed.

So councillor Rogers is opposed and it carries.

So the next one, I had asked for this to come back because Councillor Lemmon was absent at the last meeting.

So I don't know that we need a whole presentation on it again.

Did you have any questions, Councillor Lemmon?

Because you didn't have the benefit of the presentation last time.

No, I don't have questions because we we've had a presentation previously, but um I'm not clear why it's coming here again.

Um and why it didn't pass the the first hurdle.

Okay, well, Councilor Manson and Rogers can certainly restate their opinions, which I think they probably will.

Okay.

I asked for it to come back because it was a tide vote, and so it was defeated on a tide vote, and I thought that was a shame, and that it should at least have the benefit of a full vote of counsel.

Okay.

So if somebody would like to put the motion on the floor, if someone's comfortable doing that, then we can debate.

I'm up yes.

So I okay.

So I could move it by councilor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

So it's on the floor.

So before you speak to it, would you like to hear from the I would I have the same issues I had before?

It's just 35,000 a year for five years.

It's just way more expensive uh an initiative than I thought it was going to be.

And I just think we're we're doing a I guess Cadillac's probably the old an old term, but we're doing something that's really expensive for something we could do for a lot less.

And I just think given this times of tight money, 35,000 a year over five years is too much.

But we are just not to be contrary, but we are just doing one year right now.

We're not approving five years because obviously we can't do that all in one whack.

So at the moment we're approving year one of those.

No.

Okay.

No, the report says it all.

Well, the report does say it all, but you know, council does approve the budget every year.

So anyhow, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um, certainly uh as as I've uh had to say before, um I'm sorry, I started this thing uh from the beginning, but I had every expectation that um uh we would not be doing, as uh Council Mass is saying, the Cadillac version um of signage.

They have a lot of tourists, they have confusing streets.

I I get it for the city of Victoria, they are tourist-based.

It's uh they need uh uh they need to lead the tourist along, you know.

And I think, but you know, they also have a very strong business base.

Their commercial base is extraordinary.

And um and they can they can afford this kind of um Cadillac signage.

And when you consider that assigned, could it be anywhere from 2600 to 3600?

And that's today's money is not not counting inflation.

Um I I think that's that really is uh you know quite expensive.

And even when we go uh for year one, um, we'll see the viewwell park is 25,000.

That's that's astonishing.

Uh talking to Linda Carswell and and uh the great work that they got on signers coal island, she was absolutely astonished.

We you know they they can do it, uh their size for you know much less, let's say a thousand.

So it's um indeed we finding signage is important.

Um I would much rather that we invested in updating our maps that we've got, you know, they're outdated.

2018, 17.

Um, we need to update our maps.

That's where we should be uh, you know, um doing both, but you you're not gonna be able to just do one year because you can't.

Portage Park is thirty-seven thousand dollars alone.

So you won't you're talking about year one, that gives you just Portage Park according to the budget here so um you know you're in it for a pound you're in for um the whole whack and when we consider um the the the costs that we have um you know the challenges of which I think is far more exciting um the active transportation plan the climate change protect the services those are the big budget items that we need to uh be funding policing costs you know the with the new offices coming on board 290 000 we may have the money but you know, we have to be prudent every step of the way.

And I would uh hope that we could achieve the goal, enable our public to know what's in the park without this huge expenditure.

So, staff, I'm presuming that should this go ahead that we would put out some sort of an RFP to the different to uh sign shop and get competitive bids on it.

Would that be a correct assumption?

We would follow our purchasing purchasing policy and yes, competitive bids.

Um, obviously making sure that we are comparing apples to apples.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I mean, I guess for me, I I think you know, I think we saw this months ago, and we all said yes.

Um, it was put in the budget, it is in the budget.

Um, and I think it's a good program, and I think our parks are worth every bit of what the city of Victoria Parks are worth in terms of signage and looks if not more.

Yeah well given that it's it is going to um public tender this figure here the 35000 if we were just to do portage park one park a per year um there's a very good chance we'll come in much lower than that but I you know I I think my colleague had a brilliant idea in championing this and I'm and and I'm and I'm surprised I have to say that you're you're um giving it the thumbs down now.

Um I I I think it's a great idea.

I think what we have here is um a best estimate and it'll go out into the real world and and different numbers will will come back.

I think it's it these are useful.

I think it'll be um a real asset, and if we can just take it a year at a time, if we do Portage Park and give it a bathroom, you know, we we've got we've got a win there.

So I'm I'm yes, I will support this.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call the question unless you want to speak to it, Councillor Kowich.

I I support uh the signs.

I I really didn't have a huge interest in it until Councilor Rogers brought it up.

And thanks, John.

Thanks a lot.

Now you're well in all fairness with with the with COVID, I've never seen residents more interested in our parks than they have in the last couple of years.

And people talk about them and have interest in them.

I'm also proud of uh Counselor Rogers and and Madsen's fiscal responsibility they're exercising here with the signs as well, but I do trust staff to make the appropriate uh decisions, you know, for the signs moving forward.

So I I do support this.

Okay, thank you.

It's just a point of clarification, your worship.

Sure.

Yeah.

Um, you know, there's gonna be some design work uh first before these signs actually get created.

Yeah.

Um, is that being in-house or is that contracted out?

I I have no idea, Counselor.

I'm just saying, I think we can let staff probably deal with that.

I mean, I presume we'd need a good graphic artist to help put them together, but I'm sure it's within the and and just as saying being a champion doesn't mean I we have to go Cadillac.

Thank you.

I don't know why we want to go anything, you know.

Why don't it's not it's not a Cadillac, it's just going to be nice signage for the parts.

Anyhow, I'm gonna pose a question.

All in favor, opposed.

So councillor Matson and Rogers are opposed, and that carries.

Thank you, staff.

Next, we have the active transportation plan notice of award.

This has been awarded, um, but is here for information and and um to sort of fill everyone in on exactly what is happening and what's involved so are there any questions on it counselor rogers yeah it's terribly exciting and and my my thanks to staff uh for uh getting this uh um uh done you know the rfp out i i understand that um um uh the the company had uh had done uh the active transportation plan for esquamo i've read their plan already and it's unbelievably exciting um is is the plan that um they've done for esquamalt, is that something similar in terms of the format that uh we hope to achieve for VOIL.

Yes, your worship.

Um and this is my first time speaking with you, so thank you for having me here today.

Uh Ben Lubers, Deputy Director of Engineering.

Uh yes, it's the same project team from Watt.

Uh we also did a reference check through Esquimalt and spoke to their project manager to verify the deliverables that they did for Esquimalt.

And it's very similar to what they're proposing for us.

So it's great that we saw Esquai Malt's act of transportation plan.

I believe it was published just last week or in the last number of weeks.

So it's available for the public to see now, and it's uh it's a very good example of what we can expect.

Yeah, and yeah, absolutely.

I really like the fact that they've got the um uh pedestrian realm, the cycling realm, uh, you know, their mapping, uh detailed costing.

Uh it's it's absolutely unbelievable.

So, yes, uh, thank you so much for uh bringing that team on board.

Well, what's the timing on it?

I think I saw it somewhere, but now I oh you're here we are.

So we can expect to have the finished plan um finalized by March next year.

So a year.

Right.

Any other questions?

So we're all okay with 145,000 on a consultant's report, but not 35,000 with park signs.

Well, I think we already I already lost on that one, so I can't remember again.

The bang that we're getting out of this is really worth it.

We want to catalak the I I agree.

It'd be it'd be great to see it done.

It's practical.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So and they have a township working map too.

Okay, so we just need a motion to receive, please.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Good work, Seb.

We'll look forward to that.

Or the next council will look forward to it, I guess.

Yeah.

So other reports.

We have the minutes of the receipts.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that uh staff's suggesting it go towards um referring to the active chest line?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so that's A and B.

So all in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have committee recommended council that so is this is this a planned meeting, this April 26th meeting?

Okay.

It is now.

Okay, so we just moved receipt.

Yeah.

So it is now we just moved receipt of all this stuff, though, right?

Yeah, well, I did a, I guess we can just, yeah, I I was doing A and B because that was the parks committee, but yeah, so we can do just a separate one for C.

So all in favor, yeah, opposed, that's carried.

And then we have three letters that I personally feel are just for receipt, A, B, and C.

I do, yeah.

We were safe.

Okay, I'm just astonished that you're not more upset about the loss of a telephone at the Cambridge Motel.

He uses it all the time.

Yeah, I was gonna say, do you go down there with your quarter?

Does a quarter even work in a pay phone anymore?

I have no idea.

You you worship just speaking to uh Mahin's letter, yeah.

Um the province uh they're going at it alone, the province is uh got too many roadblocks.

Are we thinking anything similar at all?

I don't think so because really we only agreed to in the end to be part of the team, right?

We already have 30 in so many of our neighborhoods.

Yeah, yeah.

So let's see how Saanich makes out and whether the province comes back with them.

And you actually in your squamo active transportation plan, they also have a component of speed limits.

Okay, so I'm gonna call the question on receipt of A, B, and C.

Do they?

Yeah.

Yeah.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

And then we have um there's a staff report for the park disposition.

Sarah, did you want to speak briefly to that?

Or I do have a PowerPoint that's nine slides long.

If you want a quick walkthrough, sure.

If the web webcaster would please upload that, we'll we'll jump right in.

Thank you, Carl.

So we will start by uh identifying to you that um this report is about disposition of parkland to the Capitol Regional District by an alternative approval process.

And these two pieces of land are adjacent to Mill Hill Regional Park, and that is owned and managed by the Capitol Regional District.

And this is an opportunity for the CRD to increase Mill Hill.

And in fact, we do have four properties that are adjacent or in the area of Mill Hill Regional Park.

But two of them, and this these are the subject of what this report is about, are parkland pieces.

And there's an alternative approval process that must be gone through to deal with those for a disposition process.

And so this is the subject of tonight's report.

Capitol Regional District Parks is in a much better equipped position to manage and maintain these lands.

They're undeveloped, forested, and steep terrain in the area.

And because they already have such a large park there at 176 acres, much better position than View Royal to deal with these pieces of land.

Under the Land Title Act, the town would be able to put on a Section 219 covenant, which would preserve their use for park purposes in substantially their natural form that they're in right now.

Then it would also require management and maintenance of those pieces as part of the regional park system in perpetuity.

Next slide, please, Carl.

So this map shows you parcels A, B, C, and D.

The two parcels that we're going to be speaking of more this evening are C and D.

So A and B are the fee simple ones that we don't need to discuss further tonight.

We will be talking about them more in the coming months when we deal with disposition generally.

Next slide, please.

C and D shown here on the sketch plan in front of you.

A little bit better scale so you can see them.

Property C and provided for you a description of it.

The size of it is quite tiny at 0.2 hectare or 0.49 acres, and they have listed for you the value of that land.

And property D, again, a description of the dedicated park piece piece.

It's 1.6 hectares.

And again, the price value that we've discussed with the CRD for that.

Next slide, please.

So disposition of parkland, as I said, is dealt with in the community charter.

It is able to be done by bylaw with approval of electors.

And approval of electors is a process, and this is where we get to the alternative approval process.

It is to be done with two bylaws, and they'll be up under the bylaw section for consideration of three readings, one for each of those two pieces.

And approval of electors is to be done either through assent voting or an alternative approval process, and staff is recommending the alternative approval process.

Next slide, please.

With the alternative approval process, what council needs to do and the motions in the report speak to is establish the elector response form, and that's provided for you in the report as attachment B.

It's a front and back page form.

We will also have it available on our website as well as at the counter.

We need council to establish the deadline in looking at what the legislation sets out.

There isn't one of those requirements that says at least 30 days after the second notice is published.

And that works out date wise counting to May 24th at 4 30 p.m.

And so notices will be will be placed for that under the community charter notice provisions.

And I've put a draft notice just for um, which is basically the ad in the newspaper that will go out on the 13th and 20th if council supports this.

Where is that, Sarah?

The draft notice.

It's not showing as attachment seat.

I don't know why I can't.

It's in the actual document report.

The first time.

Okay.

I'll find it.

Okay.

I can I can send it to you later if you wish.

It's there.

Okay.

Yeah, except I'm not yet.

And the third thing council needs to do is what's called determine the total number of electors.

And in doing so, council needs to turn its mind to the area that the alternative approval process applies to.

And in this case, because it's not a neighborhood improvement or local improvement, it applies to the entire town.

And so looking at the number of electors or voters in the municipality, that's estimated to be 9,655.

And that's a 2022 estimate minus those that are not of the voting age.

So taking out that zero to 17 bracket.

Next slide, please.

So in looking at the alternative approval process, how that works is that if 10% of that 9655, it's like negative option billing, if if they submit by the deadline that they wish for council to not proceed with adoption of those bylaws, then council cannot proceed with the alternative approval process, and there is no approval of electors provided.

And council would then need to undertake assent voting to try to obtain approval of the electors or not proceed at all with consideration of adoption of those two disposition bylaws.

Although, if by the deadline there's less than 966 response forms received, council can proceed to consider adoption of the bylaws and undertake the normal disposition process.

And that's where you would hear more about not just these two parkland pieces, but the other two as well.

So it would be a disposition process for the four pieces.

Then at that time, the fee simple would be included in that discussion.

Next slide, please.

So the proposed activity or timeline sets out for you here in the report and also on this slide the dates or the timeline.

So we're at the first line tonight at April 5th, consideration of readings for those bylaws listed later in the agenda.

The notice would be placed for the elector response forms.

Just notifying the public that they're available on the website, come into town hall, whatever you prefer.

And the deadline for the receipt of those electoral response forms, May 24th at 4 30, as I've mentioned.

And the following day I would go through count and certify.

And if I get duplicates, clearly I can only certify one.

And basically, in terms of who is certified, it's anyone who can vote in an election, he is an elector.

And I would prepare a follow up report to council, and that would be where I would be saying to you here's here's the outcome of that.

And if the response is such that we're council is able to proceed, that would be where the disposition issue would then also be brought forward for the four properties, and then the notice for disposition would be brought out into the newspaper and then come back everything on July 5th for consideration of adoption of these two bylaws.

Next slide, please.

In conclusion, staff are of the feeling that it would be best consolid to consolidate these properties under Mill Hill and the regional park umbrella for long term management and maintenance.

The land would continue to be held for park purposes, so a change of ownership does have really little impact to the public.

There would be a covenant under the Land Title Act registered against them to preserve that land for park purposes and protect and protection and preservation of the land.

Proceeds from the sale would be placed to the credit of a reserve fund for future parkland acquisition, and that is set out in legislation.

And the alternative approval process is very straightforward process to undertake.

It takes some time, but it's pretty straightforward.

And uh the next slide, please.

And so the recommendation, as I mentioned earlier, sets out the three things or the three steps that council needs to weigh in on tonight to begin this process.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Councillor Lemmon.

I have to say I'm very surprised that we require an alternate approval process.

I, you know, something we've done, you other councils have done for a fire hole for a two bits of parkland that people probably don't even recognize is parkland.

Or do they?

Is there is there are you are you aware of any um known affection for these for these bits of land?

I think the public generally uh has a pretty big warm heart for anything that if they knew was parking.

Well fair enough.

Would yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Now and and um I guess my real question is the CRD has expressed um that that it it will buy these properties, correct?

Yes, staff have been in discussion with them about that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Matheson.

I know I know we've talked about this before, but uh given all the discussions on the the need for housing and social housing, etc., are any of the properties perhaps not these two, but maybe the other two, uh is it feasible possible for uh CRD housing to make use of them for housing?

Like they can't just sort of run a road in off the highway and a great expansion and build a large building.

They're outside of the urban containment boundary, yeah.

So yeah, no, it wouldn't work.

It's super steep.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Just that didn't stop Mike from making that.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah.

Um yeah, no, thanks, Staff, for for all the uh excellent hard work and and falling through all the excruciating details.

Um, you know, it's excellent.

Um the um it would the approval process, I'm assuming that uh the public um has all or nothing.

They they can't say, well, I want I'm okay with this piece but not okay with that piece.

You know, that's okay for a part, but I want I don't I oppose this part.

So they've got to um either approve both or oppose both.

Yeah, they can't be fifty fifty.

Yeah.

Like the public's not gonna care when we're the other's even gonna know or care about this.

But let's ask the question.

And if they do, they'll be supportive because it's park.

Sarah?

Technically, they they have on the elector response form.

We are able under the legislation to have a combined form.

So the elector response form, as you see, has two different areas.

So they could say yay to one and nay, like only weigh in on one area and not the other.

So yes, they could.

Okay.

So then and the all important uh two nineteen covenant, uh, when would that get applied to the four pieces?

Uh after everything's done and done.

At the very, very end.

Okay, yeah.

Don't want to missed that part.

I'll go staff recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

Opposed, that's carried.

Second.

All in favor?

So that's the thank you, sir, for that.

So we need first, second, and third readings of bylaw 1090.

So we're second.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

If there's anyone at home watching, question period is is almost upon us.

In fact, it will be in about 25 seconds.

So this would be a time to call in.

You can ask a question on any matter.

778 402 9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 681 379 410 Pound.

And so we need first, second, and third readings trying to be slow about this.

Maybe a little bit of delay.

So it's it's moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Okay.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

So we should probably just pause for 30 seconds for just with the delay and everything, just in case somebody would like to call them for question period.

That was the reason I wanted to see the notice because I can imagine that if the public saw the notice to dispose of parkland.

If it's not crystal clear that it's going to remain as parkland, there we would hear about it.

But it is it is crystal clear in the notice.

I strove to make all the information uh repetitive and clear.

So every document is is the same, and we are um having information very much like what you see available on our website as well.

Right.

You can head it fear not.

Yeah, that's right.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, so I think we'll close question period and we'll go straight to a motion to terminate.

So move.

Good.

Thanks everyone.